Egg and Sperm

Stem Cell Sperm Advance Getting Some Attention

2011-08-08T14:59:00.004-05:00

DrudgeReport: "Sperm from mice stem cells offers infertility hope..."
Discover: "Worldwide First: Stem Cells Turned Into Sperm Turned Into Living Animals"

It's nice to see the comments on the Discover article immediately ask the question of whether a woman could make sperm or not. Of course it is possible, no one could say with certainty that it is not possible, but it's not a question of that. It's more a question of whether it is a good public policy to spend our extremely limited resources on it, and whether it should be allowed to be attempted at all. To those questions, we can answer definitively: No! It is wrong to make embryos from modified gametes. And making a sperm from a woman certainly modifies her gametes, it creates sperm that do not represent an actual person.

There are better ways to help prevent infertility than to make an industry that manufactures people.

Maggie Wears Sheep's Clothing

2011-06-01T11:11:00.003-05:00

NOM's Maggie Gallagher revealed a bit more of her Transhumanist Libertarian loyalties in an email she sent to a nomblog reader, who then posted it in the comments to nomblog's post about Clownfishgate.

Maggie's response on trans issues to an e-mail

"I do not have any developed views on this question--except I do not believe individuals have a right to expect they can change genders on a whim, or on a daily basis, and expect others to take it seriously. I'm much less concerned about transgenderism that requires permanent and substantive change (including surgery or hormonal treatment and petitioning the court). I may or may not agree with it--I have no clear developed views--but it will not affect the main question.

If it is possible to change gender, then it is possible--in which case it's an opposite sex union.

If it's not really possible, then it should not be possible. I do not have clear views on this"

Wow, so she seems to think that people should be allowed to change sex, that it is just a matter of whatever is possible. I don't think she is talking about mere cosmetic surgery when she says she's not concerned about transgenderism, I think I've alerted her to the possibility of "female sperm" and "male eggs" and she knows that's the real issue. I bet her "I do not have clear views on this" is her way of alluding to her contract with her Libertarian benefactors who have told her never to write about transhumanism or artificial gametes and to keep procreation rights out of the marriage debate. Her high-paying job is to make the public think that marriage is being defended and is still relevant after procreation rights are stripped from it.

It shouldn't be so hard for her to say that she thinks people only have a right to procreate as the sex they are born most likely to procreate as, with someone of the other sex. But she's never been able to come out and say that, I suspect because of a clause in her contract, which I bet Wesley Smith also has.

(I posted a diary about Clownfishgate on RedMassGroup We Are Not Clownfish.)

Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise Turns Five

2011-04-30T11:33:00.004-05:00

It is hard to believe that May 9th will mark five years since I proposed The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

For five years now, I have been promoting the Compromise by sending emails, visiting legislator's offices, calling staffers, handing our leaflets, blogging and commenting on every blog I could find where people are discussing same-sex marriage, explaining how same-sex couples that are currently denied equal protections could quickly get federal recognition and legal protections in almost every state in exchange for giving up the right to have labs create offspring for same-sex couples.

The Compromise is the same set of three laws as it was five years ago:
1) An Egg and Sperm law that prohibits conceiving a person by any means other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified gametes.
2) A law that would recognize state Civil Unions as if they were legal marriages for federal purposes, provided the state has defined them as "marriage minus conception rights."
3) A law that unifies the effect of state marriages as protecting the right of the couple to conceive offspring using their own genes.

It's been amazing to see people twist and squirm and refuse to compromise, choosing to stick with the status quo, even as they claim not to care about same-sex conception (on the pro-SSM side) or claim to care about preserving marriage (on the anti-SSM side). That's five years of same-sex couples suffering without recognition, five years of divisive legal battles and meaningless debates, five years that we could have been addressing urgent problems facing the country, but people have thrown us all under the bus because they are addicted to insulting each other.

It's time to grow up, everyone. Come together. Larry Kramer, the most effective activist for gay people, is getting old now, and he is frustrated with the current strategy.:

There are these issues now. It's just that you don't think of them as galvanizing, mainly because they're not so life and death. I cite marriage, although I'm sort of fed up with how long it's taken and I think we've gone about it the wrong way. I'm 76, and my partner is 64. I'll obviously die before he does, and the way the laws are written it's very hard to leave him anything of substance compared to what I have to leave. It all goes to taxes because we're not legally federally married and that's not fair, that's just not fair. You don't care about it at your age, but I care about it at mine, and there are a lot of older gays who should care about it as well. That should be a galvanizing issue. Anything that keeps us from being unequal should be galvanizing. I want what they have. I do. And everybody should. But again, people don't think that way.What has frustrated you about the move toward gay marriage in the country?

Just that it's taken forever. I don't think we should have taken the state by state approach because it just makes it go on, and then you have to re-sue and defend. Things need to go to the Supreme Court as fast as possible. There were ways it could have gone to the Supreme Court a lot earlier. If we lose at the Supreme Court, which everyone was afraid of, you just come back again. These [state] marriage we have don't amount to anything. They're feel-good marriages. They make relationships stronger and all that, but they don't amount to a hill of beans in terms of anything legal or financial. You still need to pay federal taxes and you don't get any of these benefits the government pays you if you're heterosexually married.

Can any young gay activist really tell Larry Kramer that it is more important to insist on having a right to try to procreate offspring with someone of the same sex than it is for him and his partner to be secure and be able to share each other's property? It's time to try a new approach, one that actually puts people first, rather than winning an unwinnable argument.

New Somerville article

2011-03-16T22:53:00.003-05:00

Great new article from my hero Margaret Somerville of McGill on "Designer Children" or rather the Rights of Children. (hat tip FamilyScholars)

I propose that the most fundamental human right of all is a child’s right to be born from natural human biological origins and that children have human rights with respect to knowing who their biological parents and families are, and these rights must be recognized.

"Natural human biological origins" means from a man and a woman's unmodified gametes, not from stem cell derived artificial gametes or from two men or two women or cloned or whatever else.

This is great timing for Professor Somerville to remind us that same-sex couples just don't and should not have the right to have offspring together. When Congress debates DOMA, they should all take this issue into account. They should not inadvertently throw open the door to designer babies and a huge regulated or unregulated genetic engineering industry. Rather, they should recognize the right of children to be born from natural human origins by prohibiting creating children from unnatural origins, and preserve the natural right of marriage to create offspring, and recognize state civil unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights" as marriage for federal purposes.

Don't Defend DOMA, Replace DOMA

2011-03-01T17:40:00.000-05:00

DOMA shouldn't be defended, it is bad law that creates work for lawyers but is a mess for citizens. It is bad to allow same-sex marriage in some states, and useless not to allow it in others. There are aspects of marriage that are fundamental rights which are due to every citizen of every state, and fundamental rights which states should be prohibited from abridging. Even Section 3 of DOMA is bad law, it fails to properly protect or define marriage, and only allows the government to save money on spousal benefits.

DOMA should not be defended, it should be replaced with the three laws of the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise which would truly defend marriage:

1) Prohibit the conception of children by any means other than the union of unmodified gametes.
2) Protect the inherent right of marriage to conceive offspring.
3) Federally recognize state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights"

The first two laws are urgently necessary and would have immediate and long term benefits, and would avoid the costs and ethical issues of allowing use of modified gametes and regulating conception rights separately from marriage. It is really hard to justify not enacting those first two laws, or delay enacting them one minute.

The third law is not as necessary as far as society is concerned, but it still would have immediate and long term benefits for society, and would certainly benefit the thousands of same sex couples that lack recognition right now, and I think would be fair and compassionate and not cost too much.

DOMA could be replaced with the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise with minimal deliberation and would achieve Obama's and the vast majority's goals in a principled and permanent and politically acceptable way:

1) It would preserve marriage as a man and a woman in every state.
2) It would allow Civil Unions in every state with fully equal protections and rights, except of course for the right to procreate genetically-related offspring together.
3) It would prohibit cloning, human-animal children, and producing children for same-sex couples using lab created artificial sperm or egg.

Who in Congress is going to say that any of those laws would be bad? That the status quo is better? I know that the libertarians here and at GOProud are going to object, but they'll look silly doing so.

To Will Saletan, regarding Incest

2010-12-28T13:56:00.004-05:00

While I am at it, here are two comments I left at Will Saletan's Slate article on why incest is wrong. He seems to think that we have to identify the single reason that can make incest wrong which doesn't apply to homosexuality. I disagreed with that requirement, and asked him to address procreation rights of fathers and daughters:

John Howard
Hey Will, can you do an article on the procreation rights of fathers and daughters, as opposed to the naked/orgasm/screwing rights? (Well, perhaps you could look at those three separately too, since they are rather different.) For instance, would it be a crime for a daughter to impregnate herself with a vial of her father's sperm? Is it something we have to allow a father and daughter to do, if they wants to?

And, how about the marriage rights of fathers and daughters? I think that the procreation rights and marriage rights of fathers and daughters are synonymous. Indeed the Massachusetts Incest law has one paragraph describing the crime and punishment that applies interchangeably to either sexual intercourse or marriage (which of course would have to have been an unlicensed illegal marriage, since such a marriage is also prohibited by the marriage statutes). Interesting how that shows marriage means having sexual intercourse as far as the public understanding of marriage goes. It also means having children together.
Today, 00:14:47

John Howard
How come there can't be multiple reasons that, taken as a whole, call for incest to be illegal and wrong? Not everyone agrees that procreation is not an issue between fathers and daughters, that's pretty ballsy to just say that unethical procreation is not an issue because now we have contraception. As if that somehow makes it impossible for a father to impregnate his daughter! Or a brother to impregnate a sister, or aunt, etc... There are also other reasons to criminalize bodily union between relatives, as well as to not allow marriage between them. (And there are reasons why affinity relationships that are prohibited from marrying are not criminalized and punished the same as consanguineous relationships are.)

The "family unit" reason is a reasonable reason too, as is the "impossible consent due to grooming" reasons. Not everyone has to agree on the reason they think incest should be a crime and is wrong, there just have to be enough people that agree it should be a crime to say it should be a crime. They don't have to all agree as to what is "the" reason that holds true in every case and is logically consistent with marriage or gay rights or feminism or whatever, they can just feel there might be good reasons to prudently prohibit it.
Yesterday, 23:57:39

Response to Kenji Yoshino

2010-12-28T13:48:00.001-05:00

Kenji Yoshino does the usual takedown of Robert George's article, because Robert George avoided the issues of procreation rights and same-sex procreation and so walked right into it. Because my comments often get deleted from Slate, here is my comment to Yoshino's latest response:

Marriage is approval to procreate offspring together, using the marriage's own genes. It is not given to siblings and other couples that are not allowed to procreate offspring together. It is given to couples that are approved and allowed to procreate, whether they wind up procreating or not.

Using the baseball analogy, a team is approved and allowed to win the game, no baseball team is prohibited by rule from possibly winning a game. That approval is why losing teams are not demeaned, they still have the dignity of being allowed to try to win games, and if they managed to, everyone would celebrate their good fortune and the rightness of them winning a game.

Same-sex couples, unlike infertile couples, should not be approved or allowed to procreate offspring together. Even if technology could be used to facilitate it, perhaps using stem cell derived gametes, or perhaps computer sequencing and DNA synthesis, using such methods to create a human being should not be allowed. The only way that people should be allowed to be made is by joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man. That is the only ethical way for people to be created, all other attempts would demean equality and dignity and turn procreation into a form of manufacture and deny the child their right to exist as a equal human being, as an equal member of the species. It is terrible public policy for same-sex procreation to be legal, it confuses children who think it might be an option for them someday, and it wastes tons of energy and money on research. Plus, it might actually lead to children being made, which puts the child at enormous risk of birth defects and requires that the child be monitored and studied for its whole life, and its children too, and that would require a huge government regulatory agency which would be unsustainable and expensive, and if it became entrenched, would wind up limiting everyone's freedom to have children naturally and force people to be screened and modified.

Civil Unions should be defined as "marriage minus conception rights" so that they can be enacted in all 50 states and federally recognized immediately, to give same-sex couples all the other benefits and incidents and obligations of marriage, without allowing same-sex procreation, or stripping procreation rights from everyone's marriage. Marriage should continue to approve and affirm the couple's right to procreate offspring using their own genes. People should only have that right with someone of the other sex.

Letter to Robert George on 'What Is Marriage?'

2010-12-28T13:17:00.005-05:00

Dear Robert George, Sherif Girgis, and Ryan T. Anderson,

Congratulations on publishing a fine paper. I was however disappointed that your paper did not address the possibility of same-sex couples being able to procreate together using stem cell derived gametes or other methods. That possibility renders many of your arguments moot, or even worse, turns them into arguments for same-sex marriage.

Have you heard of this research, or of Postgenderism, or Transhumanism?

I think we need to make sure marriage continues to mean that the couple is approved and allowed to conceive offspring together from their own genes. In other words, the answer to "what is marriage?" should be "conception rights." And same-sex couples should be like siblings: denied conception rights, even though it might be possible for them to conceive, because it would be unethical.

This explains why infertile and elderly people are allowed to marry: they still retain their right to procreate, it is not illegal for them to procreate.

Is that not a good argument? Is there some danger or downside to making that argument? I think it is profoundly important to protect everyone's right to procreate with their own genes, with their spouse's own genes, and to stop genetic engineering. I think it would be a popular mainstream position, especially when combined with a Civil Union compromise.

Please let me know what you think of my proposed Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise. It's three federal laws, to be enacted as a package:

1) Stop genetic engineering by limiting conception of children to the
union of a man and a woman's sperm and egg.
2) Federally recognize state civil unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights."
3) Affirm in federal law the right of all marriages to conceive children together using their own genes.

Sincerely,
John Howard

Why is NOMBlog opposed to a law?

2010-12-23T13:58:00.002-05:00

I've been trying to figure out why some of my comments make it through the NOMBlog moderator while others get blocked. I think they don't like it when I point out that we should prohibit same-sex procreation. Here is my latest comment of mine that didn't make it, retrieved with the back button and reposted:

#
John Howard
Posted December 23, 2010 at 2:51 pm | Permalink
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

@Mike Brooks - Same-sex couples might be able to procreate using stem cell derived artificial gametes. Researchers have already made mice from same-sex "parents", using ridiculously complex processes involving lots of genetically modified mice and experimenting. But the point is, whether it is possible or not, doesn't mean we have to let them try it. We don't have to allow same-sex couples to try to make offspring, we can say people don't have a right to reproduce with someone of the same sex. Congress should prohibit it, like Missouri has done.

