British Expatriate Network

So I just read this article about the Indiana state legislature considering a bill that would make it illegal for anyone other than a married couple to become pregnant by artificial means such as artificial insemination or egg/embryo donation.

http//www.southernvoice.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2752

The bill also would demand that couples applying must provide information including criminal history checks and "description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents, including participation in faith-based or church activities."


Seriously? Are we still stuck on this mom-and-dad-only crap? Why don't Indiana lawmakers just go ahead and confiscate kiddies of single moms now and give them to good proven christian mummys and daddys. Clearly the kids have no hope of making it. roll And checking church behavior? WTF!!

"We're not trying to stop people from having kids"

Oh fuck off.

The link is gone , i find with local news stuff its best to cut and paste cus they dont leave it up for long .

reading about * holier than thou * atitudes like that helps me understand more why the CLU are for ever bashing religion . if the articule ( which i cant read) says what you say it does its a clear case of discrimination suggesting that NON christian folks would make *lesser* perants then those of faith.
Ffrom my experance its more than likely the other way round.

I had no problems with the link, JohnA.

I'm just gobsmacked at some of the stuff people come up with. I haven't heard anything as ridiculous as this in a long time. They have these laws on adoption too, huh.

Hear, hear!

It just amounts to an attempt to push the targets out of the state. I don't know if they can prevent them moving into the state if the business was done elsewhere.
We can label the woman "nutter" but maybe she needs to do it to get reelected, and it's the voters are the nutters.

It strikes me as a publicity stunt. A backwater politician who's only hope of making a national name is through proposing outrageous legislation. A bit like MPs' maiden speeches in the UK. Only American-style.

...that said, I'm not wholly against the parenting licence idea. Mostly, but not wholly. I'll continue this in Bungle's other thread.

For a very long time these restrictions, and a lot more, were placed on adoption requirements in the UK and many other countries. With each state being individual on the adoption requirements in this country, wouldn't it be better to compare this type of thing with this state's requirements on adoption. If they are the same, then I don't see a problem with the same requirements for IVF treatment. Doesn't mean I agree with these restrictions, but just that if they come in line with adoption requirements, I don't see what all the fuss is about. Surely, it should be more a case of a national policy being put in place to stop each state having such rediculous restrictions on all types of parents, whether it be for adoption or medical intervention.

I don't have a problem with assisted conception with donors and adoption guidelines being in sync. But if the adoption guidelines are outdated, this should be addressed beforehand. Also, there is a small difference in that in some cases, it is considered reasonable that parents giving up babies for adoption make fulfillable requests such as a religious upbringing, or keeping the given name.

We believe that a family exists of a mother and a father and children. Simple as that. Anything outside of that realm is not Christian.

But then again so are many other things that apparent Christians do...

But do you believe that it is legal or moral to impose those views on all? or would you rather they "saw the light" and took that path of their own free will?

I quess we could go back to biblical times and class the mother * as goods and chattles* which is what they where in those days no more valuable than a goat or a sheep .