Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is going to be hard for me, so I apologize in advance .

It is a known fact some of us probably should not be parents. My ex-husband and myself when I was with him if one wants to be fair. My sister who thankfully only had one child. My son who realizes he is not emotionally equipped to be a father at this point in time. Add to that parents who have been accused of and some of them guilty of poor judgement as parents. Yet do we demand of those who can procreate naturally these standards?

Granted some of us may feel at times that if you have to have a license to drive a car you should have to do something more than lie there and accept sperm to become a mother, however…who in the blue HELL can decide that the mere fact of needing artificial procreation allows them to add these stipulations that they would never have the guts to attempt to force on the majority of the population?

I am sickened Rhinehold, and I do not know what makes me sicker, the fact that this was even written or the fact that it even should be something considered as far as law.

This reminds me of a segment on the BBC a few weeks ago about the reunion and subsequent relationship of a ‘test tube’ baby and her biological father… and the repercussions on other heretofor anonymous sperm donors.

The required information sounds a lot like the questions the child had of her father as well as the father’s recommendations of what he thinks future sperm donors should consider.

That said, wouldn’t it be nice if ALL parents put as much thought into starting a family and ALL children had access to as much of their heritage?

i can see where it helps cover liability and such, but it does seem unfair if the same is not required of ALL couples prior to a marriage license.

Frankly I am scratching my head over this one. I wonder of the Republican in their zeal to intrude and trample on every aspect of American life fear a backlash? When is the country going to collectively shout “enough is enough!”

Superb but terrifying article Rhinehold. It looks however, that Miller has withdrawn the bill from consideration. The story is titled “See Unauthorized Reproduction Law is DOA” and can be found on bilerico.com.

I would believe that any couple, gay or straight that would go through the trouble for assisted pregnancies would have thought through the process before seeking assistance. This is another example of good intentions gone wrong. The sad thing here is that I would expect anyone who goes to the trouble of assisted reproduction really wants the child and would probably be wonderful parents. We are upside down in this country.

Geee.. on the news(6) they said the law would be to stop gays and singles from using different forms of fertility to have children.
People who can’t get pregnant on their own without intervention of some sort..normally?? (A single woman could just find a guy and lie about being on birth control.)
A state won’t let just ‘anybody’, we hope, adopt children.
An attempt for a very red state(with a couple small blue dots) to maintain traditions?

Thanks Rhinehold. Just the idea that this was considered is terrifying.

Another terrific article, Rhinehold! Seems you’re on a roll lately.
Sen. Patricia Miller’s office should now be bombarded with letters castigating her for believing “there ought to be limits on freedom”.

I give this a split dercision. I agree with some but not all of what is described in the article.

Assisted pregnancy for unmarried persons IMO would be a valid social and moral law. The exception to this would be if this took place in a state that recognized legal same sex marriages.

“Even further, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilization or other procedures must be approved by the state and those participating must register with the state and provide information such as values, hobbies and talents, personality descriptions and religious background.”

Assuming that this quoted paragraph applies to married opposite sex couples I would disagree with the requirement for state registration. I would however favor the agencies performing the service to do thorough research on the couple.

I base this opinion on the fact that for adoption, foster care, etc. there is a background check even more thorough than that described above.

In the first instance (to a much lesser degree the second as well), a door could be opened for a “babies for profit” opportunity if there were no controls.

Steve,
So are you saying that it should be illegal for unmarried people to have children?
I doubt that there would be any babies for profit schemes. Assisted reproduction is prohibitively expensive for many people, and certainly much more difficult than just making babies to sell the old fashioned way would be.
This whole law just makes it more difficult and expensive for people who have trouble concieving to have children, without stopping anyone irresponsible. Really, is an irresponsible, non-committed person really likely to call the doctor, undergo invasive procedures, and fork over all kinds of money?
I don’t see one good thing that comes out of this law.

