The US are really going mad
6 Oct 2005 12:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
karohemdFirst, the Shoot First Law in Florida, now this.
I don't know what to say anymore...
Edit: The obligatory marriage proposal has been dropped but the Shoot First law is real and legal.
I don't know what to say anymore...
Edit: The obligatory marriage proposal has been dropped but the Shoot First law is real and legal.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 6/10/05 12:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 6/10/05 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 6/10/05 01:07 am (UTC)...
Date: 6/10/05 02:00 am (UTC)Re: ...
Date: 6/10/05 08:21 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 6/10/05 07:18 am (UTC)Though it does occur to me that a single or otherwise unmarried parent that goes through fertillity treatment is perhaps more likely to provide a stable environment for a child than the thousands of 'un-planned' pregnancies of married couples. After all, fertility treatments aren't exactly something you can do on a whim.
After the initial shock & incredulity...
Date: 6/10/05 07:51 am (UTC)If I read the article correctly, it only applied to unmarried women getting pregnant by means other than sexual intercourse
So effectively it says that it won't stop people from having children, married or not (so the young, unmarried couple, or the girl after the one night stand who forgot to use contraceptives won't be subject to medieval style recriminations). However, where people can't have children, they will only receive assistance in having children if they are married & pass the same screening tests as prospective adoptive parents.
Effectively then, this proposed law boils down to two conditions that need to be satisfied:
1) Marriage as a pre-condition: It is a finding supported by just about all research ever done on the subject that it is preferable for children to grow up with both parents. While this might not always be possible in practice (one parent running off or dying), surely it is the preferred state of affairs. Although I would agree that perhaps registered partnerships or other demonstrable long term committed relationships should also qualify, I think it is a good idea to expect a stable environment for an upbringing before artificially creating new life.
2) The screening process. I think this is a brilliant idea. Normally everyone can become a parent, as all it takes is unprotected sex. This leads to numerous instances of terrible parents, child abuse, etc. (just recently there was a case in Germany where a couple had starved a child to death over the course of several years).
Where a couple can't have children in the normal course of events, they can either adopt, or have AI, IVF, etc. In the case of adoption, prospective parents are required to undergo screening, so why on earth should they not be screened when assessing their eligibility for fertility treatment?
It has been suggested that this proposed law would not be enforceable and breach human rights- if it was a ban on and criminalisation of all extra-marital pregnancies I would agree. But as it is, there is no intrinsic human right to pregnancy, God-given or otherwise. Is it so wrong for the state to try and ensure stable conditions for an upbringing in the few limited circumstances where they can do so?
Re: After the initial shock & incredulity...
Date: 6/10/05 11:03 am (UTC)Re: After the initial shock & incredulity...
Date: 6/10/05 06:59 pm (UTC)Nevertheless, I don't think the principle is too bad
no subject
Date: 6/10/05 09:36 am (UTC)Ah, my mistake. Different states.
no subject
Date: 6/10/05 09:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 6/10/05 09:47 am (UTC)It was quite unlikely, anyway (however, the idea that someone could actually propose something like this is scary).
no subject
Date: 6/10/05 12:18 pm (UTC)