So, I’ve got an idea to get civil unions enacted in all fifty states and federal recognition of civil unions: we have a compromise solution, where same-sex couples give up the right to attempt to conceive children together using genetic engineering, and the word marriage.
I think that same-sex couples should not have the right to conceive children together, in other words, scientists should not have a right to create people using anything other than an egg and a sperm. All people should be created equal, and we should not open the door to genetic engineering via same-sex couples. It would be too risky, too costly, and totally unnecessary. Love makes a family, there is no need for same-sex conception.
So, it should be banned, right? Not allowed. Now, that would conflict with the rights of marriage, and wouldn’t be equal to both-sex marriages anyhow, so we should have civil unions that have all the other rights of marriage, but don’t have conception rights. I think this distinction would make it much easier to get federal recognition for civil unions, and civil unions in all fifty states.
Even in their loopiest moments I have not heard that sperm+sperm or egg+egg babies are the crux of the problem around this issue.
<
p>
But I’ll check with my god-daughter’s two daddies. They seem concerned that some people don’t consider them to be a family–despite the fact I’m pretty sure their daughter was a result of a sperm+egg event of her (presumably) hetero birth parents.
And of course she was a result of a sperm+egg event. They can both love their daughter as much as any bio-related couple can, and so can every same-sex couple. There is no need to develop same-sex conception technology. Now, you have heard that some doctors plan on offering same-sex couples a chance to have a baby that is biologically related to both of them. They should not be allowed to offer that service, not least because just offering that service would make couples like your friends that have already done it with a donor feel like they got a sub-standard early model child and they should have waited for the genetically related kind. That would not only stigmatize and hurt their child’s feelings, but frustrate the parents even more and cause friction.
then why are you making it illegal for some people to have children?
<
p>
The right to have children is not granted by legislation; it is a basic human right. Single people, married people, gay and lesbian people are all people with basic human rights, including the right to reproduce. As a separate issue, you either support the notion that same sex couples have the right to marry or you don’t. One has nothing to do with the other.
<
p>
O brave new world, that hath such people in it. Kinda creepy, I must say.
I didn’t know there was any other way. The federal government has no business amending the Constitution as you suggest. This is a decision for the courts. Eventually, though probably a long, long time from now, the courts will probably rule to protect the rights of the minority, in this case gays, to marry, as has happened in MA.
Are you the guy who handed me a little flyer with the Japanese mouse on it after the Deval Patrick Rally last Sunday?
<
p>
Your argument is so beyond reality that I can’t even begin to comment without just shaking my head.
<
p>
If you are really in favor of civil unions (and I have my doubts about that) I think you had better rethink your strategy.
<
p>
What’s next? Creating babies with human eggs and dog sperm? Woof!
<
p>
I don’t think you are doing anyone on either side any favors with your sperm/sperm, egg/egg campaign.
Are you the guy who handed me a little flyer with the Japanese mouse on it after the Deval Patrick Rally last Sunday?
<
p>
Yes, that was me. I have passed out ten thousand flyers in Boston and Cambridge and various other city squares. Monday I’ll pick up 5,000 more, and try to get out to the cape and other parts of the state I’ve missed so far. But you’ll probably see me in Harvard Square again, come say hi.
I’m not the one making it illegal for anyone to have children. Are you saying that some people only have the right to use super-risky 450:1 odds to have children? And even that one out of 450 might have serious problems. Are you really saying that some people don’t have right to have natural offspring that doesn’t require intervention by genetic engineers and sterile laboratories?
<
p>
I think we all have the same right to have children naturally. And there is no right for scientists to experiment with creating children through genetic engineering that will probably cause premature death and suffering for that person’s whole lifetime. That’s a real person that you are not caring about. Does love not make a family? Are all of the children currently being raised by same-sex couples a big problem because they aren’t the genetic offspring of both parents? I don’t think so. Do you? Then why are you insisting on allowing scinetists to exploit same-sex couples by offering risky and expensive ways to have children together? Does love make a family or not? Why insist on a right to put children at risk? Why instist on a right to same-sex conception?