Brian,

It is my personal opinion that unmarried couples should not have children. However that is not what I said in my post nor, is it what you are hoping I am saying. Nice spin though.

What I said was an unmarried person should not be permitted to have an assisted pregnancy. Unmarried couples that want children and are not able to do so through “natural” (sexual intercourse with each other) means should get married and utilize assisted pregnancy procedures or, adopt.

I once thought that Republicans were the party who championed smaller government, it seems now that they want it just small enough to fit in our bedrooms and doctor’s offices.

Let’s pass a law about what I can and can’t do with my own body, but God forbid you try and pass a law regulating the five machine guns I’ve got in my closet.

I’m glad to see that the Indiana State Senate has solved all of that state’s other problems that way they can realy devote some time to this bill.

Geech! If they required that kind of crap from everyone before they could become a parent I don’t think there would be very many babies being born.

Lisa Renee
Add to that parents who have been accused of and some of them guilty of poor judgement as parents.

There isn’t a parent in the world that isn’t guilty of poor judgement at times. And there is a parent who hasn’t been acused of poor judgement, specially by their teen age kids.

I can understand a person wanting a child thats biologicly theirs. But in most cases of assisted pregancy isn’t it because on of the partners cann’t reproduce? That would mean that only one parent is the biological parent. I’m just woundering how this partner is going feel about the child later on.
Then there is a lot of kids out there that need a loving home. I would concider adoption before deciding on assisted pregancy.
I have five kids. Raised six, my baby sister. One of the five is adopted. She knows she is (not telling a child they’re adopted is the worse thing you could do to them)and knows that we love her just as much the our biological children. She tells the others that “Momma and Daddy chose me, they were stuck with youall”. Either way we love each of them.

I find it pretty scary when the government gets into who can and can’t have children, by whatever means. This again goes to who controls my body and my relationship with my doctor.

It’s one thing to teach a principle that children out of wedlock is not good. It’s another thing to make any laws against it. What will be next?

This is absolutely amazing!

Somebody needs to explain to those in the Republican Party that actions like this is why ther Party got treated like a redheaded stepchild in the Late 60’s/Early 70’s. Rhinehold, I don’t normally talk about other citizens state reps, but what were you all thinking when you put this person in office? Will you please find some dirt on this person to shut them up?

If you get a chance to ask a question do us a favor and ask the following questions; While the Bill you introduced is suppose to help our citizens with assisted pregnancies, does it not call into question the Rights of All Americans under the 14th Amendment? Would it not open the door so that the government can go into the Bedroom of our citizens? Could you meet the standards of being a “Good Parent” and if so, by who’s Standards are your refering to?

No, this law even if enacted is easily taking out and proved unconstitutional. I just wish Sen. Patricia Miller would find something more constructive to do with her time.

Ron Brown,

I don’t have any actual numbers but the fact is that most couples who seek reproductive assistance do use their own eggs and sperm. Couples who go through these procedures do so to improve their odds of conception.

In many cases these couples are more mature, which makes getting pregnant by natural means very hard. The odds of a woman over 35 getting pregant naturally, declines steadily from 20% to less than 5% once she reaches 40. In the case of the male partner, low sperm count or low motility or both might be a factor that inhibits natural pregnancy.

Couples that opt for donor eggs or sperm have either tried other options and failed, or face a situation where one partner is sterile. I have never heard of a case where a child produced through donor eggs or sperm was rejected by the non-biological parent.

steve smith,

What about the 9/11 widow who wanted to get pregnant using her deceased husband’s frozen sperm? Since she is technically unmarried, that would make it illegal according to those rules.

What about individuals who don’t believe in the institution of marraige? Say Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russel wanted to go throuogh IVF to have a child. Should they not be allowed to?

There’s a woman who writes a blog called Chez Miscarraige (you can look it up). She couldn’t bear her own children because her uterus was deformed when she was in utero from a drug her mother was proscribed when she was pregnant with her. She had a surrogate bear her child. Since the surrogate isn’t married to the father, then that pregnancy would be illegal.

