Put the turkey baster down and step away
Jeff Goldstein is asking for a show of hands of those who self-identify as Republican or conservative and would support legislation like this. In Indiana:
Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”
It should come as no surprise that I would oppose this asinine piece of legislation. And for a variety of reasons. The supposed concern for such children feigned by these legislators is disgusting. A woman who wishes to have a child out of wedlock and through artificial means should have every right to do so. As Goldstein says:
I don’t for one second believe the state should presume the right to stop non-criminals from using their bodies to reproduce out of some hypothetical future concern for the children—even if they can show that a large percentage of single-parent children grow up at a disadvantage.
Additionally, I can see the enforcement of this law now and back-alley fertility clinics popping up. The police come in with their ninja gear on and announce: Put the turkey baster down and step away. Far fetched? Not at all. Look at the war on drugs if you think that won’t happen.
Truly abysmal.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:22 am
the easier way to accomplish a better result is to pass legislation saying “if you have kids out of wedlock and then have trouble later on, tough bananas, you’re on your own. The state won’t bail you out for your bad choices. That way, they have their liberty and can eat it too, but the rest of us aren’t forced to take a bite.
But no, they have to tell you what to do. They can’t help it! It’s a bizarre mentality, no?
October 5th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
Wow – I used to be a Republican, I’m still (for now) a conservative, and I think this is a travesty. The Democratic party (and most liberals) have been the party without any identifiable agenda for quite some time. It now seems that the Republicans agenda is to find things to do with the express (and often only) purpose of enraging the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this is just as much of an absence of agenda.
October 5th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Ben,
That strategy is also unfair. A productive citizen and taxpayer is no less a citizen just because they aren’t coupled up with someone else. Welfare babies are indeed a problem, but it’s a problem of socialism in general. If you want to argue that welfare should be discontinued altogether, we’ll probably find some common ground. But to say that welfare should only apply to married couples only adds to the bigotry against single people.
Speaking as a Libertarian, and not as a single man who wants to reserve the right to bolt should I knock up some poor unsuspecting (but easy) young woman, I would never support such reproductive meddling.
October 5th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
Would someone remind me why I registered as a Republican again?
October 5th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
I agree. Sorry about that, I’m in favor of nixing the welfare state altogether. I was just picking on this particular example. The state shouldn’t bail anyone out of their bad choices.
October 5th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Stormy:
The number of smarmy, sardonic responses to this is near infinite! Must… resist…!!!
October 5th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Ben:
OK, but what about people who’ve fallen on hard times through no fault of their own (e.g., the only major employer in their area went belly-up)? And how do you differentiate between people who’ve made “bad choices” and those who’ve simply had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Welfare reform? Absolutely. Welfare abolition? Egad, I hope not.
October 5th, 2005 at 6:52 pm
Republicans aren’t conservatives and haven’t been for quite a while. Quit smearing Conservatives by refering to them as members of a party who won’t defend the borders, spends like drunken sailors, spits on the Constitiution, and is interested ONLY in it’s own power and the protection and projection thereof.
October 5th, 2005 at 8:42 pm
If a single woman becomes pregnant with assistance and how will the state find out? If they do, will the deem it an illegal pregnancy and make her get an abortion? If she decides to go to another state for assistance and returns, what will they do then?
October 5th, 2005 at 9:43 pm
tgirsch,
It’s not the government’s job to bail you out of tough times. Life isn’t fair, and when it hands you lemons you have to make lemonaide. Okay, enough with the cliches. But if someone works for the mill and the mill closes, they go work someplace else. They learn a new skill and start over if necessary.
Now, part of being able to do that is not living pay day to pay day. And that brings us back to good vs. bad life choices again…
October 6th, 2005 at 11:25 am
Ravenwood:
Actually, things pretty much used to work that way. And we wound up with widespread poverty and a group of people called “robber barons” running everything. But I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, right?
Tell you what. Go out and support yourself on minimum wage and nothing else, and tell me just how much you find yourself able to set aside for the “rainy day” fund, and how much free time (and money) you have to go get yourself an education. I’ll wait.
Just because your mommy and daddy were able to provide for you and give you a good head start doesn’t mean everyone else is in the same position. (And your mommy and daddy at least could get a decent-paying job without much skill back when they were raising you; that’s no longer the case for today’s mommies and daddies…)
October 6th, 2005 at 11:30 am
(And by the way, even if it’s not the .gov’s job to bail you out, it is their job to foster an environment where you can bail yourself out.)
But at least you’re confirming my favorite definition of “Libertarian”: Someone who thinks Republicans aren’t mean enough. 🙂