Researchers Create Mice From Two Fathers

2010-12-08T23:33:00.001-05:00

They had to jump through some crazy hoops, so this isn't the big news that Postgenderists have been dreaming of, but the headline sure makes it seem like same-sex procreation is a real possibility. Wall Street Journal Online reports:

Scientists have created mice that are the genetic product of two fathers, the latest in a series of unusual experiments in mammalian reproduction.

Researchers at University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and elsewhere first engineered a female mouse whose eggs contained the DNA from a male. When the female was mated with another male, the offspring had genetic contributions entirely from two males. The study appears online in the peer-reviewed journal Biology of Reproduction.

While the achievement is technically intriguing, its practical benefits are far from clear. Any move to try the same experiment in people is certain to be more complicated and controversial.

The study describes the technique as "a new form of mammalian reproduction" that could potentially be used to improve livestock breeds or preserve endangered species. More provocatively, the authors argue that if certain technical hurdles can be overcome, "then some day two men could produce their own genetic sons and daughters." But those technical hurdles are extremely high.

"It has been a weird project, but we wanted to see if it could be done" in mice, says Richard Behringer, lead author of the study and a developmental geneticist at M.D. Anderson in Houston.

Not only is this kind of research a terrible use of resources, it sends a very confusing message to people, especially children, about their reproductive potential. We should make it clear that same-sex procreation is never going to be a possibilty, because it will always be unethical and wasteful and damaging to our natural procreation rights. Prohibiting same-sex procreation also makes it possible to resolve the marriage debate, by creating a difference in rights between marriage and civil unions, so that civil unions could be enacted in all 50 states and federally recognized as if marriages. That would help same-sex couples much more than holding out hope for radical technology to enable same-sex procreation.

Illinois should enact Recognition-Ready Civil Unions

2010-12-01T13:05:00.002-05:00

Illinois looks like they are about to pass one of those unconstitutional, unpopular, stepping-stone, marriage-in-all-but-name Civil Union laws. Though the language of their bill doesn't say that Civil Unions have all the "rights" of marriage, it does say that Civil Unions would offer the same "protections." One of the protections of marriage is of the right to procreate offspring together, marriage protects the couple's right to use their own genes to procreate offspring.

To make Civil Unions constitutional, they have to explicitly have different rights to justify having a different name. The right they should be missing is the right to conceive offspring together, which is also the essential, definitive right of marriage.

People should not have an equal right to procreate with someone of either sex, people should only be allowed to procreate with someone of the other sex. Attempting same-sex procreation requires genetic engineering to make artificial gametes from stem cells and would be unsafe, expensive, require big government regulation and research, and open the door to all forms of genetic engineering. It needs to be prohibited with a federal ban on making human beings by any method other than joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman.

At the same time, Congress should also federally recognize state Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights." Illinois should modify their proposed Civil Union bill in the Senate to add a clause explicitly stating that they do not protect the right to conceive offspring, so that they would be federally recognized immediately as soon as Congress enacts the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

Stripping procreation rights from marriage is an old idea

2010-11-23T15:52:00.002-05:00

Allow me to relate some interesting quotes from eugenicists I found in "Eugenics and Other Evils" by GK Chesterton. These quotes were included in Chesterton's essay by the editor of this volume to give some context, so modern readers can understand just who Chesterton is responding to.

Banning Marriage
Special provisions as to which it might be open to question whether they were primarily in the interest of the individual have been omitted, as for example Clause 50 in the earlier Bill, which prohibited marriage with a defective. There is, however, an amendment proposed to reinstate this clause in Committee, but the matter has not yet been reached. - EUGENICS REVIEW, 1913

Marriage without Parenthood
It is to parenthood on the part of the transmissibly unworthy that we object. Negative eugenics has no right to object to their living or to their marrying. This must be insisted upon. Hitherto marriage and parenthood have been regarded as synonymous or equivalent by writers on eugenics, and they have said that such and such persons must not marry, when what they meant was that these persons must not become parents. - C.W. SALEEBY, 1914

Saleeby was unsuccessful in stripping procreation rights from marriage, but the idea did not die, Margaret Sanger proposed exactly what Saleeby was talking about twenty years later, when she urged an "American Baby Code" in American Weekly Magazine in 1934:

American Baby Code
Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code should be to provide for a better distribution of babies. to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.

Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as nonprofit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.

Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.

Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.

Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman's part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.

Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.

Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State.... The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control....

Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding.

Eugenics was forced to become "crypto-eugenics" due to the Nazis getting a little impatient with it and applying it to living people rather than yet-to-be-conceived people, but the idea of stripping procreation rights from marriage and having separate "parenting licenses" did not die, and now in the age of genetic engineering it has found a new strategy of redefining marriage to not include a procreation right by declaring same-sex couples to have equal marriage rights.

It is as important as ever to oppose eugenics and defend everyone's equal procreation rights, and to not allow procreation rights to be stripped from marriage. All marriages should be allowed to procreate with their own genes, and all people should have an equal right to marry. We should not ban people from marrying for eugenic purposes as the Eugenics Review advocated in 1913, nor strip procreation rights from marriage as Dr. Saleeby proposed in 1914 and Sanger echoed in 1934.

Mandated coverage for Transgender surgery?

2010-02-03T15:17:00.003-05:00

Interesting article on HuffingtonPost Transgender Surgery is Deductible; Medical Coverage Coming reporting on yesterday's ruling by the US Tax Court that sex reassignment surgery is not cosmetic and therefore is a deductible medical expense.

The suit was brought by GLAD, and they are not finished. As the article points out, the goal is to have transgender surgery covered by medical insurance, mandated like IVF is mandated in Massachusetts. And if surgery to make the body look like the other sex is mandated, of course the genetic engineering to enable the person to procreate as the other sex will be also.

New Kono experiments on fatherless mice

2009-12-07T21:44:00.005-05:00

Professor Tomohiro Kono, from the Tokyo University of Agriculture, has published some new reports on his research on fatherless mice created from two mothers. He was the creator of the mouse "Kaguya", the first mammal with same-sex parents, in 2004, which prompted me to create this blog. Well, he's apparently continued working on making fatherless mice, and his new findings, published last week in the science journal Human Reproduction, "provide the first evidence that sperm genes may have a detrimental effect on lifespan in mammals", leading to lots of "End of Males?" articles in the British press like this one in the Daily Mail.

'We have known for some time that women tend to live longer than men in almost all countries worldwide,' said Professor Kono.

'However, the reason for this difference was unclear and, in particular, it was not known whether longevity in mammals was controlled by the genome composition of only one or both parents.

He said the fatherless mice were essential to the research. The genetic material taken from eggs collected from young mice was manipulated in the laboratory so the genes behaved like sperm genes.

This manipulated genetic material was transplanted into fully grown, unfertilised eggs of adult mice and they developed into embryos, which were transferred into surrogate mother mice.

The mice born as a result were bimaternal, having genetic material from two mothers, but no father, and their lifespan was compared with identical mice with both father and mother.

But does the study suggest that getting rid of fathers could maximise the longevity of human beings?

Professor Kono was unequivocal. 'This is not realistic,' he said.

Interestingly, no one questions whether it should even be allowed to try to do experiments like that to create human children. The article just assumes that it is only a question of can it be done, not whether it should be legal. We don't need to do any more research to know that it shouldn't be allowed to try to create humans from stem cell derived artificial gametes for two people of the same sex.

"ax" admits SSP is core demand at Opine-Editorials

2009-10-06T13:38:00.003-05:00

I came across a good discussion happening at Opine-Editorials, where a new commenter named "ax" had just jumped into the blogger-collective's sparring ring. After three days of discussion with Chairm, On Lawn, and the Playful Walrus, I joined the discussion and turned "ax" to the issue of same-sex procreation. His first response is a pretty good summary of his argument:

Dude, you're crazy.

But hey, if two men or two women want to conceive a child together, I'm fine with that.

I then proceed to tell him many reasons why it should not be allowed, why it would be better for society if we banned it, etc etc, and I'm answering every objection, rejecting every deflection, and ax is cornered, unable to answer the decisive question On Lawn and I teamed up to ask that would have established "the core of marriage" - whether procreation rights were essential for marriage. And, he's callously refusing to see the difference between choosing a risky medicine to treat one's own disease, and choosing purposeful risky creation of other people. It was a very good discussion with ax, he was very revealing and open about how of course same-sex couples have a right to procreate together!

But On Lawn at Opine has ended the discussion there before ax replied, and deleted my "last word" calling him out for not living up to the the goals of his blog. But luckily I still had the thread open in another tab, and was able to save the post with my last comment intact before more of my comments were deleted. I've copied it here for reference, and I will mark any edits and additional comments in bold. The original is here.

Great new website on Transhumanism

2009-09-10T10:54:00.005-05:00

Check out these YouTube videos someone put together about Postgenderism. There are three parts, so I'll embed the Pt 1 here and let you find Pt 2 and Pt 3 yourself. They're from a website called www.TransAlchemy.com which seems to have lots more articles and videos skeptical of Transhumanism and Postgenderism. For example, the video pointed me to an article about artificial wombs by Colleen Carlson in Harvard Science Review, Fall 2008:

So why has relatively little attention been paid to research that could lead to a major change in reproductive capacity? In fact, much work goes unpublished because of the uproar it might create among activists, politicians, and religious figures for its social implications.

That's what I've been saying! (For the record, I would support banning artificial wombs also, they're inhumane and unnecessary, and instead work to preserve everyone's health and fertility)

My Awesome Website is up!

2009-09-04T22:57:00.003-05:00

What do you think, Musclehippy?

voteforjohnhoward.com

John Howard for United States Senate

2009-09-03T11:36:00.002-05:00

That's right, I want to be elected to replace Ted Kennedy as the next Senator from Massachusetts, in order to introduce the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise bill to end same-sex marriage nationally, preserve natural conception rights, stop the Brave New World of genetic engineering, and to extend federal recognition as marriages to same-sex couples in state Civil Unions, and provide a model for achieving full protections for same-sex couples in all 50 states.

I have two giant stacks of nomination papers that I need to fill up with signatures, and about two months to do it. I'm obviously going to need help, so I am going to contact the Vote On Marriage people and MassEquality people to seek their support and manpower to achieve the goals of each via the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise.

On January 19th, 2010, please vote to send me, John Howard, to the Senate to resolve the marriage debate so we all can move on to other pressing issues.

Good article explaining epigenetic imprinting

2009-08-04T08:49:00.005-05:00

Scientific American has a nice article explaining epigenetic imprinting that should help people understand genetics a little better. Lots of people, even scientists, believe that the genes in a sperm and the genes in an egg are interchangable. As the article points out, Gregor Mendel's Laws of Inheritance assumed that it didn't matter which parent passed on which genes, and that incorrect assumption is strongly ingrained in the public's mind to this day. But now we are realizing that men and women have complementary genes.

When passing on DNA to their offspring, mothers silence certain genes, and fathers silence others. These imprinted genes usually result in a balanced, healthy brain, but when the process goes awry, neurological disorders can result.

When eggs and sperm are created by the process of meiosis in the gonads, two are created at a time by a stem cell that splits in two, dividing its pairs into two sets of single chromosomes randomly. Each gamete gets one chromosome from each of the 23 pairs, creating "haploid" cells from a "diploid" cell. Which single chromosome of each pair that each gamete gets, either from the mother or father, is random. In a man creating sperm cells, the original imprinting is stripped off of the genes that came from his mother, and new male imprinting is applied, so that it is ready to join with an egg. In a woman, the opposite happens, female imprinting is applied to the chromosomes she inherited from her father and she passes on female imprinted genes.

Another new discovery is that the DNA in a sperm is more tightly packed than in an egg, with a small portion of the gene left "open":

But sperm don't have elaborate cells, just a tightly packed nucleus and a tail for swimming to the egg. So when they form, the histones are stripped off and replaced with another molecule called protamine, which shapes the DNA into an even tighter bundle, where the genes cannot be read. The British researchers have found, however, that CTCF protects some histones in sperm from being replaced, leaving about 4 per cent of the genome in an open conformation, so that its instructions can be copied. Since the pattern of exposed areas is not random, they believe it must have a purpose, and the simplest explanation is that it is a key that influences the developing embryo even before the father's genetic contribution has been unpacked.

Both of these recent discoveries are setbacks for same-sex conception, in that they show that reversing a person's imprinting is much more complex than anyone understands. But more than just being setbacks, they really show that it would be unethical to attempt to create sperm for a woman or an egg for a man for procreation.

ABC Nightline: A World Without Men

2009-07-12T13:17:00.003-05:00

Last night Nightline aired this report on the sperm-from-stem-cell news:

A World Without Men? Scientists create human sperm from stem cells. Will men soon be irrelevant?

I'm glad they aren't shy about focusing more on the same-sex conception angle rather than the infertility angle, as some stories did. But I wish they weren't so sensationalistic and jocular about it, as if the only issue was just male insecurity and silly worries about men no longer existing. They should have addressed the costs and implications of allowing same-sex conception and not implied the only issue was who would take out the trash. And they shouldn't have treated it as inevitable. That's especially disappointing because in England, where this report seems to have been produced, same-sex conception and genetic engineering are already prohibited, and Parliament is debating whether to change the ban to allow the use of stem cell derived gametes, and it looks like they will allow it for infertility but not same-sex conception. They could have been informative, instead of trying to make an entertaining Doctor Who episode (which is impossible, but I digress). Oh well.

But it's still a very provocative report that should get people talking, and it's great to see this story is finally breaking through the media blackout and starting to reach the American public.

My reading of Eisenstadt v Baird

2009-05-25T14:40:00.003-05:00

I find myself repeatedly discussing certain Supreme Court cases with lots of people around the blogosphere, and as they are often tangential to the point I'm making about stopping genetic engineering (not to mention even further off-topic to the thread I'm hijacking as it is), I thought maybe I should devote a blog post here to them, and just direct people to this post when they bring them up.

