NATION

PASSWORD

Indiana AG: LGBT Parents should be stripped of Rights

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Pseudo-intellectual NS users
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 25, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Pseudo-intellectual NS users » Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:38 am

*Insert comment showcasing shock and dismay*

User avatar
Thepeopl
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1933
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:53 am

Freiheit Reich wrote:Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

So you think those people just should have sex to procreate... and what about people who are in a coma whose sperm/ eggs are coveted by the spouse/ parent isn't that allowed either?

As an adopted child, my birth certificate claims my adoptive parents as parents. Not my birth parents. Legally it grants me to use my family name and inherit. So, should that be illegal too? I can guarantee that I don't share genes with my adoptive parents at all.
If genealogy is that important, just make a gene database or separate system to keep track. Including all parents, not just LGBTQ. Roughly a third of the children isn't generally related to the parent listed on the birth certificate.
https://theconversation.com/what-are-th ... ther-24802

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:28 am

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Adamede wrote:Pretty sure the unwanted children of the world don’t generally result form artificial insemination. Of the government truly wanted to cut down on that they’d have any form of reproductive intercourses be heavily regulated by the government.


If a couple has a baby through artificial insemination, they won't adopt one from an orphanage. This means one more unwanted child will continue to sorrowfully wait for a couple to finally want it and he or she will possibly grow up feeling unloved and have a higher chance of becoming a depressed and/or angry adult which may lead to him or her becoming a drug addict or an alcoholic and turning to a life of crime. In this way, artificial insemination could lead to an increased rate of crime as well. These stats would not be easy to determine though.

It is argued that abortion reduced the crime rate because it reduced the number of unwanted kids. Artificial insemination leads to more unwanted kids (ones that are not adopted). More unwanted kids is a possible cause of higher crime rates.

Does Abortion Lower Crime Rates?

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1843646&page=1

Do you think Lgbt people should be able to adopt at all? A friend of mine was raised by two men. They are the only family he’s ever known. He doesn’t have any memory of his biological parents not does he even know where they reside.

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Kaiser
 
Posts: 111988
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Father Knows Best State

Postby Ethel mermania » Sat Nov 28, 2020 8:06 am

Freiheit Reich wrote:
Adamede wrote:Pretty sure the unwanted children of the world don’t generally result form artificial insemination. Of the government truly wanted to cut down on that they’d have any form of reproductive intercourses be heavily regulated by the government.


If a couple has a baby through artificial insemination, they won't adopt one from an orphanage. This means one more unwanted child will continue to sorrowfully wait for a couple to finally want it and he or she will possibly grow up feeling unloved and have a higher chance of becoming a depressed and/or angry adult which may lead to him or her becoming a drug addict or an alcoholic and turning to a life of crime. In this way, artificial insemination could lead to an increased rate of crime as well. These stats would not be easy to determine though.

It is argued that abortion reduced the crime rate because it reduced the number of unwanted kids. Artificial insemination leads to more unwanted kids (ones that are not adopted). More unwanted kids is a possible cause of higher crime rates.

Does Abortion Lower Crime Rates?

https://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=1843646&page=1


The problem with your argument is that artificially inseminated babies are always wanted. The process is expensive, and requires consent
The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.

http://www.salientpartners.com/epsilont ... ilizations

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3050
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:08 am

I'm more concerned about the economic impact this court would do rather than it imposing a non-progressive social policy. I'm more concerned about this court gutting the ACA, which is more important that they don't. Democrats focus too much on the low hanging social issues.
Last edited by The Reformed American Republic on Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:41 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm more concerned about the economic impact this court would do rather than it imposing a non-progressive social policy. I'm more concerned about this court gutting the ACA, which is more important that they don't. Democrats focus too much on the low hanging social issues.

economics is not the issue here nor is it related to the topic.

User avatar
SD_Film Artists
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12346
Founded: Jun 10, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby SD_Film Artists » Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:57 am

Thepeopl wrote:
Freiheit Reich wrote:Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

So you think those people just should have sex to procreate... and what about people who are in a coma whose sperm/ eggs are coveted by the spouse/ parent isn't that allowed either?

As an adopted child, my birth certificate claims my adoptive parents as parents. Not my birth parents. Legally it grants me to use my family name and inherit. So, should that be illegal too? I can guarantee that I don't share genes with my adoptive parents at all.
If genealogy is that important, just make a gene database or separate system to keep track.