Ron,
as Michael said, the majority of the cases the parents use their own genetic material. As for adoption, it is also extremely expensive (usually about $10,000), and you may still never get a child (no one chooses you).

Julia

Julia,

IMO, the answers are yes - no - yes

Michael
Thanks for the response, I didn’t know that and the info helps out.
Having an adopted child I still think I would choose adpotion. But thats me.

Julia
I know adoption is expensive, but its sure worth it. It wasn’t cheap when we adopted our daughter.
She was a year-old then and after 29 years we would do it again. In fact my wife and I were talking about the possibility the other day. This time with an older child around 12 or 13. We might be to old though.

Here’s to the hope that morons like Sen. Miller never win another term, anywhere, ever.

This was just passed on to me. I realize that it is a few months old. I am looking for other info.

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/22048/

Here are a few more details.

http://actioncenter.drugpolicy.org/action/wacmoreinfo.asp?item=26179

I realize that on it’s surface this looks quite kosher. It is the spying part that scares the beejeesus out of me.

Rhinehold… Good article. I am from Indiana as well (not her district but right next door)and was very unhappy to hear of a proposition such as this even being considered. It did get pulled which is good but it still begs the question of what she was thinking… Absolutely absurd if you ask me. I have already sent a scathing email to her office and my own senator (who is republican as well) as well stating my disapproval that it was even considered.

It appears that this law is treading lightly on Roe V Wade.

States may impose laws to govern their state; it’s why they have their own constitution. In Roe V Wade, Texas’s law made it illegal to have a particular medical procedure performed, in their case an abortion. Women in Texas were forced to cross state lines to have an abortion.

If this bill becomes law, look for this to be used to potentially overturn Roe. For if this law makes it through the courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court upholds the law, and then Roe would be invalidated.

Ron,

I do think that adoption is a path more people should consider. However, it’s also true that there are people who don’t understand how you can feel just as strongly about a child without a genetic relationship to you. Just because someone is infertile, doesn’t mean that they are any wiser than anyone else about the joys of adoption. And so, it’s not smart to legislate that infertile couples expand their family through adoption, anymore than it makes sense to legislate that fertile individuals be required to adopt children before trying to have children via their own genes. (not that anyone here is really arguing to the contrary about that).

That being said, I’d like to see adoption advocated more often to everyone. I think many people are frightened of adoption because the process is so complex (and a little scary). I read this wonderful book called “Lost Daughters of China”, and I was so moved when the author talked about having an epiphany one day when walking down the street. She said she saw a little boy with his family, and (since she was in the midst of the adoption process), she was suddenly struck with the realization that, except for a matter of circumstance, this boy could be her son. In fact, when you adopt, you realize that all the children in the world, except for a matter of circumstance, could have been your own. And then you realize that loving one another really is a choice. There is no “them”, there is only “us”. We’re all family.

If we all realized that, the majority of the things we argue about here would be a moot point.

Julia,
I’ve never read the book, but I know what the author was takling about that when she said “except for circumstance this boy could be my son.”
I’m not saying assisted pregancy should be out lawed, and I think that this idoit in Indiana is steping WAY over the bounds. I just hope that the Indiana Legsislature is smart eonugh to put the bill in the toilet and flush twice.
I’m just saying that adoption should be considerd before making a choise. However I don’t want to see a law requring it either.

I guess we can expect to see a rise in sales of Turkey Basters now.
IMHO
You can lead right wing religious Zealots to water, But You Can’t make them “Think”

As Always,
Wayne

I strongly recommend the book Freedom and Virtue: The Conservative / Libertarian Debate, edited by George W. Carey. The “social conservatives” remain convinced that they can and should — or even must — create virtue by exercising the coercive power of government. This strikes me as a fallacy of the highest order, and the attempt is inherently inimical to freedom.