Your argument is so beyond reality that I can’t even begin to comment without just shaking my head.
<
p>
Kaguya is a real mouse, she is not beyond reality. The fact that some people are claiming a right to have children with someone of the same sex is not beyond reality, either. Stop shaking your head. Pull it up out of the ground and think about the issue. Shoud we allow this stuff – today – or not? Think about why you are answering the way you are – are you only saying that same-sex couples should be able to use genetic engineering to have children becaue you are afraid of seeming anti-gay? Well, it isn’t anti-gay to be against genetic engineering. It is more anti-gay to suggest that gay people need same-sex conception in order to have a family. That is patently offensive to thousands of same-sex couples with children. Their families are real familes, even though they are not both genetically related to their children. Your argument is very hurtful to these families.
The federal government has no business amending the Constitution as you suggest.
<
p>
The suggestion is for Congress to prohibit labs from attempting to create a person that is not the union af a man’s sperm and a woman’s egg. It’s not an amendment.
<
p>
This is a decision for the courts.
<
p>
The courts will agree there is a supportable basis to prohibit non egg-sperm conception. It is too risky and would usher in a crass world of genetic engineering that we don’t have to accept.
I guess we do have moonbats.
<
p>
“we should have civil unions that have all the other rights of marriage, but don’t have conception rights”
<
p>
Marriage doesn’t grant “conception rights”. Conception rights, whatever those are, are unrelated to marriage in the law at the moment, and hopefully will remain so.
<
p>
I’d be happy to hear your argument for one baby = one egg + one sperm, but I don’t see as how this relates to marriage, gay or straight.
<
p>
At some point the courts will take on the issue of cloning, pathenogenesis and other baby-making approaches, irrespective of marriage laws. Meanwhile, we need to allow gay couples the same rights of marriage that straight couples have.
It is unsafe now, it should not be allowed now. Whether the people are married or not, same-sex conception should be banned. People should only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex. That’s the issue to talk about now, because people are working hard on it right now and wasting money and resources. Also, the very idea of pursuing it and defending it is offensive to those of us who believe that love makes a family.
<
p>
And we are talking about the sine qua non of marriage here – you can’t have a marriage that doesn’t have conception rights. Sure, people could attempt this without being married. But if we enact the ban then they aren’t allowed to attempt to conceive together, and they can’t be called married. That scenario would affect everyone’s marriage – it would mean that no marriage could claim a right to conceive children together. That is very scary.
“Why not now? It is unsafe now, it should not be allowed now.”
<
p>
Okay, go ahead, make your argument: why should 1 baby = 1 egg + 1 sperm. You feel this should be law; go ahead and tell us all why.
<
p>
“if we enact the ban then they aren’t allowed to attempt to conceive together, and they can’t be called married. That scenario would affect everyone’s marriage – it would mean that no marriage could claim a right to conceive children together.”
<
p>
No marriage can “claim a right to conceive children together”.
<
p>
First of all, rights are granted to individuals, not “marriages” (though marriages to confer certain rights onto the individuals in the marriage).
<
p>
Secondly, so far, the law has (wisely, IMO) not touched the right to conceive, except in extreme cases involving mentally retarded adults and so forth.
<
p>
So I hear you making one proposal (without supporting argument) and one unsupported claim:
The proposal: ban any form of baby making that doesn’t involve one egg and one sperm.
The claim: if we do so, we can’t allow same sex marriage.
<
p>
I’m not finding either one compelling, but the second one I’m finding particularly both offensive and ridiculous.
One reason is so that we are all created equally, and as long as there are people being created by the union of an egg and a sperm, then we shouldn’t allow some people to go and create their babies via genetic engineering. Also, as long as there are males and females, it is a good thing that we are required to cooperate in order to reproduce, and that all of us, no matter what sex we happen to be, are also half man and half woman.
