Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Adoption & Invetro limited only to straight, married, religiously active parents...

In October of 2005, a IN state seator proposed a law that would criminalize any medically assisted pregnancy undertaked without government issued certification. To qualify for the certification, potential parents would have to meet state addoption requirements. In Indiana such laws stipulate that they be married and that they submit a "description of family lifestyle" including "participation in faithbased or church activities." Single or unmarried couples would automatically be disqualified... Also any one with ANY prior felony convictions, drug or alcohol convictions, weapons charges or anyone that assisted a suicide would be disqualified...

Your thoughts?

Answer Question

Asked by SabrinaMBowen at 6:52 PM on Jul. 9, 2009 in Religion & Beliefs

Level 40 (122,988 Credits)
Answers (17)
  • I think some of the limits might be nice (back ground check for child abuse) but I would rather none of those limits be set in place than to allow them to start making laws on who can and can not have children

    Answer by Alanaplus3 at 6:55 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • While some regulation is needed to ensure kids go to stable homes, too many restrictions would harm the system. IMO this is certainly the case for children now. While we may not have the strict guidelines suggested above, I do believe that the process is too long and certain requirements (in certain states) are too rigid.

    Answer by ozarkgirl3 at 6:57 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • I think it is just wrong it is not the governments choice if people can or cant have a child! When it comes to adoption or inverto it is most likely that the child is really wanted! People can go and have children that are not wanted, and abuse, neglect, and just treat the child wrong and not have to pass and government tests they why should it be any different for people who can not just have a child naturally? I think it is already way to hard for people to adopt! Are we going to end up like China and have the government tell us how many children we can have and if it has to be a boy or a girl???


    Answer by Anonymous at 6:59 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • I think the good Senator should mind his own business. While I agree that certain criminal offenses should be counted against a prospective adoptive or foster parent, how on earth should their religious affiliation or lack thereof be a qualification of potential parenthood?

    I've known good parents and parents I think should never have had kids - and on both sides there were straight, gay, sober and not so sober, vegan and not, religious and secular..... to say that any parent is better than another over a single criteria is a crock.

    Potential adoptive parents should certainly be screened and parents looking for fertility assitance may very well need some type of counseling, but I think this is just a bit too much scrutiny.

    What's next - a set of exams before a "normal" couple can have sex and potentially get pregnant?

    Answer by geminilove at 6:59 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • It will result in a lot of fake "believers." People will go to church, mouth the words and then drop out as soon as the legalities are met.

    You CANNOT legislate becoming a churchgoer.

    Yes, I believe in screening. Not to the extent this senator does.

    Answer by gdiamante at 7:01 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • I am not going to lie...I think I am a great mom. My son is always fed, clothed, loved beyond imagination, and he is appreciated as a child and individual. I feel like I am right on cue with what he needs and wants.
    By these standards, I would not be able to adopt a child that is already here, but in need of a home much like mine. I am not religious (although my son will be encouraged to practice whichever religion he chooses.) My fiance and I are not married and made it a point to wait because we wanted to get married for ourselves, not a child.
    Not to mention, if it were MY son that I had to place in a home, sexual orientation, marital status (as long as they were stable) and religious preference would not be a qualifying or disqualifying factor.

    Answer by jenellemarie at 7:08 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • Me and my husband tried to adopt in our state for almost 2 years. We were told that foster care was also not a viable option for us. We are both stable, have good jobs (I might've quit after adopting), we have no history of prior convictions or drug use, and are financially sound. We would have LOVED to give a child a home with us. We were turned down bc my husband is an agnostic (believes in God but does not practice at any church), and I am a practicing Solitary Pagan. Everyone around us agreed we would make good parents, and even passed on letters of recommendation (including two from ministers in my area!). We were still denied. I can't imagine that just bc you don't go to a Christian church it would exclude you from being good parents. I think screening is good, but that religion should not be a part of it!

    Answer by Emuu at 7:08 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • let me also add that background checks and things of that sort should be welcomed and any person wanting to adopt should understand this and comply as long as it means another child doesnt fall through the cracks.
    I also believe that house checks are necessary (unannounced and on a regular basis.)

    Answer by jenellemarie at 7:10 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • "I think the good Senator should mind his own business."

    That would be HER own business, yes, a woman thought this was a good thing...


    Answer by SabrinaMBowen at 7:14 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

  • FUCK that un-American asshole. he needs to be whacked on the nose with a rolled up copy of the Bill of Rights.

    Answer by autodidact at 7:22 PM on Jul. 9, 2009

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.