Eisenstadt v Baird is currently being touted by the commenter Carlo as declaring a right to have children outside of marriage in a long comment thread over at Opine Editorials. He cites the oft-cited passage that at first blush does seem to find such a right:

It is true that in Griswold the right of privacy in question inhered in the marital relationship.... If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual, married or single, to be free of unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.

Even though unmarried conception is irrelevant to my point about protecting conception rights within marriage, I think it is important to defend against the common idea that Eisenstadt declared a right for single people to bear children, and so struck down fornication laws in 1972.

Eisenstadt was about contraception, and I read it as saying that unmarried people have a right to use contraception to protect themselves from bearing or begetting a child, in case they lose self-control and make a regrettable spontaneous decision to have sex, or are raped. But I don't see it as saying that there is a right to have unmarried sex. Even that quote doesn't go so far as to say that single people have a right to actually bear a child - it only says that single people have a right to decide to bear a child, and presumably if they decide to, then they would go get married. It could have been written "matters so fundamentally affecting a person as bearing or begetting a child", but they added the words "the decision whether to", and opinions are carefully written, they don't add words just to conform to Iambic pentameter.

An analogy works pretty well here: a person without a motorcycle license has a right to decide whether or not to ride a motorcycle, right? But if they decide to, they either have to get a license, or risk getting caught and punished for riding without a license. The analogy to Eisenstadt would be that unlicensed riders have a right to wear helmets, states can't prohibited selling helmets to unlicensed people. Allowing unlicensed people to buy helmets doesn't endorse unlicensed riding, but it recognizes that prohibiting people access to helmets only puts them at greater risk if they ride anyway. The analogy seems strained because spontaneously riding a motorcycle is not as common a thing as "accidentally" going from making out to having intercourse in the heat of passion. What the court recognized was that respectable people DO sometimes have premarital sex (perhaps their own lovely daughters with their no-good boyfriends) and they should be allowed to protect themselves from rash passionate mistakes, or no-good boyfriends.

Also, note they allow for warranted government intrusion, and note that actually bearing and begetting a child is certainly NOT something that could be called "private", as a child is certainly a matter of public record, indeed a member of the public itself. So they would have to be out of their minds to think that bearing a child was a private matter - and clearly that's not what they were thinking. They were only thinking that unmarried people should have a right to protect themselves from pregnancy. I'd agree with that decision, but its a shame that they couldn't see that it would lead to more unmarried sex and therefore more unmarried pregnancies. Perhaps they thought that would be OK, what with new accurate paternity tests, etc.
Supporting my reading that they didn't strike down fornication laws in Eisenstadt is the fact that the court relied on Wisconsin's fornication law two years later to reach their decision in Zablocki v Redhail. And at the time of Eisenstadt, the case wasn't interpreted as striking down fornication laws or making unmarried sex legal, it was merely reported as being about access to contraception for unmarried people. It may seem like a hedge, but it's a legal distinction that is quite common, coming up in cases where property owners set lethal booby traps for robbers, and drug dealers sell lethal drugs to addicts - it shows that addicts and robbers have rights too, but those rights don't create a right to do drugs or rob.

Love Makes A Family shuts down

2009-04-19T17:08:00.003-05:00

Well, this is interesting: Love Makes A Family is apparently not enough any more, as the Connecticut organization is shutting down at the end of the year. They say it is because they've achieved their objectives (Connecticut now has same-sex marriage), but I think it is because their name and message are no longer in agreement with the new goals of the marriage equality movement. I have often reminded same-sex marriage advocates who were demanding same-sex conception rights that "love makes a family", and that same-sex couples do not need to be both biologically related to have a loving and close family. But of course my point was not appreciated, and it was clear that "Love Makes A Family" was an embarrassing anachronism contrary to the new goal of full equal marriage and conception rights. This action seems to prove it. I continue to believe that Love Makes A Family, but apparently they don't believe it anymore.

Blankenhorn & Rauch's compromise is useless and unworkable

2009-03-02T03:17:00.005-05:00

Ugh, what a flawed compromise Blankenhorn and Rauch came up with. It's a good premise, that we ought to work out a compromise based on some sort of principle, but that one is wildly off the mark. It suggests that churches exist outside the law and are opposed to civil authority, when in fact most religions consider civil authority to be God-given and teach that it should be respected. And practically speaking, how can a church not recognize a same-sex marriage or civil union? Most states have laws against knowingly officiating bigamist and other civilly-invalid marriages. A priest or minister would be punished for marrying a man and a woman if the woman was officially civilly unioned to another woman at the time, so they couldn't just ignore it, they'd have to recognize it. The compromise won't work.

Their compromise led Fitz at Opine Editorials to ask the question everyone is struggling with: “Why should couples of any kind receive special treatment from the government?” Well, why? Isn't it because we should give special treatment to couples that might conceive children together? Of course it is. We never give that special treatment to couples that we forbid from conceiving together, like siblings or people already married or children. We only give it to couples that society approves of procreating together, on the condition of them affirming their consent to procreate with each other and committing to each other as procreating partners.

What do Blankenhorn and Rauch say about whether or not to allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive together? Blankenhorn has already in his book said that marriage is, anthropologically, defined as societal approval of procreation. And, that we should only allow procreation by a man and a woman. So it's a shame he didn't suggest that as the basis of the compromise with Rauch, instead of this useless "religious exemption" that is not only irrelevant to the real issues facing us as a society in the near future, but won't work because civil law is respected by the church and the state law applies within churches. It's outrageous to suggest that churches become outlaws.

The right compromise is to recognize state civil unions that are defined as identical to marriage with the sole exception of prohibiting, rather than protecting, procreation between the couple. Churches would have to recognize them, but they certainly wouldn't recognize them as marriages, because they wouldn't civilly BE marriages. In the situation described above, where a man and woman wanted to marry but one was in a same-sex civil union, they'd have to respect the law that says that this person has entered a civil agreement not to marry anyone while they are in this civil union, just like they'd have to (and want to) respect the civil law about siblings, and about people in secular marriages that wouldn't be performed by the church, or who are already married to someone who abandoned them. Churches tell couples in those situations that they have to respect the civil law, so they have to get a civil divorce or annulment before the church can officiate their wedding, even if the church doesn't believe the existing civil marriage to be a "sacred" or "real" marriage. That's what they'd have to tell a couple where one was in a same-sex civil union. They can't ignore the legal reality, but they wouldn't be forced to recognize any same-sex marriages, because there wouldn't be any. No same-sex couple would have conception rights.

It's a much better compromise, and it should be the compromise that Congress considers, because Congress also needs to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex conception and making a baby any way other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified gametes.

What will happen if we enact their proposed compromise, and leave same-sex conception legal? Is a church supposed to "not recognize" the very existence of people created through same-sex conception? That's ridiculous.

For the record...

2009-02-09T14:34:00.005-05:00

For the record, my post on BMG that LGBT posters forced the editors to delete was about how there is indeed an unchanging constant element to marriage throughout history. I said that I'd read both Stephanie Koontz's and David Blankenhorn's recent histories of marriage specifically looking for any mention of marriages that did not have a right to conceive children together, and found none, zero. Every marriage, everywhere, had a right to have sex and conceive children together, using their own genes. There was a lead-in about how both sides of the debate bring up the same debunked points over and over again, and I mentioned how people sometimes try to prove me wrong by bringing up those infertile-cousin marriages and incarcerated prisoner marriages, but in neither case is the couple prohibited from conceiving children. That was pretty much the whole comment, it didn't even mention the issue of same-sex conception.

Obama must know this won't work

2008-11-26T15:56:00.004-05:00

President-elect Obama has posted his Civil Rights Agenda at his change.gov site. Among the items are these two which are relevant to this blog:

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: Barack Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: Barack Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Regarding Civil Unions, how could he seriously be proposing Civil Unions with all the rights of marriage after every state court that has addressed the issue has said that is unconstitutional to use a different name for same-sex unions with the same rights? He said he "respects" the California court's decision, but that's hard to reconcile with supporting the very solution that they rejected as harmful and unconstitutional. The fact is, almost no one supports civil unions that are "marriage in all but name", even if they were constitutional, so it's not going to work. But he can still accomplish federal recognition of Civil Unions that give all those 1,100+ federal legal rights, and, he can do it in a way that preserves marriage and makes the Federal Marriage Amendment unnecessary: by enacting the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise to prohibit genetic engineering and same-sex conception by limiting conception to a man and a woman's sperm and egg, preserve marriage as conception rights, and recognizing Civil Unions that are defined as "marriage minus conception rights".

New Scientist Editorial: Getting ready for same-sex reproduction

2008-11-15T13:58:00.003-05:00

I wish I had seen this New Scientist editorial when it came out in February: "Getting ready for same-sex reproduction". It's no surprise that New Scientist magazine is smugly in favor of it and calls the "fears" of same-sex reproduction "largely irrational", as they have editorialized for same-sex marriage and against the irrational religions that oppose "science" many times in the past, but at least they called for a public discussion of the issue, right now. Too bad I hadn't seen this during the election.

Thanks to Dr. Maurice Bernstein at his Bioethics Discussion Blog for starting a discussion of the issue there and pointing his readers to the New Scientist editorial. I don't know Maurice's position as I just came across his long-running blog recently, but I think tries to be neutral on issues and just host a discussion. I hope he gets some interest and generates good discussion there.

California should be the first to enact Recognition-Ready Civil Unions

2008-11-06T01:14:00.009-05:00

In addition to the speculation about what happens to existing same-sex marriages in California (the options are: turned into the old DP's, voided, left standing but not 'recognized' in California, or, unlikely but suggested by some, still recognized but no new marriages issued), there is also the question of what prop 8 does to DP's if they want to go back to them. Does Prop 8 make DP's unconstitutional also? Well, no, it doesn't, but even so, they can't go back to those old DP's as they'd been defined either, because those were already unconstitutional.

The court said it is unconstitutional discrimination to call identical legal institutions different names for same-sex couples. Proposition 8 didn't amend the constitution to say that it was OK to now call identical institutions by different names, it said that only a man and a woman can be recognized as legally married. So it would still be just as unconstitutional now as it was seven months ago to use a different name for the same rights. If that opinion was right then (and I think it was) then it is still right today.

So uh-oh, it looks like there is a bit of a bind here. The only constitutional option is to make them unequal institutions, with different legal rights and protections. The best way to do that is with a "marriage minus one" formulation, so that all the other rights are known to be included. The right has to be intrinsic to marriage in order for it to be subtractable from marriage, such as the right not to self-incriminate your spouse, or the right to inherit property. It wouldn't work to say "marriage minus the right to vote", because that is an individual right, something done by individuals. It has to be something marriages have a right to do together, and something that same-sex couples don't want or need, or it would defeat the purpose.

How about...the right to conceive a child together using the couple's own genes? This has the advantage over other possibilities because it's something we need to ban as soon as possible anyhow, and there would be lots of long lasting benefits to banning it.

California should be the first state to enact "Federal Recognition Ready" Civil Unions that are defined as marriage minus the right to conceive children together, so that when Congress enacts the Egg and Sperm Law and repeals DOMA, their Civil Unions will match the necessary definition to be recognized as marriage and they could qualify immediately. Then other states would follow suit soon after.

Kmiec: "Say 'no' to the Brave New World"

2008-09-22T13:49:00.004-05:00

Finally! Prominent Constitutional Law professor Douglas Kmeic has written an op-ed for SFGate that raises the issue of same-sex procreation and how it relates to marriage. It doesn't go all the way to the conclusions I'd like it to, but it points in the right direction.

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature - a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth - claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

In a depopulating world, the claim that there is a universal right to marry regardless of gender becomes a frightening ally of a claimed universal right to access to genetically engineered children. People should reject this claim by returning traditional marriage to its rightful place.

The best part is that Professor Kmeic is a close advisor and supporter of Barack Obama, and used to advise Bush I and Reagan on Constitutional law too. So maybe he'll give Barack the right advice and he'll arrive at the right conclusion, and come up with the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise on his own. He needs to advise Obama to start using conception rights as the distinction between civil unions and marriage, and to start actually opposing same-sex marriage in states that already have it, as opposed to having "no problem" with it, and saying that same-sex couples should have all the rights of marriage. He needs to say that same-sex couples in Civil Unions should have all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive children together using their own genes, which should remain the essential right of marriage, and be reserved for a man and a woman.

A vote for Democrats is a vote for Gattaca

2008-09-14T14:20:00.007-05:00

Joe Biden gave a talk last week where he revealed the real hopes of Democrats for Embryonic Stem Cell research. Here is his quote:

“I hear all this talk about how the Republicans are going to work in dealing with parents who have both the joy, because there's joy to it as well, the joy and the difficulty of raising a child who has a developmental disability, who were born with a birth defect. Well guess what folks? If you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research?”

Biden received a thunderous ovation when he made the remark at a town hall style meeting this morning in Columbia.

First of all, the Republicans do support stem cell research and always have, they just don't support embryonic stem cell research, which involves creating a new embryo and pulling it apart into disorganized embryonic cells, which destroys its chance to be born. Adult stem cell research (where pluripotent stem cells are created directly from skin cells or marrow cells, and no new embryo is created) has already produced treatments and made great progress, and Republicans support it fully.

So why do Democrats give a thunderous ovation for embryonic stem cell research? Well, there's a big clue when Biden talks about birth defects, and suggests that "if you care about it, why don't you support stem cell research." The insistence on embryonic research can only mean one thing: they ultimately aspire to do genetic intervention to prevent birth defects by designing the embryo's genes.

That there would be "a thunderous ovation" indicates that there is far more being cheered for than stem cell research. There are far too many Transhumanists and people who call for designer babies to think their brand of thinking would not find a comfy home in that crowd of Biden supporters. That applause was for the whole promise of genetic intervention, perfect designer babies, and not having any babies with birth defects in the first place. In the context of "the difficulty of raising a child with a developmental disability" (note his need to carefully remind the crowd that there could be joy in raising an imperfect baby, lest they thunderously boo), it's clear the Democrats are calling for Designer Babies and genetic intervention.

The Republican platform, on the other hand, calls for a ban on Cloning and experimentation on embryos (not sure what their definition of cloning is, hopefully it would be a blanket ban on all conceptions that do not combine sperm of a man and an egg of a woman, like Missouri's ban).

The Democrats call for embryonic and genetic research and reproductive freedom. The Democrats insist on same-sex conception being legal. On BlueMassGroup, they even refuse to condemn Will Saletan's incredible call for genetic intervention to raise IQ's of Nigerian babies. Are they out of their minds?

A vote for Obama and the Democrats is a vote for Gattaca. For government regulated, state funded eugenics and same-sex conception, coercive genetic intervention, and the loss of basic human rights to have a natural child.

Why Civil Unions Are Right For Same-Sex Couples

2008-08-07T16:14:00.002-05:00

[I just submitted this to Alternet.org]

There is one right that all marriages should have that same-sex couples should not have: the right to conceive children together, to create genetically related offspring from the couple's own genes.

Attempting to create children by joining the genes of two men or two women is radically unethical and unnecessary and is a wrong-headed goal and a mis-use of resources. It requires genetic modification to reverse the epigenetic imprinting that makes male and female gametes complementary so they can join together to make a new human genome. It is not just a new form of IVF, it is a radical push into genetic engineering of human beings that should not be allowed, not just because of the high risk of genetic defects in the child, but primarily because of how it would effect society and individual reproduction rights if we allowed people to be created from engineered genomes.

But it is currently legal, and many researchers are working on techniques to enable same-sex couples to conceive using stem-cell derived gametes. And though most same-sex couples are not the least bit interested in having their children be guinea pigs and do not feel that shared biological connections are required to have a loving family, there are also many that are eager to try it. It is not science fiction, it is perhaps just a year or two away from being attempted by a reckless lab and an emotionally manipulated couple.

Congress should ban cloning, same-sex conception, and other forms of human genetic engineering with an "egg and sperm law" that would prohibit conceiving children by any means other than joining an egg of a woman and a sperm of a man, unadulterated and unmodified so that they are truly "of" the person.

This ban would create a distinction in the rights of same-sex couples and man-woman couples that should match the distinction between marriages and civil unions: marriages should guarantee the couple the right to attempt to conceive children together, civil unions should be defined by states as being exactly like marriage except lacking conception rights.

At the same time they enact the "egg and sperm" anti-cloning law, Congress should make two more additional laws. The second law would be to recognize state civil unions as marriages for all federal purposes, if the state civil union is defined as being exactly like marriage except lacking conception rights. This would provide states with uniform Civil Union language that would make it possible to enact CU's in all fifty states, even those that have prohibited giving same-sex couples the rights of marriage in their constitutions. The third law would define in federal law that no marriage in the United States can be prohibited from attempting to conceive children using the couple's own genes, and affirm that all people have an equal right to marry and procreate. Together, these laws would truly preserve marriage, while also limiting it to a man and a woman.

These three laws make up "The Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise" and should be enacted immediately. There is no reason to wait, and doing it before the election will allow people to be free to vote on other issues rather than being held hostage to their position in the marriage debate.

What is a woman?

2008-08-05T14:31:00.003-05:00

There were some interesting articles in the New York Times recently about testing female athletes at the Beijing Olympics if they were "suspected" of being male. (article and op-ed)

I agree with those articles that verifying gender is needlessly intrusive and problematic and should not be done for athletes, but disagree when the articles veer from athletics and try to assert the broader Postgenderist position that sex itself is needless and obsolete, malleable and fluid, and should not be fixed or determined by anyone for any reason. What does it mean to "live as" a gender, if not an offensive embrace of stereotypes?

There is of course one area where sex matters: reproduction. People with intersexed conditions, XXY chromosomes, and fluid gender expression have always existed, but never has any person reproduced as both a man and a woman, never has anyone both fathered and mothered offspring. Every person has one sex which they are most likely able to reproduce as, and one sex (the other sex) with whom they are most likely able to reproduce with, and that never changes throughout a person's life. It might not match, and need not define, the legal or social or apparent sex by which a person lives or even believes themselves to be, but it usually does and always should (though its OK when it doesn't). But that "most-likely-to-conceive-as" sex is what matters when it comes to reproduction: people should only be allowed to conceive as the sex which they are most likely to succeed as. After we enact the egg and sperm law, labs would make that determination if they are hired to facilitate a conception. Obviously merely living as or legally being the other sex cannot be a way around the egg and sperm law, or the law will not shut the door on genetic modification. But that lab-determination would be private, the public wouldn't know why the couple was unable to conceive.

On the other hand, if a couple is publicly, legally, a same-sex couple, but both-sexed by their most-likely-to-conceive-as sex, they would be publicly prohibited from attempting to conceive, even though their genes were in fact complementary. A lab would have to turn same-sex couples away at the door after looking at their legal sex, they wouldn't even get to the stage where genetic imprinting matters. If they were somehow able to do it naturally even though presenting as a same-sex couple, that should be cause to correct their legal sex (though not their gender expression).

To sum up, these articles are wrong that sex is fluid and cannot be defined. A woman is someone who would most likely be able to conceive with a man, a man is someone who would be most likely able to conceive with a woman. People should only be allowed to conceive as the sex which they are most likely to succeed as, and should be assigned that sex at birth, and their fertility and sexual identity should be protected as they grow up so that they are able to marry and procreate.

"We Must Choose"

2008-07-23T17:24:00.003-05:00

"We are now at the point in history where we must choose whether or not to subject human nature to market forces and industrial production systems."

That's from "Genetic Modification: This Time It's Personal", an excellent issue paper from Human Genetics Alert urging the British Parliament to not allow scientists there to create genetically modified human embryos. The vote on Britian's Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill has been "delayed until Autumn". You can find a link to download the whole HGA paper here at Alliance For Humane Biotechnology.

Some Transhumanism Articles

2008-07-09T10:39:00.004-05:00

The cloyingly intellectual webzine The Global Spiral devoted their June issue to Transhumanism; hat tip to Austrailian Transhumanist Russell Blackford who critiqued each of the six articles on his blog MetaMagician3000. The article by Ted Peters starts with a darn good summary of what Transhumanists generally believe and value, but in the second half he winds up pulling his punches so as not to seem a "luddite" and seems to endorse a "careful" version of Transhumanism that keeps a watchful eye out for bad applications. Perhaps that's why Russell thought it was the best article. Katherine Hayles also chickens out, making a point to disagree with Francis Fukayama (who I've emailed a couple times), saying "I do not necessarily agree with Fukuyama’s argument that we should outlaw such developments as human cloning with legislation forbidding it". I think she, like most people in this debate, is making the mistake of not appreciating what a ban would do.

Most Transhumanists frame the question as: should we keep moving toward this post-human future, where we could eradicate diseases and enhance human capabilities and even achieve Universal super-intelligence, or (the sole alternative), should we let the "anti-science" and "luddite" Chicken Littles keep us stuck in this disease-ridden world because they fear change? They never consider that a ban would be change, and they are desperately trying to maintain the status quo. A ban on genetic engineering would be a radical and revolutionary change, not only causing a massive shift in funding to health care and prevention and research aimed at helping existing people today, but it would have an enormous positive effect on every person's sense of responsibility and self-worth, by affirming each of our lives as fully equal and deserving of dignity and respect. Affirming that all people are and forever will be "created equal" as the child of a man and a woman, and have the same right as everyone to reproduce with their unmodified gametes, will be a big change, it will make people stop assuming that technology is our only hope, that we are only in the way. Instead, we will be the only hope, and that affirmation of our responsibility as an integral part of nature will be felt the world over. Choosing to maintain the Transhumanist status quo is missing out on how beautiful life will be in a post-Transhumanism world. We need to put Transhumanism behind us as soon as possible.

Obama Needs Help On Marriage

2008-07-02T13:10:00.004-05:00

Barack Obama is rightly taking heat all over the blogosphere for his inconsistencies on same-sex marriage. But could they all be explained by his ignorance of same-sex conception? If it turns out, after learning about the efforts to enable people to conceive genetically-related offspring with a same-sex partner, that he believes that it would be unethical to attempt it and that people should only be allowed to conceive with someone of the other sex, then he could use that distinction to explain his opposition to same-sex marriage. Marriages, he could say, should continue to protect the couple's right to conceive children together, while Civil Unions should provide all the other rights and protections that he has been saying same-sex couples should have access to. Hopefully he does not want to strip the protection of conception rights from marriage and allow states to prohibit a validly married couple from using their own genes to conceive children together.

Also, negligent lawyers

2008-06-22T22:16:00.002-05:00

In the post below, I challenged the blogosphere's prominent marriage defenders and bioethicists to explain why they aren't calling for a Missouri-style "egg and sperm" law banning the use of modified gametes. While I'm at it, I should also challenge the blogosphere's prominent lawyers, such as Jack Balkin, Eugene Volokh, Ann Althouse, Dale Carpenter, Andrew Koppelman, etc (man there are lots of them) to end their silence on this subject and offer their expert opinion. I have posted many comments over the years at their blogs, and never once has one of them replied to me that I was wrong. I think that's interesting.

When I pester them enough, they generally respond that they simply aren't interested in the subject, or haven't thought about it, which is total bullshit: they just don't want the subject to be raised yet, they think they can just ignore me and pretend that they've never been asked if conception rights are the sine qua non of marriage and if the state might have an interest in stopping same-sex conception or genetic engineering before it happens. There are students studying genetics law and reproductive law in law schools today, but lawyers are never disinterested parties. That whole lucrative, interesting field will be gone if Congress enacts the Egg and Sperm Compromise. Just like the "marriage experts" and the "bioethicists", these are people that have a vested interest in extending the controversy indefinitely and bringing us slowly down the slippery slope one expensive case at a time.

Well here is the challenge to the above law profs: explain to me where I am going wrong. Engage in a discussion here with me, tell me about how marriage and conception rights are related or not related, or whatever. Just address the damn subject already.

Warning: Fraudulent "Marriage Defender"

2008-06-22T12:31:00.006-05:00

David Benkof of GaysDefendMarriage joins the list of fraudulent "marriage defenders" such as Maggie Gallagher, Jennifer Roback Morse, Family Scholars, Opine Editorials, who have dominated the traditional marriage debate on the blogosphere and provided insipid and embarrassing straw man arguments for the same-sex marriage proponents to argue against.

The thing they all have in common that makes them utterly fraudulent and dangerous is that they all believe that same-sex conception should be legal. In each case, I have been rejected and insulted and censored on their sites for raising the issue of same-sex conception and suggesting they add opposition to unethical conception technology to their arguments. They have surprised me by siding with radical gay activists in insisting that same-sex conception is a right and should not be banned. They do not see that it harms marriage to say that a couple that is allowed to conceive a baby together should not be allowed to marry first. How can they be so inconsistent? The only answer is that they are frauds.

There are also bioethicists who seem to be performing the same function in the bioethics realm (Wesley Smith, the Center for Bioethics and Culture, the Center for Genetics and Society, even perhaps the President's Council on Bioethics), offering up weak, useless arguments against cloning and genetic engineering and refusing to clearly call for a law against creating genetically modified people. When I press them to call for a law, they fall silent. Their livelihood comes from writing about how bad the Brave New World is, not from stopping the Brave New World.

Not surprisingly, all of these marriage defenders and bioethicists blogroll each other and praise each other as the top-notch thinkers offering the best arguments imaginable against same-sex marriage and genetic engineering. Assuming they are all actual different people, they have become a remarkably effective conspiracy to block simple legislation and cover up the issues of same-sex conception and germline modification, as if these weren't even ethical issues.

I challenge all the groups and people name-checked here to clarify their position on creating children using modified or artificial gametes, or any method besides joining the sperm of a man and the egg of a woman. I am still hopeful they will prove me wrong about this conspiracy, by just one of them breaking ranks and supporting a law against same-sex conception and the use of modified gametes.

Postgenderism: Beyond the Gender Binary

2008-04-12T13:02:00.004-05:00

That's the title of a new essay from George Dvorsky and James Hughes available at Dvorsky's blog SentientDevelopments. Dvorsky is a prominent transhumanist and co-founder of the Toronto chapter of the World Transhumanist Association. Dvorsky coined the term "postgenderism" and wrote the original wikipedia entry, which has now been merged with "transgenderism".

From the abstract:

Postgenderists argue that gender is an arbitrary and unnecessary limitation on human potential, and foresee the elimination of involuntary biological and psychological gendering in the human species through the application of neurotechnology, biotechnology and reproductive technologies. Postgenderists contend that dyadic gender roles and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Assisted reproduction will make it possible for individuals of any sex to reproduce in any combinations they choose, with or without “mothers” and “fathers,” and artificial wombs will make biological wombs unnecessary for reproduction.

The Transhumanist movement is very well organized and dedicated to putting transhumanist principles into practice. There are over fifty chapters around the world, and many affiliates, such as the Immortality Institute, Better Humans, and the Mormon Transhumanist Association, which is notable for being the only religious affiliate or chapter, the others being expressly atheistic.

Leading researcher calls for law

2008-03-31T09:04:00.002-05:00

Shinya Yamanaka, a leading "stem cell pioneer" was interviewed in New Scientist last December. (subscription required if you want to see it in context of the advertisements, but I'll copy the whole story to the comments for purposes of education and discussion.)

The important thing to note is that he is crying out for society to regulate the use of this technology, he's saying that scientists can't make these decisions on their own, they just see "an opportunity".

Are there any other scenarios that could raise ethical dilemmas?

I'm not sure whether we should try to make eggs from male iPS cells and vice versa. In theory, two men could use this technology to have a baby, because you could take skin cells and use them to make an egg. [...]

Who do you think should be responsible for deciding what is ethically acceptable?

These are very difficult decisions, and I think that society should make them. It should not be scientists. They can find it difficult to think like the person on the street, and instead may see it simply as a good opportunity. We scientists can be involved in the decision-making process, but I think unless society is comfortable with the therapy it should not go ahead.

"Female sperm and gay guinea pigs"

2008-03-31T07:36:00.003-05:00

That's the title of a great op-ed in SFGate, online home of the San Francisco Chronicle. Some key passages:

Like reproductive cloning, efforts to use female sperm or other artificial gametes would mean starting with biological materials that have not been produced by evolutionary dynamics to participate in reproduction. In human beings, this would be an extraordinarily high-risk gamble. As researchers and others have concluded in speculation about human reproductive cloning, the very investigations that would be required to try to improve the safety of female-sperm reproduction in human beings would amount to unethical human experimentation.
...
What's going on here? Why are speculative and risky technologies being held out to lesbians and gay men as tantalizing prospects? Are reproductive methods that amount to dangerous experimentation on their children really a road to freedom for gay families? Or is the language of equality and empowerment being used to justify human experimentation that puts these children at great risk?

Anti-gay sentiment is not caused by the inability of same-sex couples to have biologically related children, but by fear and intolerance. The solutions to homophobia will not be found in test tubes and Petri dishes, but in challenging and changing our laws, policies and culture. Our resources are far better spent advocating for equal access to existing means of family building, legal protections for gay parents and children, and full social acceptance of diverse kinds of families.

Of course, any assisted reproduction techniques that are safe and ethical for heterosexuals should also be available for gays. But the obverse is also true: Reproductive methods that are not safe enough for straight people shouldn't be promoted to gays and lesbians. Gay families should not be made into guinea pigs for techno-enthusiasts interested in extreme forms of human experimentation.

New Leon Kass article

2008-03-09T16:40:00.003-05:00

Leon Kass, the original Chairman of President's Council On Bioethics which inspired this blog 's name with their 2004 report recommending a federal "Egg and Sperm law", has written an update on the progress, or lack thereof, in The Weekly Standard.

Particularly reassuring is that Dr. Kass is now clarifying his view that the egg and sperm should come from a man and a woman. Readers may recall I was concerned that the Council was leaving the door open for same-sex couples to use "female sperm" or "male eggs", and perhaps there were members of the Council that were indeed insistent on leaving out the sex-specific language. But here he is able to speak on his own, and makes it clear that all people should have one mother and one father:

Second, we should call for a legislative ban on all attempts to conceive a child save by the union of egg and sperm (both taken from adults). This would ban human cloning to produce children, but also other egregious forms of baby making that would deny children a link to two biological parents, one male and one female, both adults.

This is great news, and the rest of the article is very good news as well, because apparently things are coming together that make this year a great opportunity to accomplish these goals.

New pro-ssp website

2008-02-12T16:15:00.000-05:00

There's a new website pushing for same-sex procreation out there, appropriately called www.SameSexProcreation.com. There are lots and lots of links there, including a really good section on epigenetics and the research going on to determine all the sex-determined imprinted genes.

The author believes that SSP should be developed mainly to force SSM to be accepted, on the theory that everyone will drop their objections to SSM once procreation is possible. It is a reasonable theory, since many people argue that SSM should not be allowed since procreation is not possible, but the more likely conclusion is that SSP will be oppposed for all the other reasons they oppose SSM. We reach the same conclusion that if SSP is allowed, then SSM should be allowed also, but we differ on whether SSP should be allowed.

Sperm created from female stem cells

2008-02-02T17:13:00.000-05:00

Well, they're right on schedule in Britian, where they have "coaxed" female stem cells to develop into sperm cells. In England, apparently there is a law against using gametes derived from stem cells, and that article says that "the UK parliament is now debating changes to the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, and the government is under pressure to include an amendment that would allow the future use of eggs and sperm grown in the lab from stem cells. However, a clause added to this amendment would restrict this to sperm from genetic males and eggs from genetic females." The reason to do that is because converting it to the other gender's gamete requires genetic engineering to reverse the imprinting, and would not be restorative medicine that justifies attempting it.

In America, there is no such law, except in Missouri, where implanting such an embryo is illegal. It would be legal to try this today in Massachusetts and 48 other states.

It is now clear that the words "sperm" and "egg" are going to be used to refer cells that merely act and look like sperm and eggs, whether they come from a male or female won't matter. So, the "Hole In The Massachusetts Egg And Sperm Law" I wrote about last week is definitely there, and surely intentional. I will not bother to change the name of this blog, or of the Egg and Sperm Compromise, because I feel it still conveys the spirit of requiring a man and a woman's gametes. But now I will have to make clear that the "Egg and Sperm Law" is actually a "sperm of a man and egg of a woman law".

The hole in the Massachusetts egg and sperm law

2008-01-29T11:05:00.000-05:00

Massachusetts actually already has an "egg and sperm law", enacted in 2005, that bans implanting embryos that are "not initiated by the union of an oocyte [egg] and sperm." This was part of the law that legalized SCNT stem cell research in order to lure biotech and pharmaceutical firms to Massachusetts, but this part got so little notice amidst all the talk about legalizing SCNT for stem cell research that I never realized it existed before. But is it a good enough "egg and sperm" law?

Unfortunately, like the PCBE's 2004 recommendations, it doesn't define "oocyte" or "sperm" or say if they can be engineered or derived from stem cells.

The law appears intentionally vague about requiring a man and a woman to reproduce with their natural gametes, in the very same way the PCBE's carefully chosen "two progenitors" language does. Clearly the intention is to allow people to use sperm or eggs depending on who they were hoping to conceive with, and to allow labs to create engineered gametes.

In contrast, Missouri's law limits the creation of children to the union of "sperm of a human male" and "egg of a human female", enforcing that they be actual gametes not just based on, but of an actual male and female. Of course, now there's the question of defining male and female and whether they mean legal sex or "most-likely-to-conceive-as-sex".

The legal sex of the people providing the genetic material is obviously immaterial to the lab-level ethics of trying to join their genes, but legal sex would be the first thing to check, and a lab would have to turn away people publicly of the same sex, because they are publicly prohibited. If they are not publicly prohibited, they are legally a man and a woman, but a lab might find that they were privately the same sex, and so they'd privately be prohibited from treating the couple. A legal sex-change shouldn't make it legal to do the very same unsafe genetic experiments that same-sex conception would require.

And finally, no matter what the Massachusetts law says, it is useless if another state (New Jersey, perhaps?) allows labs to attempt same-sex conception, or conception using modified or tricked gametes. Couples will just travel to New Jersey to perform the implantation and skirt around their own state's law. This is why we need a Federal law, to comply with international treaties and so that one selfish short-sighted state doesn't screw up human dignity and honor for the whole world.

It's 2008!

2008-01-03T21:08:00.001-05:00

It was in 2005 that Dr. Richard Scott, the respected, award-winning fertility doctor at Reproductive Medicine Associates in Morristown, New Jersey, made the following prediction in a GayCityNews.com interview regarding same-sex conception using stem cell-derived engineered gametes:

“I think in the next three to five years we could see children come out of this discovery, if the research continues to progress at this pace.”

2005 plus three equals 2008! That's like, uh, now! We should not allow Dr. Richard Scott or anyone to go forward with these experiments on people. We need a law stopping them immediately, before they try it!

Obama and Clinton on same-sex rights

2008-01-03T18:52:00.000-05:00

Clinton and Obama each issued very different statements about New Hampshire civil unions taking effect on January 1st, revealing, perhaps, how each feels about postgenderism. Obama says he will work for the day when same-sex couples have the "same legal rights and privileges as straight couples" (he means male-female couples), whereas Clinton lauded NH for "fair and equal treatment" of same-sex couples and sees "preserving the rights and freedom of all" as the important thing.

The NH law is very silly, since it explicitly gives all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples but inexplicably doesn't call them marriages. As we know, people should not have the same right to conceive children with a person of either sex, only with a person of the other sex. And we know that having children together should be a guaranteed right of all marriages. Rudy Giuliani criticized New Hampshire's CU's in spite of his support of CU's, because these go "too far" by giving all the rights of marriage, and perhaps Hillary Clinton agrees on this point even though she doesn't call attention to it.

I think this unfortunately rules out Obama, revealing him to be a postgenderist, or at least dangerously ignorant of what it means to be "working for" postgenderism. We need to preserve the rights of all, not make everyone's right to conceive naturally "equal" to their right to use genetic engineering. Postgenderism and transhumanism directly attack natural conception rights by imposing the "better" option of using genetically engineered genes to create children instead of a person's own genes. To preserve the rights of all people, we need to prohibit genetic engineering and preserve the right of all marriages to conceive with their own gametes.

Huckabee needs help on marriage question

2007-12-07T16:29:00.002-05:00

It seems Mike Huckabee is looking for a way to explain exactly what marriage means and why it should not be given to same-sex couples. Same-sex marriage wouldn't necessarily "redefine" marriage, unless the question of conception rights for same-sex couples was decided separately, and then only if same-sex conception was prohibited. Same-sex marriage would give all the rights of marriage, including the right to have or attempt to have biological offspring, to same-sex couples. As long as same-sex conception is allowed (and it is, in every state except Missouri), then it changes marriage's meaning more to deny marriage to same-sex couples than it does to allow it. And it would change marriage's meaning just as much to deny a married same-sex couple the right to attempt to create biologically related children together, which we would do if we were to enact a law against human genetic engineering while still allowing same-sex marriage.

We need to preserve marriage's conception rights, by affirming that every marriage has the right to conceive offspring using the couple's own gametes. And we need to prevent genetic engineering, by prohibiting all methods of creating a person except joining two people's (unengineered) gametes, which means fertilizing a woman's egg with a man's sperm. Same-sex conception requires genetic engineering.

Marriage equals conception rights. The question is, should we allow same-sex conception or not? Does a person have the same right to conceive with someone of either sex, or only with someone - publicly, legally - of the opposite public, legal sex? That is what we need to ask before allowing same-sex marriage, or else we are changing marriage's meaning by stripping it of the guaranteed right to conceive children with the couples own genes.

What exactly does "strengthening marriage for a new generation" mean?

2007-11-23T23:20:00.000-05:00

That's the slogan of Maggie Gallagher's Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, aka MarriageDebate.com. It occurs to me that their "new generation" is the generation that will have to deal with genetic engineering and same-sex conception. Maggie and her mutually-credentializing network of academics are, I truly believe, tasked with figuring out how to keep marriage meaningful after babies are no longer the union of the spouses. It's as if the geneticists realized back in the 80's how incompatible their eugenic engineering program was with marriage, and so they connived to have a "marriage debate" where they would manipulate both side's messages so that marriage winds up redefined away from the historical meaning of conception rights and to a "parenting" or "relationship" model that is compatible with genetic engineered children, and also to use gay people to justify developing same-sex conception and open the door for actually creating children.

Yes, it seems like paranoia, but why else would Maggie and her friends at other blogs stifle the argument that same-sex couples should not have conception rights, and that all marriages should have conception rights? It really must be because they don't actually believe those things. They must believe that same-sex couples should have conception rights (Leon Kass said it would have to be settled in court, which explains the murky "two progenitors" language in his PCBE recommendations). I hope Maggie embarrasses me by coming out in favor of a ban on conceiving children that are not the union of a man and a woman's own natural genes, but I really think she's contractually bound and ideologically committed and she will never do that.

It would also be good for Leon Kass to explain why the PCBE didn't say "sperm of a human male" and "egg of a human female" like the Missouri Egg and Sperm law said. They did not want to prohibit using egg and sperm cells derived from adult stem cells, or say more than that children should have "two genetic parents." Why? He's on this task force with Maggie, that's why. And Wesley Smith, too. And Opine (they closed comments on my guest post). And heck, Bush and Romney too - all manipulating us into a "new generation". Until these people say they are for natural sexual reproduction rights and opposed to all genetic engineering of people, I'll stick with my paranoia that this debate is seriously rigged.

Banned again

2007-11-18T17:46:00.000-05:00

So, after allowing me three diaries, Pam banned me from Pam's House Blend when I asked her in an Open Thread what her priorities were, equal protections or same-sex conception? Again, like Blue Mass Group and Daily Kos, I've been banned for bringing up the subject of same-sex conception, not for any rules infraction. Pam never addressed the issue, and actually deleted my comments from the open thread. My diaries are still there though. Ironically, even Dan Kennedy ignores me when I suggest that this story should win one of his "Muzzle Awards" for stories that are kept out of the media by the media. Currently, I have a guest post up at the anti-SSM blog Opine Editorials, after having had all my comments deleted form their other threads because they too don't like the subject. I can understand LGBT blogs like Pam's considering the issue too upsetting to deal with, but it's hard to fathom why Opine (and MarriageDebate, AnchorRising, SecondhandSmoke, and all of the "Family" organizations I've contacted) wants to suppress this subject also. Thanks to KnowThyNeighbor for not banning me there yet.

Transgenderism = Postgenderism?

2007-11-01T10:57:00.000-05:00

The Wikipedia entry on "postgenderism" has been merged with the entry on "Transgenderism", because according to the wiki entry:

More recently, the term has also been used as a synonym for postgenderism, a social philosophy which seeks the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies.

It is good to see that people are recognizing the shared beliefs of transhumanists and LGBT activists finally, and stating the goals out loud:

According to futurist George Dvorsky, postgenderism is a diverse social, political and cultural movement whose adherents affirm the voluntary elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies. Advocates of postgenderism argue that the presence of gender roles, social stratification, and sexual dimorphisms are generally to the detriment of individuals and society. Given the radical potential for advanced assistive reproductive options, postgenderists believe that sex for reproductive purposes will either eventually become a thing of the past or that all human beings will have the ability, if they so choose, to both carry a pregnancy to term and father a child, placing the entire need for gender and gender differences into question.

And it's been a theme of feminism for a while now too. In 1991 socialist feminist Donna Haraway published an essay, "A Cyborg Manifesto", in which

Haraway argued that women would only be freed from their biological restraints when their reproductive obligations were dispensed with. In other words, Haraway believes that women will only achieve true liberation once they become postbiological organisms, or postgendered.

This entry does not mention any of the risks or costs involved, it just lays out the psychological demand for same-sex conception and artificial wombs. And it doesn't get into whether the people being created would also be genetically engineered, but it's clear they would support that as well, because transhumanists are postgenderists are transgenderists are LGBT activists are transhumanists. They are all unsatisfied with natural man-woman conception and oppose an Egg and Sperm law.

Btw, the wiki on Transhumanism has a section called "controversy" that presents some common arguments against transhumanism that is worth a read.

Trans rights and the Egg and Sperm law

2007-10-17T19:00:00.000-05:00

The recent focus on trans inclusion in ENDA led me to bring up the issue of conception rights and marriage for trans people over at Pams House Blend. The conversation was predictable, with extremists claiming a right to attempt to conceive as whichever sex they want to, but it was also a good conversation that brought up lots of issues. I eventually came to a satisfying (to me) conclusion about how trans people, including intersexed people, would have their rights be affected by an Egg and Sperm law.

First of all, the Egg and Sperm law would have no effect or impact on how people live or as what gender they present. It would not effect laws about changing gender, or the rights of people who have changed gender, nor would it force intersexed people to live as or legally be their most viable sex. But it would limit conception rights to unmodified gametes and therefore prohibit a lab from attempting to reverse the person's genetic methylation to create opposite sex gametes for someone. Same-sex conception doesn't become a right just because a person changes their legal, public sex.

People should only have a right to conceive as the sex which they are most likely to be able to supply a viable unmodified gamete as. The Egg and Sperm law will have to clarify the words "man" and "woman" and "egg" and "sperm" by defining egg and sperm as being "the gamete of a woman" and "the gamete of a man" respectively, and then define "man" as someone who, if healthy, would be most likely to conceive by joining their unmodified gamete with a generic healthy random woman.

So when couple comes to a fertility lab to make a baby together, the lab would have to make an assessment about which sex each person would have their best shot at conceiving as with their unmodified gamete. If those turn out to be the same, then the lab would be prevented by the egg and sperm law, even if the couple is a legally married man and a woman (if the couple were legally of the same sex, they would be publicly banned and the lab would have to refuse them even before looking at their genes).

At first I was worried that this would create marriages that did not have conception rights, but realized that their loss of conception rights is private, because legally, to the public, the couple is a man and a woman and has conception rights. Only the lab would know that they were prohibited from conceiving. So their marriage would not strip conception rights from marriage like a same-sex marriage would (if we had an Egg and Sperm law), because a same-sex marriage is publicly prohibited, it is a legal public fact that a same-sex couple is prohibited.

So that is good news, trans people have nothing to fear from an Egg and Sperm law, they would still have every right they have today.

Revealing discussion

2007-09-20T18:11:00.000-05:00

Check out how strongly in favor of same-sex conception some people are over at the KnowThyNeighbor blog. Not only does old friend "musclehippy" want it legal, he apparently thinks all births should be genetically engineered, artificially incubated, same-sex conceived births, because apparently "heteros" don't have the gene for "world peace".

It is shocking how they value conception rights over achieving equal protections, they actually say that they "do not care" about how their position is hurting same-sex couples nationwide. "No compromise!" they say.

Another shocking thing is learning that anti-SSM Opine Editorials contributer ("Genghis Cohen" at KTN, "Christian" at Opine), does not support the Compromise because he believes it would be ethical to genetically engineer children to avoid genetic diseases, and does not believe that all marriages should have a right to have natural children, and apparently that children should be allowed to sue their parents if they did not use available genetic engineering to avoid a known genetic defect. He doesn't even seem to oppose same-sex conception, so it is hard to understand why he opposes same-sex marriage. Well, please read the discussion to see what I said to him...

How long did Kaguya live?

2007-09-01T01:47:00.000-05:00

Most lab mice live two years, if they are not killed in an experiment. Kaguya would be almost three and a half now (she was born in early 2004) so Kaguya, the first animal with two parents of the same sex, has probably died by now. There were no follow up stories on her lifespan, we only know that she survived to adulthood and had a litter, which usually happens at about 50 days. Did she make it two years? How are her children doing? Did anyone ever repeat the experiment, in mice or other animals?

Missouri group trying to revoke nation's only Egg and Sperm law

2007-08-23T13:58:00.000-05:00

A group calling itself "Cures Without Cloning" is trying to change the law in Missouri, supposedly strengthening it to prevent creation of cloned embryos, but what they are actually trying to do is make genetic engineering and same-sex conception legal in Missouri again. Their proposed new law would remove the language that prohibits implanting a human embryo that was not created by joining the sperm of a human male to the egg of a human female, even though there is no reason to remove that language in order to prohibit the creation of cloned embryos. And since all a scientist would have to do to get around the new law is make one change to the genome so it is no longer "virtually identical" to an existing person, it would not even prevent scientists from creating and destroying human embryos to their hearts content. Surely they are aware of these issues, so the only conclusion one can make is that they are intentionally trying to revoke the nations first anti-genetic engineering natural conception law and open the door to designer babies and same-sex conception, cynically trying to use people's opposition to cloning to re-legalize genetic engineering.

So make no mistake, Missourians, this is a con job. If you want to make it illegal to create embryos for destruction in stem cell research, then change the law so it prohibits creation, rather than only implantation, of human embryos that are "anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male".

DailyKos poll shows right priorities

2007-08-04T18:29:00.001-05:00

I raised the issue of same-sex conception over at DailyKos, and in spite of the objections of a few commenters (about ten commenters who strenuously objected to the whole subject banded together and "troll rated" enough of my comments to get me "autobanned"), my simple poll suggests that a majority of readers there agree with the priorities of the "egg and sperm civil union compromise." I asked "Which is more important for same-sex couples?", and as of today there are 23 votes for "Marriage and the right to create genetic offspring together" and 28 votes for "Federal recognition of CUs and recognition by more states." That's close, and it is still quite shocking that 45% feel that conception rights and the word marriage are more important than giving same-sex couples federal recognition right now, but it should be encouraging for the candidates that have taken a civil unions position.

Here are my three diaries on the subject. Unfortunately most of my responses to their comments have been hidden, though I think you can see them by looking at my "comments" tab. It should be noted that, as on BlueMassGroup, it was raising the issue of conception rights for same-sex couples that people objected to, not any rules infraction.

Focus on the Federal!

2007-06-14T20:05:00.000-05:00

Great news! My prediction that the marriage amendment would be put before Massachusetts voters in order to divert the issue away from the national elections turned out to be overly cynical, as it was defeated soundly. I dreaded wasting a year and a half on an amendment that wouldn't even annul existing marriages and wouldn't prevent same-sex conception, but now we can change the debate and turn our focus to the federal issue exclusively now. Knowing that we will still have same-sex marriages here in 2009 forces the candidates for President to explain their Civil Union positions a little bit more clearly. Here's hoping the issue of same-sex conception quickly finds its way to the top of the discussion.

"Mr. Worthton"

2007-06-13T19:09:00.000-05:00

Here's a little personal "baby blogging", except my baby is 25 years old and is a song I made with my friend Phil. We recorded it in 1982 on his reel to reel multitrack when I was 16 and Phil was 17 or 18. I think I played drums and overdubbed bass, and Phil played guitar and sang the vocal, and I wrote the words. The words are why I am posting it, because I want to people to know that I have been worried about people being replaced by artificial conception for a long time. And this song is a humorous story about a man who is replaced by a computer, in the mold of "Smithers-Jones" by The Jam and "Mr. Webster" by The Monkees. And I guess I want to commemorate it being 25 years old this year (one of our first songs and still probably my best work). Ah, well. Sorry about the hiss, it's copied from an old cassette mix I have. Enjoy.

The secret demand for same-sex conception

2007-06-05T11:52:00.000-05:00

Though you'd never learn it from reading their posts, the readers at BlueMassGroup.com blog overwhelmingly demand a right for same-sex couples to have children by genetic engineering, voting 15 to 1 that it should remain legal. And my poll was clear that it was about using genetic engineering, not using IVF and donor gametes, and about attempting it today, not at some point in the future if it is declared safe. This is the necessary position that follows from their dogmatic equal marriage rights position, they are forced to be advocates for genetic engineering because the right to conceive together is a right of marriage.

ConCon report

2007-05-10T12:09:00.000-05:00

The VoteOnMarriage folks seemed to outnumber the MassEquality side this time, and I handed out about a hundred more flyers to them, including one to Kris Mineau, who seemed interested to learn about same-sex conception (thanks to the people manning the phones at VOM, who seem to have kept their leader ignorant of the most important issue). I was also surprised that Mark Solomon of MassEquality had never heard of EggAndSperm, he took a few minutes to talk to me. He wondered why I thought gay people shouldn't be allowed to have children, and I explained that it wasn't about sperm donation but about actual conception, and he still wondered why that would be genetic engineering, so I explained about genetic imprinting and how genetic engineering is required to get a viable embryo from same-sex parents. He seemed skeptical of any ethical or scientific reasons to prevent same-sex conception. It is notable that he didn't bother to say "what does it have to do with marriage", he immediately moved on to the "why shouldn't it be allowed?" question. I think he might have really heard me when I said that same-sex couples would rather have federal equal protections than a right to be exploited by big biotech into attempting these experiments.

Judiciary Committee alerted

2007-05-02T17:49:00.001-05:00

I just delivered hard copy letters to all 15 members of the Judiciary Committee regarding Senate 918, along with print outs of the Independent and GayCityNews articles on same-sex conception. I told the aides I was hoping to get a response, we'll see how that works out. Here's what the letters said:

Dear Representative Webster [no, they didn't all say that],

I have some questions regarding Senate 918, the bill that would amend the laws regarding marriage by adding "any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender."

Chapter 207 sections 1 and 2 contain very gender specific relations that a man and a woman may not marry. Is the intent of the law to prohibit the opposite gender equivalent, or to allow a man to marry his brother's son, for example? The two sections are not exactly parallel, for a man can marry his son's wife, but a woman may not marry her daughter's husband, so this may result in a conflict within the law.

And a much more important question: Does marriage convey an implied right to conceive children together, or can the state prohibit a marriage from conceiving offspring? In other words, would same-sex marriage allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive children together, using new genetic engineering techniques that are being developed? Would it be possible to prohibit same-sex conception if there are same-sex marriages, according to the constitutional understanding of marriage rights? Could the SJC be queried if this effect of the law is unclear?

Because it requires unethical experiments with genetic engineering, same-sex conception should be not be allowed. Many ethicists agree that all attempts at conception that do not combine a man's sperm and a woman's egg should be banned, indeed an amendment was just passed in Missouri that prohibits implanting embryos created any other way.

I also think that all marriages should be allowed to conceive their own children; no marriage should be prohibited from combining their gametes. I therefore have been proposing that Civil Unions be created that would be exactly like marriage in every way, except they would not give the couple the right to conceive children together, using their own gametes. This would be consistent with a ban on implanting genetically engineered embryos, while preserving the "basic civil right of man to marry and procreate."

Please consider this issue carefully, as same-sex conception is possible today, and could be tried in humans in only one or two years, and our decisions now about legalizing same-sex marriage might tie our hands when it comes to deciding if same-sex conception should be allowed. Please visit www.eggandsperm.org for links to news reports on same-sex conception experiments.

Looking forward to hearing back from you regarding my questions.

Thank you
John Howard

Definition of Marriage

2007-04-12T20:59:00.000-05:00

Jennifer Roback Morse reviews David Blankenhorn's "Future of Marriage" here. They each take a stab at a definition of marriage:

Morse: "Marriage is society’s preferred context for both sexual activity and child-rearing."
Blankenhorn: "Marriage is socially approved sexual intercourse between a man and a woman conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are– and are understood by society to be– emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents."

Neither of these is strong enough, and not true in all cases. Many marriages are not socially approved, such as when a female school teacher marries her student as soon as he turns 18, etc. Instead of "socially approved", how about "legal", "permitted", "allowed", etc? Those would be true of all marriages. And both authors act mystified about the connection between sex and children.
Here is what I would offer as the definition of marriage:

"Marriage is the right to conceive children together."

The one constant in Stephanie Coontz's "Marriage, a History" is that every marriage was allowed to conceive children together. And that definition fits both Blankenhorn's and Morse's definitions also.
And "conception rights" are very relevent today, since we now need to ask if we should allow same-sex couples to conceive children together. We shouldn't use a definition of marriage that implies that this is a seperate question, or that society can only "prefer" or "approve" but cannot actually go so far as to prohibit or allow. We need to prohibit same-sex conception, and preserve marriage as guaranteeing the right to conceive children together.

Jacoby misses another chance

2007-02-27T17:54:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jacoby apparently doesn't read this blog. All marriages are allowed to try to conceive children together - not required to, allowed to. But same-sex couples should not be allowed to conceive children together, because it requires unsafe experiments in genetic engineering to make their genes combine. It is hard to believe, but there are scientists working on this. A mouse was created in 2004 from two female parents, but the success rate was under one percent. In spite of the risks, there are people that insist that same-sex couples should be allowed to try it, right now. Congress should act immediately to enact a law prohibiting this with human beings, to protect children. Only a man and a woman should be allowed to conceive children together.

This is a slightly edited version of a letter to the Globe that won't get printed.

No on HB 1710

2007-02-18T02:53:00.000-05:00

Wow, it looks like there will be another chance to convince the Massachusetts legislature not to extend marriage rights - conception rights - to same-sex couples. MassResistance reports that Byron Rushing has filed a bill:

House Bill 1710:
An Act to Protect Massachusetts Families Through Equal Access to Marriage
SECTION 1. Chapter 207 is hereby amended by adding the following new section:—
Section 37A. Any person who otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of this chapter may marry any other eligible person regardless of gender.

Another opportunity to visit the statehouse and make sure all the legislators understand they are voting on allowing same-sex conception. Same-sex couples should not have the right to conceive chhildren together, due to the extreme health risks of the child and the extreme irresponsibility and wastefullness of attempting it. Every couple that is eligible for marriage has the right to conceive children together (guaranteed for as long as they are married), and no couples that are not eligble for marriage have the right to conceive children together.

Silly Washington Amendment

2007-02-11T16:24:00.000-05:00

so, this group out in Washington state has drafted an amendment that lots of bloggers are discussing. The amendment would require a marriage to procreate within three years to be a valid marriage, and their intent is to point out that traditional marriage defenders are wrong when they claim that marriage requires procreation. Which of course no one has ever claimed. Marriage grants the right to conceive, it doesn't require it. This right to conceive, or really the right to do things that might result in conception, lasts the duration of the marriage, whether they use it or not. The couple cannot be prohibited from conceiving. Same-sex couples should not be granted the right to conceive. Silly proposals like this expend lots of energy, and these silly arguments would go away if traditional marriage defenders used this argument.

The Corner on Eugenics

2007-01-04T17:14:00.000-05:00

John Derbyshire reveals that he is an unabashed eugenicist over at the Corner. (hat tip Secondhand Smoke). I always wondered why he didn't respond to my emails about same-sex conception, and worried it might be because he felt it was a free-market issue. Looks like I was right. But doesn't he see the coming collision? Wesley suggested I email him my question myself, and I posted it here also:

I thought John Derbyshire was opposed to gay marriage, so it is strange that he is pro-eugenics and feels the marketplace should dictate conception practices.

Perhaps he is unaware that the marketplace is working on ways for same-sex couples to conceive children together, by genetically engineering "sperm" for women and "eggs" for men. If Derb is for allowing labs to try whatever they want, then he must be for allowing people to try to conceive with someone of their same sex. But he thinks that these same people should not be allowed to marry the person they intend on conceiving children with?

What sort of message is that to send about marriage? "You can conceive children together, but you can't marry?" That officially says that we don't care if you are married or not if you have kids, which isn't the usual conservative opinion. Maybe that is Derb's eccentric position? I hope not.

My hope is that he will reconcile this by looking into same-sex conception and agreeing that it is unethical and should be prohibited. We just need a simple law that sets harsh penalties for all the parties involved in the attempt, no matter where in the world they actually carry out the procedure.

The only thing with a right to conceive children is a marriage, using the genes of that marriage.

Saletan mentions Kaguya

2006-12-30T16:35:00.000-05:00

William Saletan has finally taken note of Kaguya, and he seems to take for granted that there is a right to attempt same-sex conception. And Elizabeth Marquardt responds with the facts about the extreme risks of birth defects, and wonders if he would attempt it for his own children. But while I am happy to see Kaguya being discussed, I wish Elizabeth would argue that it shouldn't be allowed at all, that we can't let people decide for themselves if the risks are acceptable. Instead, she is essentially agreeing with Saletan that there is a right to attempt it, but suggesting that people just shouldn't. The desire to have children together is incredibly strong, and we already know the lengths that heterosexual couples go to to have children together, and how they accept the higher risks to the child. And medical privacy and the right of a marriage to attempt to conceive probably means we cannot prohibit couples from attempting IVF. But medical privacy is not an issue with same-sex couples, we do not have to allow people to conceive with someone of their own sex, there are very supportable basis to prohibit people from attempting it or having the right to attempt it.

But in spite of her again not calling for a ban, I'm very grateful for her repeating the now famous numbers and arguing against attempting it. Thanks!

"Postgenderism"

2006-11-11T16:12:00.000-05:00

A frequent argument I hear is that "no one is advocating same-sex conception." Well, clicking around on Wikipedia, I clicked on "postgenderism."
From the entry: "George Dvorsky is a transhumanist thinker who coined the term "postgenderism" to describe a social philosophy which seeks the elimination of gender in the human species through the application of advanced biotechnology and assisted reproductive technologies." Read the whole entry; lots of people seriously advocate for this.

Missouri's egg and sperm law

2006-11-08T15:40:00.000-05:00

Did anyone notice that in passing Missouri's Stem Cell initiative, voters there passed the nation's first egg and sperm law? And that was the least controversial part of the initiative. If that was the only issue in the Amendment, I bet it would have gotten 99% of the vote.

No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
"Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

Of course, it is also a very useless egg and sperm law, as all it does is prohibit the actual implantation, presumably within the borders of Missouri. It does not say what would happen if a Missouri lab created the embryo with Missouri money, Missouri researchers, and Missouri progenators, but they simply drove to Illinois to perform the implantation. It doesn't look like that would break the law.

We need a Federal egg and sperm law, and it has to prohibit more than just implantation. It has to prohibit the conception of children from anything other than a man's sperm and a woman's egg, and I mean conception in the most conceptual meaning conceivable. It has to rule out the very idea of a person that isn't the union of a man and a woman's gametes, and prohibit people from attempting realize that idea no matter what country they plan on doing it in. And it has to have no statute of limitations, it has to be enforceable when any of the parties involved in the attempt return to US soil. (The person created is not a party to the attempt, obviously. But the progenators, the scientists, and the owners of the lab would all be guilty and subject to fines and imprisonment).

Other countries would surely follow in enacting egg and sperm laws, and the UN is already way ahead on this issue, with both a cloning ban (that the US has not ratified) and a declaration of the rights of children (that the US has not ratified). If there is some Island of Dr. Sullivan where same-sex couples can conceive children, they will have to live the rest of their lives there.

Some exchanges on other blogs

2006-11-01T14:29:00.000-05:00

I googled "same-sex conception" and found lots of my own posts on other blogs, where I have tried to introduce the bloggers to issue of same-sex conception, usually to no avail. These arguments are all pretty similar, you might want to read some of them to see how they usually end up with the other person "bowing out".

Balkinization (and an old one here)
Blue Mass Group (and here and here)
Alas, A Blog
Creative Destruction (and here and here)
Marriage Debate (Maggie has refused to talk about same-sex conception)
Greater Boston Blog
Althouse Blog (and her only response here)

Stem cell article taken down

2006-10-25T10:12:00.000-05:00

The GayCityNews article "Scientist's hope of two genetic dads" has been removed from their site. Does that have anything to do with my publicity campaign? I suspect it does, as there is a blatant effort to keep people ignorant of this field of research. But they can't remove the archived copy on the web.archive.org site, and I'll copy the text of the article as a comment to this post just in case.

Oh, and here is the website of Dr. Richard Scott's fertility company, Reproductive Medicine Associates.

10,000 flyers

2006-10-24T18:47:00.000-05:00

I've passed out 10,000 flyers now, and my sign has been read by probably ten times that number, so my estimation is that 100,000 people are now aware that there is such a thing as same-sex conception.

"The Revolution in Parenthood"

2006-09-25T20:39:00.000-05:00

Elizabeth Marquardt at FamilyScholars.org and the Institute of American Values has just published a remarkable report on everything going on lately with marriage and parenting and conception technology. She includes the work being done on same-sex reproduction technology, and asks the question in footnote 84 "How can anyone even consider experimenting with human embryos and children in this way?"

Well, the answer is, they can consider it because it is not prohibited. They are almost obligated to consider it, because it's a legal solution to the problems of donors and step families and all the other problems in the report. How can they not consider it? So, in the serious discussion she calls for, I raise this point right away: We have to take this choice out of people's hands. We have to prohibit it, so that people cannot even consider experimenting with human embryos and children in this way. We have to tell researchers what to work on and what not to work on, so that they do the boring stuff like keep us existing people healthy.

Congratulations to Elizabeth, this report is a real masterpiece, a great work. (and footnote 84 warmed my heart, I've typed those numbers on her blog so many times!)

My letter to the Governor

2006-09-22T14:52:00.001-05:00

I mailed off a letter to Governor Romney today. They say letters will be answered in one to two weeks and I "will get a response." It's kind of long so I will copy it as a comment to this post.

Flyer Campaign pt 1

2006-09-18T23:51:00.000-05:00

Well, it's primary day here in Massachusetts, and we've just finished passing out 3,000 flyers all over the state. Thanks to everyone who took it and read it, and thanks to my friends for passing them out with me. It was gratifying to see how much interest there was in this topic. People would stop in their tracks and stand and read the whole flyer, and come back and ask questions. It was heartening to hear that most people are very opposed to this research.

Most importantly, I think the flyer succeeded in bringing this issue to the attention of the candidates. They heard from people.

I was thrown out of a Reilly event in Malden, literally picked up and thrown out the door, because I showed up with these flyers. I had agreed already not to distribute them inside, but I wanted to have them with me, as they are the key to the flyering campaign, pt 1. I wasn't about to let them shut me up for the whole duration of the event and not get a chance to present one to Reilly or talk with him about it. So I was told to leave, and since I was being kicked out anyway, I decided I may as well hand them out to everyone I could until the guy literally and loudly threw me out. Reilly campaign staffers hoped for less of a scene, but they didn't want me there either. I retreated to the sidewalk and continued to pass them out, but had to split cause they said they called the police for tresspassing or something. So that was fun.

And a guy from Fox25 News took interest while we were at the State House yesterday, and said they might think about running a feature story on the issue. So that is cool too.

After today the race will be down to four (Kerry Healy, Christy Mihos, Grace Ross, and whoever wins the Dem primary) so it is time for a new flyer, and Flyer Campaign pt 2.

The Compromise

2006-05-09T17:06:00.000-05:00

I propose a compromise to resolve the marriage debate that I think everyone should support. It is based on the univerally acknowledged need for same-sex procreation to be thoroughly examined and declared safe before allowing any lab to attempt to create a person that is not the union of a man and a woman. Until same-sex conception is declared safe and acceptable, same-sex couples should not have a right to attempt it, and this difference in rights from both-sex marriages (which all have a right to attempt to conceive) would simply be acknowledged in name. If and when same-sex conception is considered safe and Congress decides to allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive, they will do that by changing same-sex civil unions to marriages. Marriage will continue unchanged, always granting the couple conception rights.

In return, the federal government would officially recognize state civil unions as if they were marriages, including paying the social security and tax benefits that the federal government gives marriages. (and the federal government could encourage all states to offer civil unions, since their main objection (that they are marriage in all but name) would no longer be true)

The "tradtitional marriage" side would get to preserve the word marriage, and clearly differentiate it from civil unions in the most substantial way, preserving equal conception rights for all people and preventing unethical manufacture of genetically modified people. This would ban reproductive cloning also, effectively ending that debate as well. (It would not affect the debate about therapuetic cloning, as that does not attempt to create people). The cost of federal benefits for civil unions would be quite minimal, though it certainly is a cost.

The SSM side would get federal benefits and a much greater liklihood of civil unions in all 50 states. They would only give up something that is not even possible and might never be, but they would give up the pretense that same-sex couples have equal rights to both sex couples and acknowledge that people only have a right to conceive with someone of the other sex.

The people who do not support this compromise should have to convince us that, depending on why they don't support it, same-sex couples should be allowed *today* to attempt to conceive children together in spite of the risks, or that committed civilly-unioned same-sex couples should not be entitled to federal benefits.

Are the pundits giving cover for SSC?

2006-03-13T14:15:00.000-05:00

Why has Maggie Gallagher never stated a position on banning Same-sex conception? Why does Sara Butler Nardo say she thinks same-sex couples should have the same reproductive rights as male-female couples?

Could it possibly be that they are not against SSC? DO they feel that it is not something that can be banned? Would they just rather not think about it?

whatever the case, the refusal of the leading 'pro-marriage' pundits to even acknowldge that there is an issue is a big problem, because lots of people think that pro-marriage pundits are doing all they can, making the best arguments, and manning the brigades.

I'm hoping Maggie will explain her position here.

"in three to five years"

2005-09-28T15:53:00.000-05:00

This article quotes a fertility doctor who says he expects to see children come out of new technology that uses stem cells to help same-sex couples have children together in three to five years.

Jacoby misses chance

2005-08-30T13:35:00.000-05:00

It's great that Jeff Jacoby brings up the question of adult consensual incest, but he missed an opportunity to educate about marriage. Siblings are not allowed to marry, because marriage is a license to procreate, and siblings are not allowed to procreate (hence their being thrown in jail for incest). Marriages that are found to be between siblings are immediately declared null and void, even if they have no children and don't intend to have children, because only couples that have a right to have children together are allowed to be married.
The interesting question then is do same-sex couples have a right to have children together? The technology to create a child genetically related to two same-sex parents is currently being developed. In experiments in mice, it took 457 tries to get one mouse, named "Kaguya", to survive to adulthood, with the other 456 all dying at various stages along the way (10 were born alive but died shortly afterwards). I feel that the risks to the child are far too great, and will always be far too great, to allow this sort of experimentation in humans. Same-sex procreation must be prohibited, along with all other forms of procreation that do not combine a man's sperm and a woman's egg. Civil unions could be created to give committed same-sex couples, and perhaps even siblings, most of the rights of marriage, but they should not be given the right to attempt to procreate together that is the right of every marriage.

Causes in Common

2005-07-21T12:44:00.000-05:00

Here's a LGBT website that makes some strong claims for procreation rights. Basically, they want no regulation at all, and they insist that it must be affordable and safe (meaning, we subsidize the research and pay for the procedures), so that they have the same practical ability to have children that opposite sex marriages have naturally. While they don't mention same-sex procreation and seem to focus on access to donor conception and surrogacy, there is no doubt that when they say they want full autonomy to make reproduction decisions, that they are opposed to any ban on anything. So, it is not just me who points out how gay rights are in conflict with responsible ethical procreation, gay rights groups are not very shy about it either. When gay rights groups said it was about hospital visitation, they were not telling the whole truth.

Another scholar on board!

2005-07-21T11:29:00.000-05:00

It's picking up steam now. David Blankenhorn has made a presentation (read it here) in which he also calls for "children's rights":

2. Every child has the right to a natural biological heritage, defined as the union of the father’s sperm and the mother’s egg. Society should typically refrain from actions that would efface or deny the child’s natural biological heritage, or what the French philosopher Sylvianne Agacinski calls the child’s double origin.

He bases much of his thinking on the the testimony of Narelle Grech, so I hope it's not too self-congratulatory to point out that she said back in February: "Johnny Moral, I think you are tops! All of your comments have made me smile, and say “yeah!” out loud." I am very proud of that, but of course, that was a while ago, I probably now have competition from David Blankenhorn and Margaret Somerville for who is "tops".

Children's Rights

2005-07-17T15:39:00.000-05:00

Margaret Somerville has written a new column here in which she calls for new legislation of "children's rights." She writes:

These rights should include: (1) The right to be conceived with a natural biological heritage -- that is, to have unmodified biological origins -- in particular, to be conceived from a natural sperm from one identified man and a natural ovum from one identified woman; and (2) the right to know the identity of one's biological parents.

This is better language than the PCBE's proposal (which this site is dedicated to enacting) because she adds the words "unmodified", "natural", "identifiable", and "man" and "woman". I agree that the law must add those important words, or else someone will try to call a sperm an egg or something (in spite of the proper defintion of sperm as being a "male gamete", ie, the gamete of a male).
And she is doing a great job of selling it by tying it in with donor conception, and referring to the growing chorus of donor conceived adults who want to save other people from being conceived the way they were. I wouldn't have thought to consider these issues together, but by putting them under the same heading of "children's rights", she comes up with a great new approach.
I disagree with her choice to imply that same-sex marriage can coexist with her first right, as it would create, for the first time in history, marriages that, by law, cannot procreate. Usually, we don't give marriage licenses to couples that are prohibited from procreating together, and I think it is a terrible mistake to start now. I assume she does that so that "children's rights" don't get caught up in the SSM debate, and it's true they are important on their own. But I think it works better to link them together.

