Wow, I have to go back and read the bill more closely but on first glance, it seems some pretty chilling inferences may be drawn. What is the ultimate goal, to assure that only married couples be allowed to procreate? If they can prevent unmarried women from conceiving by artificial means, i.e. aritificial insemination, what is to say that in the future unwed women, wishing to conceive by conventional means, wouldn't have their births deemed illegeal? What is the difference??? Last time I checked, sperm banks, fertility clinics were not government run, I didn't need to ask my legislator..."May I?" ! What about couples where the husband is "handicapped," artficial insemination being their only recourse? What if the husband should die before conceiving and the women then chooses to become pregnant by aritificial insemination, with her husband's frozen sperm? Would she then be prohibited from doing so, based soley on the fact that she now is widowed? Why not make all couples, married or not, undergo the same intense scrutiny of the adoption process criteria before being allowed to have a child; not just single women! Well, two parents, being married, does not assure by ANY means, GOOD parenting!
I'm sorry "unauthorized reproduction," reproduction without state approval a crime? They can't be serious.
As the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent "who
knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction
procedure" without court approval, "commits unauthorized
reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor." The criminal charges will be
the same for physicians who commit "unauthorized practice of
artificial reproduction."
Reply With Quote
I miss you
Bookmarks