Wednesday, October 05, 2005

Assisted-reproduction bill would bar singles, gays

Reading what little I've read about this stupid bill, it seems like it would do a lot more than that. It looks like there would an excuse to bar pretty much anyone that the government wanted to from having a child using assisted reproduction, given the extent of the assessment required. Not that just banning gay and single people from having kids isn't bad enough.

Even in the ridiculous time we live in, where people don't seem to understand the role of government at all, and would rather vote for people that make them feel safe, rather than people who actually do anything for them, or who make them feel like they're better than other people rather than trying to make everyone better, I still don't see a law this ridiculous having any chance of ever even threatening to be passed, so it really woulnd't normall bother me all that much.

Luckily, our son is the genetic child of both my wife and myself, so this wouldn't apply to us anyway, but if it did it would have likely made it impossible for me to have my son, or at least made it much more difficult (and it was had enough already, not so much for me, but for my wife who had to do all the work), since he was conceived using IVF. I'm not at all religous, don't participate in any faith based activities, my wife has been married before, we don't really have a lot of money, so I'm not at all confident that we could have gotten a positive assessment under this ridiculous law. Anyway, anything where the government might try to regulate IVF really gets to me, since it hits so close to home.

No one should have to prove themselves worthy to reproduce. It's a basic fundamental right that shouldn't be regulated by anyone. And even if we could all agree that people should have to prove it, I don't think the standards suggested in this law would help at all in that regard. Excluding gay people, single people, non-religous people, all those people can be great parents, and all the married, straight religous people can actually turn out to be horrible parents. It's not something you can predict ahead of time.

Strange (ok, not really) that this law is being pushed by a Republican. What was that about small govenment again?

Posted by

6 comments:

John Howard said...

Yeah, by their reasoning, we shouldn't allow gay kids to have parents, since they don't fit into the "ideal" family. It's ridiculous.

Scott G said...

Isn't all reproduction assisted? What is next, making people fill out applications to get a license to have sex?

Anonymous said...

You know, when I see proposed legislation like this that has NO CHANCE of passage, I wonder for what purpose is this being introduced now? Is she trying to score points with someone? Is she trying to deflect attention from some other legislation that might actually get passed? Is it a way to get the progressive community all worked up and ranting about this, so the right can say we "don't care about the rights of children?" What's really going on here? Because this is not what it looks like at first glance.

John Howard said...

Good point, skywind. I don't know what the point is.

sumo said...

Why do they spend so much time on stupid crap...to only let the really important stuff just float?

Meitín said...

The recent news is that the bill has been withdrawn.