If we are going to stop a Gatacca type future, or worse, the place to say “Enough” is right where we are now: all people created by the union of a man’s natural sperm and a woman’s natural egg. If we go beyond that point to make an exception for anything, then – boy, you haven’t seen government intrusiveness like you’ll see when they are deciding what genetic modifications are OK and what aren’t. You want government controlling everyone’s reproduction? Then keep reproduction in the bedroom and out of the genetic lab. I haven’t yet touched on the issue of safety, which is the most obvious obstacle. The child produced for a same-sex couple using genetic engineering would be subject to incredible risks that cannot even be tested for because we won’t know what they might be. Physical suffering as well as mental and psychological. It can’t be made safe on animals first because animal genes are different (and even the animal testing is unethical, there is no disease being cured that justifies the killing and suffering of the animals used for these experiments.
<
p>
Now, why don’t you explain why it is so important to work on ways same-sex couples can conceive together. What does that say about the ways they have children now? Where are your priorities, when people cannot even get health care, that you would spend money working on something as useless as this?
<
p>
Again, the marriage issue is secondary. If you are claiming that same-sex couples have a right to conceive, then we need to address that first. Once you agree that same-sex couples should not have conception rights, at least not today, then we have to examine the ramifications. People will have a right to conceive with someone, or not have a right to conceive with someone, based on what sex that person is. You cannot say that the couples have equal rights, so why pretend they do by giing them the same name? And you are wrong about marriage not being able to claim a right to conceive. The whole point of not allowing a couple to marry is to deny them the right to create children together, which is why siblings can’t marry, and that’s why the Lovings weren’t allowed to sleep together in Virginia (they were arrested in their bed at 2 in the morning). Virginia didn’t want people creating interracial children, so they forbade interracial marriage. And look at Zablocki, and a million other cases that affirm that marriage grants conception rights, or that conception rights are found only in marriage. People who conceive outside of marriage are doing it in spite of not having a right to do it.
you have gone totally off the deep end.
<
p>
I gave up on your “argument” about here: “why don’t you explain why it is so important to work on ways same-sex couples can conceive together”
<
p>
Why would I explain why that is “so important” when I’ve never argued such a thing. Heck, I’ve never heard about this from anyone but you.
<
p>
Are you having a really interesting time campaigning in the wind?
So, if you “have never argued such a thing”, then you agree that it isn’t important, and it would be better to prohibit it? I fully realize that no one else is talking about it, but peope ARE working on it, and the people that support it just keep quiet about it. They “never argue such a thing” just to keep the population ignorant of it until it is too late. Maybe that’s not you, maybe you have just never thought of it at all, like most people.
<
p>
So, do think it is important to keep it a legal option and keep developing it? Why?
Never really thought about it. Parthenogenesis is the stuff of science fiction. If you tell me scientists are doing it now, I can’t argue, as I have no facts. (Not that you’ve presented any). If it is true, then like cloning, it is certainly something that bears some very, very close examination. Your wild ramblings here do not sway me at all, I’m afraid. But as it isn’t a topic I have a well formed opinion on, I’m definitely open to hearing a well thought out response from bioethicists and other people with a deep understanding of the topic.
<
p>
Perhaps you could include some pointers to factual information about the science you are talking about, together with some arguments for and against such research. What you’ve presented so far is just looney rambling.
<
p>
All that said, regardless of what conclusion we as a society reach regarding the ethics of human genetic experimentation and intervention, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of same sex marriage. And you are making NO friends to your cause of banning such genetics by blathering on about civil unions.
Sorry if I tend to rant loonily. I never know how long I’ll have someone’s attention, or what presentation would suit each person’s background. So I cram stuff in, sometimes at 2:30 in the morning. My site is hopefully helpful to you, I’ve rounded up some links. I wish there were more papers specifically devoted to same-sex conception, but it seems most bioethics organizations won’t touch this topic – I think many of these organizations are fronts, working to gradually introduce new technologies when they perceive the public is ready for them. They are full of the people that went into the field to revolutionize it.
<
p>
http://www.eggandsperm.org
What?
See that “reply” link at the bottom of each and every comment? That is what allows this amazingly sophisticated blogging software they use here at BMG to track threads of conversation. Try it, you’ll like it.
You’ll never get this proposal past the Coalition of Lesbians Opposed to Natural Eggs and Sperm. (C.L.O.N.E.S.)