But then LGBT people won't be disempowered so what's the point of that? /s
Lurking NSG since 2005
Economic Left/Right: -2.62, Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.67

When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against each other through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:09 am

Oh no.

The misfortune compounds and compounds. This wouldn't have been an issue if we didn't allow artificial insemination/IVF. We constantly shift the sexual act from procreation and then we're surprised when we get into messes like this. The indiana AG is right in this instance. Life begins at conception and the process of IVF is wrong. Life begins at conception and during IVF treatment multiple embryos are often destroyed to ensure the success of one. Otherwise infertile couples should adopt.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:11 am

Freiheit Reich wrote:Artificial insemination should not even be allowed. The world has too many people already. The fact that 2 people of the same sex can 'make a baby' using artificial insemination (although technically, only one of these 2 people in the same sex relationship actually is a biological parent) is another reason to ban artificial insemination.

Exactly, this entire situation is kooky.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:13 am

Sundiata wrote:Oh no.

The misfortune compounds and compounds. This wouldn't have been an issue if we didn't allow artificial insemination/IVF. We constantly shift the sexual act from procreation and then we're surprised when we get into messes like this. The indiana AG is right in this instance. Life begins at conception and the process of IVF is wrong. Life begins at conception and during IVF treatment multiple embryos are often destroyed to ensure the success of one. Otherwise infertile couples should adopt.


Why shouldn't we allow it? People who don't want to adopt should be barred from ever having them?

What do you do with children of same sex couples who were adopted in this manner? They are no longer legally their parents? In some instances they have never met their biological parents.

A friend of mine was raised by two men. He has no memory of biological parents and knows nothing about them.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21043
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:14 am

About what I would expect from the Indiana AG. Despicable.
THERE IS NO WAR IN BA SING SE
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Viceroy for The East Pacific

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:25 am

San Lumen wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Oh no.

The misfortune compounds and compounds. This wouldn't have been an issue if we didn't allow artificial insemination/IVF. We constantly shift the sexual act from procreation and then we're surprised when we get into messes like this. The indiana AG is right in this instance. Life begins at conception and the process of IVF is wrong. Life begins at conception and during IVF treatment multiple embryos are often destroyed to ensure the success of one. Otherwise infertile couples should adopt.


Why shouldn't we allow it? People who don't want to adopt should be barred from ever having them?

What do you do with children of same sex couples who were adopted in this manner? They are no longer legally their parents? In some instances they have never met their biological parents.

A friend of mine was raised by two men. He has no memory of biological parents and knows nothing about them.

You apply the law the law next year to new instances and just grandfather in the old ones. Going forward, we shouldn't allow IVF treatment because it's immoral. Nobody should be doing it. If you want to be a parent but you're biologically incapable of doing so then adopt.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:27 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Why shouldn't we allow it? People who don't want to adopt should be barred from ever having them?

What do you do with children of same sex couples who were adopted in this manner? They are no longer legally their parents? In some instances they have never met their biological parents.

A friend of mine was raised by two men. He has no memory of biological parents and knows nothing about them.

You apply the law the law next year to new instances and just grandfather in the old ones. Going forward, we shouldn't allow IVF treatment because it's immoral. Nobody should be doing it. If you want to be a parent but you're biologically incapable of doing so then adopt.


What if you don’t want to adopt?

How is it immoral?

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3050
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:30 am

San Lumen wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:I'm more concerned about the economic impact this court would do rather than it imposing a non-progressive social policy. I'm more concerned about this court gutting the ACA, which is more important that they don't. Democrats focus too much on the low hanging social issues.

economics is not the issue here nor is it related to the topic.

Well, we don't need a topic about every single time a GOP politician says something stupid either.

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3050
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:34 am

Geneviev wrote:If they're parents, they should be listed as parents. I don't think the Supreme Court will become involved in this, though.

You're right. Though, we do have a religious nut on the court, so they might try to overturn the previous ruling. I think this court will be the wrong direction in a lot of ways.

Edit: Clarification here: viewtopic.php?p=38011898#p38011898
Last edited by The Reformed American Republic on Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:37 am

San Lumen wrote:
Sundiata wrote:You apply the law the law next year to new instances and just grandfather in the old ones. Going forward, we shouldn't allow IVF treatment because it's immoral. Nobody should be doing it. If you want to be a parent but you're biologically incapable of doing so then adopt.


What if you don’t want to adopt?

How is it immoral?

If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.
Last edited by Sundiata on Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:41 am, edited 2 times in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:39 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:Though, we do have a religious nut on the court, so they might try to overturn the previous ruling.

Really? Come on man.
Last edited by Sundiata on Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3050
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:40 am

Sundiata wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:Though, we do have a religious nut on the court, so they might try to overturn the previous ruling.

Really? Come on man.

To clarify, I'm NOT saying "all religious people are nuts," but rather saying that she is an extremist and thus a "nut."

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:43 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Really? Come on man.

To clarify, I'm NOT saying "all religious people are nuts," but rather saying that she is an extremist and thus a "nut."

I don't believe that's fair. While I don't agree with all of her rulings, I don't believe Justice Barrett is a religious extremist. She's just a practicing Catholic.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
The Reformed American Republic
Minister
 
Posts: 3050
Founded: May 23, 2020
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Reformed American Republic » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:44 am

Sundiata wrote:
The Reformed American Republic wrote:To clarify, I'm NOT saying "all religious people are nuts," but rather saying that she is an extremist and thus a "nut."

I don't believe that's fair. While I don't agree with all of her rulings, I don't believe Justice Barrett is a religious extremist. She's just a practicing Catholic.

Regardless of what you think, she would probably agree with this Attorney General.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:44 am

The Reformed American Republic wrote:
Sundiata wrote:I don't believe that's fair. While I don't agree with all of her rulings, I don't believe Justice Barrett is a religious extremist. She's just a practicing Catholic.

Regardless of what you think, she would probably agree with this Attorney General.

Rightfully so in my opinion.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:50 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
What if you don’t want to adopt?

How is it immoral?

If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.

Since when is marriage only about procreation? By that logic we shouldn’t allow same sex marriage because they can’t produce children naturally.

I’m failing to see how it’s immoral.
Last edited by San Lumen on Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:55 am

SD_Film Artists wrote:
Thepeopl wrote:So you think those people just should have sex to procreate... and what about people who are in a coma whose sperm/ eggs are coveted by the spouse/ parent isn't that allowed either?

As an adopted child, my birth certificate claims my adoptive parents as parents. Not my birth parents. Legally it grants me to use my family name and inherit. So, should that be illegal too? I can guarantee that I don't share genes with my adoptive parents at all.
If genealogy is that important, just make a gene database or separate system to keep track.



But then LGBT people won't be disempowered so what's the point of that? /s

This is about preserving human dignity and the sanctity of life. This isn't about discriminating against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender dysphoria.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6866
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:58 am

San Lumen wrote:
Sundiata wrote:If you don't want to adopt then I understand. But that doesn't entitle you to create life under immoral circumstances. IVF and artificial insemination are immoral because they dissociate sex from procreation. The act which brings the child into existence ceases to be act by where two people give themselves to each other, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. That sort of relationship is contrary to the dignity and equality that parents and children share. Procreation is deprived of its moral perfection when it is not willed through conjugal relations between spouses.

Since when is marriage only about procreation? By that logic we shouldn’t allow same sex marriage because they can’t produce children naturally.

I’m failing to see how it’s immoral.

Yes, ideally same-sex marriage would likewise be illegal but I can't give you a constitutional basis for making it so, that's a subject for another thread. I've explained twice how IVF and artificial insemination are immoral. You don't understand or do you just disagree?
Last edited by Sundiata on Sat Nov 28, 2020 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
San Lumen
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 56661
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
New York Times Democracy

Postby San Lumen » Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:00 am

Sundiata wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Since when is marriage only about procreation? By that logic we shouldn’t allow same sex marriage because they can’t produce children naturally.

I’m failing to see how it’s immoral.

Yes, ideally same-sex marriage would likewise be illegal. However, that's a subject for another thread. I've explained twice how IVF and artificial insemination are immoral. You don't understand or do you just disagree?


why should it be illegal? Same sex couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt either by the standard your using.

I really don't understand how its immoral based on what your said. If someone consents to such a procedure who are you to tell them otherwise?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Borderlands of Rojava, Eahland, Kanaia, Loeje, Salus Maior, Suriyanakhon, The Reformed American Republic, Washington Resistance Army, Yurizlansia

Advertisement

Remove ads