Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

KOS: Unauthorized Reproduction bill in Indiana.... LICENSE TO PROCREATE?!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
BloodyWilliam Donating Member (665 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:20 PM
Original message
KOS: Unauthorized Reproduction bill in Indiana.... LICENSE TO PROCREATE?!
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/3/213554/300

Yeah, this is terrifying.

<SNIP>

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make
marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana,
including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do
become pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse."

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every
woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother throu gh assisted
reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation,
and egg donation, must first file for a "petition for parentage" in
their local county probate court.

</SNIP>

It's a pretty transparent attempt to prevent lesbian couples from having children. Disgusting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
QuettaKid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Handmaid's Tale" anyone....? nt.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
montanacowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. HAAAAAA
what do you expect from the home of the KKK?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
texastoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh good. At least it didn't come out of Texas
I would be very happy to have someone else's state take some heat for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ready4Change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
4. Get Mother Mary up on these charges, dagnabit!
After all, SHE became pregnant "by means other than sexual intercourse" didn't she?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Ooooooooh, I LIKE the way you THINK!!!!!!!!
And that should be the retort!!! Brilliant!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walkon Donating Member (919 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. True
But wasn't she married?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LisaLynne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Actually, not when the pregnancy occured.
If I remember correctly, Joseph was thinking about not marrying her because he thought she had been with another man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. besides that she wasn't MARRIED !!!! when pregnant...
Joseph had accepted her as a virgin maiden

Matthew 1 gives the account of the virgin birth of Jesus from the viewpoint of Joseph, betrothed to Mary, and before they were married, she was discovered to be pregnant. Joseph planned to dismiss her without public scandal. The punishment was to be stoned to death!. Only then did God reveal to Joseph that the child was conceived through the Holy Spirit, in fulfillment of the prophecy that a virgin would conceive and bear a son who would be called Emmanuel (Isa.7:14).

Luke 1 gives the events from the viewpoint of Mary. An angel appears to her while she was a virgin betrothed to Joseph, and informed her that she would bear a son conceived by the Holy Spirit, who would be called "the Son of the Highest". There is no thought of any sexual relations, and the emphasis is upon the miraculous virginal conception Jesus.

PATRICIA MILLER IS A JESUS KILLER
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. Ever since raygun: Out of the boardroom and into the bedroom.
Remember to tell your silent partner, Uncle Sam, good night before going to bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nini Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. delete
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 02:31 PM by nini
. never mind..


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrModerate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Are they planning to extend these restrictions to . . .
Unmarried women who become pregnant by sexual intercourse? What an incredibly insane, invasive, arrogant, prurient, and ultimately futile endeavor.

The only good that can come out of this is to demonstrate how wicked these tinpot eugenicists are.

Turns my stomach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. No, they aren't.
Unmarried women pregnant by intercourse will not be charged with a crime. Basically, only lesbians trying to get pregnant without intercourse will be charged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bloom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. I expect there could be
single, heterosexuals who would want an anonymous donor - to be a parent without marriage - for whom this would also be criminal.


And even married people would be screened to see if they might be ? suitable parents before they would be allowed a scientific procedure. Their church-going would be checked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloud_chaser1 Donating Member (248 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. Well, here's the dilemma


How do you have a law like that where it is illegal to have a baby out of wedlock and still maintain a prolife position.

If they allow that illegal baby to be born, are they not aiding and abetting a felony? That means everybody in the neighborhood goes to jail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leftist_Warrior Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. OMG!
That's absolutely INSANE!

Indiana has a lot of Democratic legislators, I don't know how something like this could get by. If it does, well, I'm puking. I guess the Democrats in Indiana act more like repukes than Progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
13. Virgin Mary would never had made the requirements
she wasn't really married to Joseph but "bethroted"

the Holy Spirit was heavily involved in the insemination (of course Evangelicals deny that but plenty of people believe it).

With their poverty the couple would never have been eligible for adoption

the senator should be therefore renamed Patricia Herodes Miller
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kilaana Donating Member (107 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Excellent point!
I can see the headlines now:

"Indiana rules the birth of Jesus a Class B Misdemeanor".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Holly_Hobby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
18. The original
license to procreate is called a marriage license.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 04:04 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC