The steroid pushers

Here's a clue into how Andrew Sullivan would answer the question about banning non-egg&sperm procreation:
"If we're all chemicals, why prefer the ones we have by chance rather than those we have by design?"
So, presumably he'd feel the same way about the genes we inherit "by chance" from our parents. But banning steroids is by design, allowing them into the game is remaining open to chance. Making an Amish-style decision to limit technology, such as I'm asking people to do with reproduction, is preferring design to chance. It IS design, of the sport. Doing nothing is chance.

Do men have children in NYT land?

This article seems to imply that only women have children. "Latina women are choosing to have smaller families" it says, citing the "fertility rate for Latina women." Marriages have children. Not men, not women. Marriages. It's hard to believe that people have trouble with this concept. People don't choose two different people to love and live with for the rest of their life and to have children with.

Adultery is legal?

Really stupid Boston Globe article on Turkey's attempt to recriminalize adultery. Is the writer aware that Adultery is a crime right here in Massachusetts? Murder is a theme of even more literature than adultery, but does that somehow mean murder is "important to European values?" In fact, crime is the theme of most literature, you can't really have literature without some sort of crime in it. What a stupid article.

And, though adultery needn't be prosecuted in order for marriage to grant procreation rights, I do think it should be, along with fornication, because it makes it clearer what marriage licenses. It seems we have forgotten. There is no right for single people to have children, no court case or law says that there is. Marriage is, and should be respected as, the only legal place to procreate. This is important to ensure equal reproductive rights for men and women. It is important for establishing the preference that people be responsible to their offspring and to the co-parent of their offspring.

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

Andrew Sullivan seems to be satisfied with Isreal and New Zealand, but both of these laws give only "legal recognition to same-sex couples in financial and other business matters", they do not give marriage rights. I thought that wasn't enough for Andrew? And again, the issue of procreation rights for same-sex couples is not addressed in any of the articles or the legislation, but at least SSP rights weren't inadvertantly granted with marriage.

OK, so what IS the ultimate destination?

David Frum notes that: "At every step along the way, it was obvious what the next step was - and what the ultimate destination would be. At every step along the way, proponents of same-sex marriage passionately denied that the next step was coming - or was even contemplated."
I wonder if I can prod him into answering what he thinks the "ultimate destination" is? Perhaps it's same-sex reproduction? Even that is only a tactic on the way to germline engineering and complete control of people-making. I will email him too...

My email to Andrew Sullivan

Just sent Andrew this email:

Hello Andrew,

I haven't seen your reaction to Kaguya, the fatherless mouse. What is your position on procreation rights for same-sex couples? Should a person be allowed to try to create a human Kaguya? Would banning non-egg&sperm procreation be rational?

Johnny

I wonder what he'll say? He'll probably try to claim it's unrelated to marriage. I cc'd Eve and Maggie at MarriageDebate.com, to deter him from ignoring the question. I also added links to the story on Kaguya and the President's Council, my post on MarriageDebate, and the LesbianLife link. He'd better respond!

The marriage issue

Arguments for gay marriage like this will go away after we pass the egg & sperm law, because a person will only be allowed to procreate with a person of the other sex. And there is law upon law affirming that marriage grants a right to procreate. The way to prevent people from procreating together, such as a brother and sister or mother and son or with someone married to someone else, is to deny them a marriage license. The obviousness of this perhaps blinds people to its significance. We need to prevent people from procreating with a person of their own sex as surely as we need to prevent brother and sister from procreating.

Kaguya

Here is a great essay on Kaguya, the fatherless mouse, by Nancy L. Jones of The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity. It gets quite technical, but also addresses the social aspect. Key quote:

"Fortunately, the early commentaries on the Japanese achievement all suggest that attempts to create a human embryo from two eggs would be a crazy way for
humans to reproduce. It is tragic, though, that the main support for this assertion hinges on the health consequences for these manipulated embryos and/or a lack of availability of human eggs. While we certainly wish to protect the health of unborn children and are opposed to possible exploitation of women as egg donors, these reasons totally ignore the importance of holding sacred the sexual union between a man and woman. If Kaguya’s mode of creation were to be extrapolated to humans, the very basis of our society would be shattered—opening nearly endless possibilities for overcoming the normal reproductive barriers for mammals that requires both male and female genetic contributions."

What does Andrew Sullivan have to say about Kaguya? Gay marriage advocates cannot keep denying that this topic is important or keep hoping we won't know it exists. Kaguya exists. They must address it. Either they should demand the same right to create children together that male-female marriages have, or they should agree to relinquish the dream of having children with their partner, and with it, the demand for marriage and all the rights of marriage.

The middle ground of accepting the egg & sperm law but still insisting on same-sex marriage just won't work, because that would be a major change in marriage law. No marriages can be told they may not procreate. If we start saying some marriages do not have a right to procreate it would affect all marriages, all individuals. Procreation would be subject to a risk analysis. The only way to preserve our "basic civil right" to marry and procreate is to guarantee that all marriages have a right to procreate and everyone has a right to marry.

"Egg and Sperm" ASAP!

This Blog is hereby dedicated to enacting the proposal by the President's Council on Bioethics that we "prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."

This law is needed to prevent going beyond what author Bill McKibben calls the Enough point. It would essentially draw the line right here, where we are today. All people would still be created equal, the union of one man's sperm and one woman's egg, with no genetic tinkering or creation of people that could not possibly exist through natural sex.

This law would mean that only a man and a woman would be allowed to procreate, and that same-sex couples would be banned from attempting to create children by combining two eggs or two sperm. More posts will follow to try to convey the importance of this law and its implications in the marriage debate.

Please add your comments or email me at john@eggandsperm.org