• Any such bill, to be fair, would need to place equal responsibility on the father, don't you think?
• Pregnancy is a biological function. What's wrong, is stopping the biological function once it has developed a new Human Being. (aka, abortion)
• Sex is not illegal, nor should it be, IMHO. It should just be used responsibly... which means, taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Much as I hate Liberal references to an "American Taliban", this comes dangerously close.
2. What happens if a woman's husband is killed in war, and she wishes to have his child? She is to be relegated to jail? Or does she have to sue the government for that right?
3. Fertility treatments already cost an arm and a leg, but this bill seeks to place the additional financial and bureacratic burden of court hearings upon people. Why? What possible justification could make this a crime?
Some people may argue that abortion should be considered before artificially inseminating someone, but that is just too much
( ... )
Very bad idea. How far do we want to let the government intrude on our lives? Plus this smells to me like an attempt to bar same sex couples from having children and frankly end runs around issues just tick me off. Not to mention the unintentional consequences,pregnancy being illegal would just up the number of abortions and make it near impossible for already long waiting adoptive couples to recieve children. Not to mention that #3, depending on the wording, could imply that even married women who happen to be infertile aren't as good of parents as fertile ones. And that's just off the top of my sleep deprived currently addled brain.
Plus this smells to me like an attempt to bar same sex couples from having children and frankly end runs around issues just tick me off.
I'm sure that's very much part of it. One of the few times the church has taken a stand on politics in the last few years has been against same-sex unions of any kind. I take it you disagree with this? Additionally, what "issues" does it "end run" around?
Not to mention that #3, depending on the wording, could imply that even married women who happen to be infertile aren't as good of parents as fertile ones. And that's just off the top of my sleep deprived currently addled brain.
Read the text of the bill before you assume this. It sounds to me more like they want to take the opportunity to screen would-be parents for fitness, not that infertility has anything to do with that. Yes, there's more scrutiny there, but only because there's an opportunity for it.
I really haven't decided how I feel about same sex unions. I disagree with them being labeled as marriage, but as for civil unions being allowed I really haven't decided. I think that this is an end run around baring same sex couples from having children without ever labeling it as such
( ... )
As far as screening would be parents why don't they mandate childclasses for *anyone* who is pregnant then?
Great idea. I think they should do this. But that's not screening. I still say that aside from tyranny issues, issuing pregnancy licenses is not a bad idea. It would help cut down on a huge number of problems in our society.
There is, of course, the problem with an uptick in abortions if this happens, but I think if we offered free birth control to everyone, that wouldn't be an issue anymore, would it? It would not be that hard to mandate adoption or marriage for unmarried mothers. Alas, once again, tyranny issues abound.
I've done the whole infertility thing, you already have people judging you left and right (ESPECIALLY in the church) to then have to jump through a hurdle to have the government decide whether or not you are fit to be a parent merely because biologicially you are having issues..that's just wrong. And if you don't think that's what's going on, then try going through the preadoption process, I have. You
( ... )
The first question my wife asked when I read the above to her was, "What happens if they get pregnant? Obviously they are breaking the law, is the mother then going to be forced to have an abortion, or is she going to be forced to have the child and give it up for adoption?" She also asked, "Is the father going to be held responsible as well?" All good questions.
Clearly you have not read the text of the law. Please do so and then I'll be happy to respond.
While going through the adoption process we often stated that if non-infertile couples had to go through this process, there would be a lot fewer births. I know several couples (both married and not) that could not get through all the hoops that they make an adoptive parent go through. In principle I really think that would be a good thing, in practice I can't see how this would work without taking away ones agency. What about the agency of the children being born? Do they not have a right to be born into good homes? If parenting is such a sacred responsibility, should we not
( ... )
There's a big difference between the church's official stand on an issue (or official doctrine or policy) and what someone heard said in a meeting. Even the prophet may express his views to leaders and give counsel, but it does not become the official policy of the church until it's officially presented as such and accepted by the church.
