12.06.2004

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.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

reality check:the government is all for gay marriage.if two women or two men can walk hand in hand into a court
room, demand a right to get married, and have thier marriage certificate nicely framed and hung over the bed six months later than why wouldn't the government be all for completing the package? a nice pair of kids to go with the rings?
lets face it, 50 years ago it wasnt okay to be gay, but these days people will spit on you if they find out that you told some guy in a bar once that you think gay marriage is wrong.
clearly a losing battle. i hear ya, but good luck.

John Howard said...

dear anonymous,
i agree the government is all for same-sex procreation. After all, massachusetts owns the patent for the SCNT process used to create the first cloned human embryos at ACT in Worcester. Those researchers did all their work for the state at UMass Worcester. A ban certainly won't happen if we just wait for the government to do it on their own, there's too much money involved, and too much power. We have to make some noise all over the web and force an egg and sperm bill before the legislature and the people. But that should be easier than it sounds, very few people are willing to admit that they want to be able to create genetically modified people or people from two eggs or two sperm. So the opposition won't show up to the fight. They're just hoping we don't show up either.

TWPAdmin said...

Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!

I have a marriage separation
. It pretty much covers marriage separation
related stuff. It's full of resources and articles. Come and check it out if you get time :-)

tipsonrelationships said...

This is a terrific blog on a touch of romance
. My site on a touch of romance
is also a great place to get some valuable information. Stop by when you get a sec....

Thanks