NationStates

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?