To the best of my knowledge it is not at all the official policy of the church that we not use birth control. If you can document that with something official from the church, I'll stand corrected, but... I think you're assuming too much in that statement.
Also remember that even the official policies of the church change over time, and may not be the same now as they were even in President Kimball's time.
As to the legislation, as much as I hate using the words "slippery slope", this looks particularly slippery. The government has no business telling people when they're approved to have children. And when you get something like this passed, you've placed a basic, intensely personal human
( ... )
Dangit, now you made me have to go and look up references and everything about this.. :) :)
I posted my response over in moculturehere, if you want to read it, but I'll just link to it here instead of cross-posting because it's a bit of a tangent on this posting.
Obviously a bill introduced by a man for the grand mens club. I do not believe any woman who had any sense of being a woman in her womanhood would support such a bill.
Comments 22
• Any such bill, to be fair, would need to place equal responsibility on the father, don't you think?
• Pregnancy is a biological function. What's wrong, is stopping the biological function once it has developed a new Human Being. (aka, abortion)
• Sex is not illegal, nor should it be, IMHO. It should just be used responsibly... which means, taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Much as I hate Liberal references to an "American Taliban", this comes dangerously close.
2. What happens if a woman's husband is killed in war, and she wishes to have his child? She is to be relegated to jail? Or does she have to sue the government for that right?
3. Fertility treatments already cost an arm and a leg, but this bill seeks to place the additional financial and bureacratic burden of court hearings upon people. Why? What possible justification could make this a crime?
Some people may argue that abortion should be considered before artificially inseminating someone, but that is just too much ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I'm sure that's very much part of it. One of the few times the church has taken a stand on politics in the last few years has been against same-sex unions of any kind. I take it you disagree with this? Additionally, what "issues" does it "end run" around?
Not to mention that #3, depending on the wording, could imply that even married women who happen to be infertile aren't as good of parents as fertile ones. And that's just off the top of my sleep deprived currently addled brain.
Read the text of the bill before you assume this. It sounds to me more like they want to take the opportunity to screen would-be parents for fitness, not that infertility has anything to do with that. Yes, there's more scrutiny there, but only because there's an opportunity for it.
Reply
Reply
Great idea. I think they should do this. But that's not screening. I still say that aside from tyranny issues, issuing pregnancy licenses is not a bad idea. It would help cut down on a huge number of problems in our society.
There is, of course, the problem with an uptick in abortions if this happens, but I think if we offered free birth control to everyone, that wouldn't be an issue anymore, would it? It would not be that hard to mandate adoption or marriage for unmarried mothers. Alas, once again, tyranny issues abound.
I've done the whole infertility thing, you already have people judging you left and right (ESPECIALLY in the church) to then have to jump through a hurdle to have the government decide whether or not you are fit to be a parent merely because biologicially you are having issues..that's just wrong. And if you don't think that's what's going on, then try going through the preadoption process, I have. You ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Clearly you have not read the text of the law. Please do so and then I'll be happy to respond.
While going through the adoption process we often stated that if non-infertile couples had to go through this process, there would be a lot fewer births. I know several couples (both married and not) that could not get through all the hoops that they make an adoptive parent go through. In principle I really think that would be a good thing, in practice I can't see how this would work without taking away ones agency. What about the agency of the children being born? Do they not have a right to be born into good homes? If parenting is such a sacred responsibility, should we not ( ... )
Reply
To the best of my knowledge it is not at all the official policy of the church that we not use birth control. If you can document that with something official from the church, I'll stand corrected, but... I think you're assuming too much in that statement.
Also remember that even the official policies of the church change over time, and may not be the same now as they were even in President Kimball's time.
As to the legislation, as much as I hate using the words "slippery slope", this looks particularly slippery. The government has no business telling people when they're approved to have children. And when you get something like this passed, you've placed a basic, intensely personal human ( ... )
Reply
I posted my response over in moculture here, if you want to read it, but I'll just link to it here instead of cross-posting because it's a bit of a tangent on this posting.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Sounds like I should be glad.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment