All right. I'll bite. Just to play Devil's advocate here, and according to my very limited understanding of the bill, lesbians could still adopt and/or could have a baby by the, shall we say, more natural method. Adoption is a great way to get a child, and the "natural way" is always fun. I'm sure there would be thousands of guys willing to partner up to be a daddy and sign away their right to a child for one night (or ten minutes) of, er, passion.

Philosophically I have a problem with artificial methods of reproduction anyway. My view, to be blunt, is that if your plumbing isn't working, that's nature selecting your genetic line out. Of course a lesbian couple that wants to adopt isn't nessecarily facing a problem of faulty plumbing, but again, adoption is great option.

In an overpopulated world that faces sure environmental and economic problems, do we really need to be artificially inseminating people or having test tube babies? (Of course that's a faulty argument, becuase people who can afford these procedures generally are of a socio-economic background that will raise a good, healthy, educated test-tube baby, who might one day solve the problems of over-population). But what about all the kids that are out there without parents? Why not adopt? Or just get it on the old fashioned way.

Of course, any legislation that limits personal freedom is dangerous, so I oppose it anyway. Discuss.

Elfboy, you had me at "limits personal freedom," which was in the last paragraph... so really, I should have read your comment backwards.

Holy crap!! That is SO messed up. Ya heard of the new poll-taxish law in Georgia? Hmph, they got it to where people have to buy a special i.d. to vote in the next election.

I'm no more surprised to find Republican right wing zealots in Indiana than I am to find Democratic left wing zealots in California.