Egg and sperm from stem cells

2005-06-20T15:19:00.000-05:00

This article says they've now 'proved' that egg and sperm can be derived from embryonic stem cells. The article doesn't say if either sperm or eggs could be made from the same person's cloned embryo, but I assume so. Would this be a way for a same-sex couple to get around an egg and sperm law? No, mainly because of safety issues again, which are insurmountable. The article notes that it would have to be proven safe, because "the culture process may cause genetic changes". Also, by definition, eggs come from women, and sperm from men, so even if you created something that had a tail and could fertilize an egg, if it was a woman's gamete, then it could not be called a sperm, it could only be called an egg that functioned like a sperm. This process has already been forseen by the President's Council, which is why they specified that the egg and sperm should be derived from adults in their recommendation.
Also, there are more than just safety issues involved. Even if it were someday safe for two women or two men to have a baby together, we should still prohibit it for cultural/societal/human reasons. People should be created equal, the same way, with a mother and a father. Since we are all just one sex, it is good that the two sexes need each other to cooperate to create a new life, which again is just one sex, again needing to come together with the other sex to reproduce. Sexual reproduction connects us to the rest of humanity not just vertically through our children, but horizontally, through our need for the other sex. Being impossibly created in a laborotory would connect us more to the products of technology and consumerism. We'd empathize with toasters.
But would this be a valid way to restore fertiity for people who did not have healthy gametes? I don't think so, though the goal is laudable (though embryo cloning not the way to go about it). It would not have the last two problems, of course, but certainly would still have the insurmounable safety issue. The only way to justify the inherent risk of childbirth is that it is natural and necessary after pregnancy, and marriage gives couples the right to sexual intercourse which often results in pregnancy. But conceiving a child using technology is not natural or necessary, so that risk can be avoided. There is no right to do whatever it takes to create offspring, for male-female couples or same-sex couples.

Salon: don't worry your pretty little heads

2005-05-20T13:42:00.000-05:00

Salon has a lame article entitled the future of reproductive sex. The author takes the usual inexplicable "head in the sand" position that successfully using these techniques will be very difficult if not impossible, few people would use it if it ever was possible, it will probably not replace regular sex if people did want to use it, so therefore, there is no need to worry about it. Go back to drinking your beer, everyone. Huh? That would mean that the only case the author feels we should have reason to worry is if it were so safe and successful that everyone used it and it replaced sex!! He doesn't say where the downside is in banning it right now, he just says we are so far away that all we should do today is have fun getting drunk and laughing about it. What overseer arrogance! How much more ostrich-head-in-the-sand can you get?

Meanwhile, the research goes on, and, more tragically, people are allowed to believe that they might be able to have a child someday with a person of their same sex. That is a very cruel and anti-social thing to allow anyone to believe, given the liklihood that it will never happen. People should know with absolute certainty that the only way they will ever reproduce is with the cooperation and equal participation of a person of the other sex, so they had better learn how to get along with people of that sex now, since they'll be their child's other parent.

The discussion of artificial eggs and sperm illustrates that the PCBE's proposed language needs to be changed to "a man's sperm and a woman's egg". A child created with an "egg" artificially created from a man's DNA might have the same imprinting problems that plagued Kaguya's siblings, and so that would have to be ruled out completely. Creating children needs to be limited to couples that could naturally do so. This is the Enough point, and we are there already.

Galois on the record for SSP

2005-04-23T10:22:00.000-05:00

Gabriel Rosenberg was wonderfully consice when I asked him about his support for same-sex procreation rights.

I would say to your most recent question, "do you think that procreation should be a right of both-sex couples only, and same-sex couples should not be allowed to procreate together by any means?" the answer is no.

Though he claims to be against radical and unsafe technologies, he offers no explanation as to who would decide what is unsafe, or exactly how unsafe it would have to be to be banned. How many attempts would have to be aborted before he would agree it was unsafe and should be banned? Would he ever? How could someone who believes that two men or two women have the same equal right to have children ever be against developing this technology? This man will stand in the way of enacting much needed ethical laws against cloning and same-sex procreation just because they conflict with his mantra that same-sex couples must be considered equal. When I told him it was time to consider adjusting to reality because his single-minded defense of same-sex rights was turning him into a monster, forced to take ugly positions on SSP, on intrusive fertility tests and risk assessments for heterosexual couples, and on the distinctions between races, he banned me from posting on his blog. But not before I got him on the record supporting SSP rights.

My Terry Schiavo comment...

2005-04-05T13:13:00.000-05:00

I think the reason people were so adamant that Terry's was not a life worth living (which is what the argument was really about - no one claimed that OJ had a husband's right to decide if HIS wife should live or die, because her life was 'worth living') was because it will be imperative to be able to abort fetuses that don't come out right during the experimentation phase of same-sex procreation and other forms of non egg and sperm procreation. They will have to make everyone used to the idea that some lives are not worth living, and people would WANT to be aborted if they weren't coming out right. It took 457 tries to make Kaguya, and 10 pups were born. It will be much easier for human parents to justify allowing the runts to starve to death once we have been through a few Terry Schiavo cases. "They wouldn't want to live like this" they'd say.

Can't be for SSM and against SSP

2005-04-01T12:51:00.000-05:00

Chairm's comment #11 on this Family Scholars post expresses perfectly how banning SSP but allowing SSM will change marriage:
"Thusfar, SSM advocates have claimed that their reform would just tinker with the edges, not the core of marriage. It seems to me that if the right to procreate with one's spouse would be denied as a result of state recognition of SSM, then, marriage will indeed be replaced by something else."
If marriage doesn't mean that the spouses have a right to procreate together, and if some couples are denied the right to procreate, then all of our procreation rights are in jeopardy. In this age of genetic screening and increased reliance on IVF, that's a very grave situation.

Margeret Somerville

2005-03-24T19:08:00.000-05:00

Canada's Dr. Margeret Somerville, a McGill Law and Ethics professor, affirms that SSM would grant SSP rights:

"Same-sex marriage also raises problems regarding reproductive technologies. Society must limit the use of these technologies to protect children. But such limitations could be prohibited if they contravened same-sex couples' rights to found family, rights that come with marriage as a matter of law. I believe a child has a right not to be created from the sperm of two men or the ova of two women, or by cloning. Including same-sex relationships in marriage would support such uses of reproductive technologies. "

Read the whole thing.

California decision

2005-03-15T16:25:00.000-05:00

The judge says :'One does not have to be married in order to procreate, nor does one have to procreate in order to be married,' he wrote. 'Thus, no legitimate state interest to justify the preclusion of same-sex marriage can be found.'

Well, that's all well and good, but if a couple does not have a right to procreate, then that couple is also not allowed to marry, even in California:

285. Persons being within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry with each other, or who commit fornication or adultery with each other, are punishable by imprisonment in the state prison.

Currently, same-sex couples have the right to attempt to procreate with SSP, but only because Congress hasn't got around to enacting the egg and sperm law yet. That law would mean that a same-sex couple, like siblings, would not have a right to procreate together, and therefore, like siblings, they would not have a right to marry each other. Because ALL MARRIAGES must have a right to procreate, regardless of the fact that it is possible and even legal to procreate without marriage.

Girl, you'll be a woman soon

2005-03-07T16:51:00.000-05:00

I just hope that this girl doesn't let anyone sterilize her. I would hate Massachusetts to be complicit in taking away this girl's right to become pregnant someday. A "sex-change" will never produce sperm, so if she wants to have children, she will have to stay a girl. And if she stays a girl, she can use her "male-brain" to get one of those careers that Lawrence Summers was talking about. Shouldn't feminists be saying that there's nothing wrong with being a girl? When she reaches puberty, maybe she'll decide she likes dresses and want to be a woman. Why shouldn't she want to be a woman? Isn't that some sort of disorder, to not want to be your sex? Don't brains sometimes learn? Someone should arrest those crazy parents for child-neglect, fire that criminally liberal superintendent, and expose that self-interested endocrinologist, who specializes in FtM surgery.
It's also interesting that the Globe's story was so supportive and referred to her as "he", while the Herald's story referred to her as "the child".

The main point

2005-03-04T10:19:00.000-05:00

Hello. I'd like everyone browsing to this blog to comment here on how they feel about SSP - same-sex procreation. Check out my blog posts if you like, but please don't get distracted by them. This blog is dedicated to prohibiting non egg and sperm conception. So please click on the picture of the mouse to read about Kaguya, check out the arguments at eggandsperm.org, read the the FAQ's, and then leave a comment. What do you think: is there a right to SSP, or is "marriage and procreation" a right people should have only with a person of the other sex? Can this be the distinction between marriage and civil union that everyone is looking for?

Now, this is rape!

2005-02-24T14:23:00.000-05:00

A man Chicago is suing a woman for Sperm Theft Distress. He has to pay child support after the woman "regifted" the semen he gave to her mouth to her vagina without his knowledge. He should sue her for rape, and this child should be seen as a child born out of rape. Does that lawyer tell female rape victims that it is wrong to put the rapist in jail or claim any emotional damage because it might be damaging to the child to hear its mother claim she didnt want to be impregnated? And I can't believe that the defense admits she did this, and just thinks it is something that a woman ought to be able to do.

WHY IS MARRIAGE THE GOVERNMENT'S BIZ?

2005-02-22T17:56:00.000-05:00

They're asking over on MarriageDebate. Well, if you seperate procreation rights from marriage, then it's hard to see why marriage is the government's business. What is obviously the government's business, though, is the welfare of its citizens. And because the creation of new citizens might happen whenever a man and a woman have intercourse, the government has an obligation to ensure that intercourse is only done by people who have made the proper binding commitments to each other and any citizens they might create. A marriage license is a public license to start doing what might make people, and along with it comes legal responsibilities. I agree with Maggie that there can't be legal responsibilities without the government being involved.

It is foolish to think that sex can be kept private, sex always takes place in public because it always has the potential to become public nine months later. No one suggests that it isn't the government's business to hold fathers and mothers responsible to their children, or even to each other. Perhaps modern child support enforcement, abortion, and paternity testing has made it seem like we can worry about responsibility if and when children arrive, but what about couples who don't have children, even after years of trying? Do they not need some public support and protection? They have no way of knowing if a baby will arrive, and must live their lives with the same responsibility for each other and their future children.

The questions about the word "morality" seem to be afraid to mention the 'f' word - is it the governments business to say it is illegal to fornicate, to have children, unless you are married? Does the mere existence of a fornication law cause people be responsible? I think, in my experience, that it does. I knew, and my girlfriends knew, that it was officially, legally, authoritatively, wrong. Sex was something that people shouldn't have unless they are married. And that was a very good excuse for either one of us to say no. And if we enforced the fornication law a little better (either of us, as well as the government) we might even see a reason to get married.

Mad About Marriage

2005-02-14T12:51:00.000-05:00

InNewsweekly's cover story asks the question "What does it mean that adultery is now a criminal act for gay married couples?" Well, given that adultery requires sexual intercourse in Massachusetts, as long as they stay gay and don't have sexual intercourse, the crime won't be adultery. New Hampshire's Supreme Court recently ruled that way too. And "Crimes against Nature" are not made legal by marriage - in fact, marriage would seem to criminalize sodomy by making it public, whereas the acts of Mr. Lawrence were deemed legal only because they were acts done in private. Privacy was the key in Lawrence v Texas. As long as the acts were done in private, the state could not criminalize them. But privacy isn't just a matter of whether the public can see something taking place, but also if they are "open and notorious" about it. Marriage is a public license and affirmation that sex takes place in this bed. Sex itself, married or not, is always is a public act, since it potentially, and uncontrollably, creates the public. That's why Lawrence didn't apply to fornication - there's no such thing as private sexual intercourse.
And there is another legal ramification to gay marraige: people in a gay marriage are not allowed to have sexual intercourse at all: they physically can't have sex within it, and they are not allowed to marry someone with whom they can, at least as long as the marriage is "permanent." Gay marriage legally forbids the participants from ever participating in the "basic civil right" of Skinner and Loving, and, especially when combined with Massachusetts's efforts in public schools to steer children(!!!) directly into presumably "permanent and exclusive" gay marriages, is therefore as unconstitutional as sterilization ever was.

Watch these theories crumble

2005-02-08T13:32:00.000-05:00

All five SSM arguments on Balkinization become moot:

"1. It violates sex equality to tell a man he cannot marry another man when a woman could do so." Not when it is "completely unethical" for a man to attempt to proceate with a man but completely ethical for him to attempt to procreate with a woman.
"2. Sexual orientation discrimination." Eggs and sperm don't care what the orientation of their maker is, nor does the ban on non egg and sperm procreation.
"3. Irrational discrimination." No, it's completely rational, because the scientists themselves say it would be completely unethical to attempt this in humans. Just think of the other 9 mal-formed mice that couldn't make it to adulthood, not to mention the 371 that couldn't make it to birth. It's irrational to allow people to try it on people.
"4. animus at a specific social group" You can't claim animus if the ban is completely rational, to protect the people being created.
"5. violates a fundamental due process right to marry" That fundamental right is the right to attempt procreate found in Skinner, but naturally, not using a completely unethical technology (or else, the court could have said that Skinner could still conceive with technology someday). People have a fundamental right to be straight and marry someone of the other sex, and gay marriage actually encroaches on that right.

2 women deny rape charges

2005-01-19T13:45:00.000-05:00

Grrr. There's no such thing as homosexual rape. Rape is non-consensual sexual intercourse (sex) and that requires all the sexes. Why can't they call this sexual assault? It is really demeaning to people who actually have their reproductive choice taken from them.

Is there a right to procreate?

2005-01-04T12:01:00.000-05:00

More and more people these days seem to think that procreation is a right of an individual, and completely independent of marriage, but there is lots of legal history that reminds us there has never been a right for an individual to procreate, but only a right to choose another person to marry with whom you may then mutually attempt to procreate. As Ampersand points out on Alas, A Blog: "ability to bear children was not a traditional ground for fault-based divorce." This means that if one of the partners is thought to be infertile after the marriage, the state would not allow the other partner to look for someone else with whom they might procreate. So clearly, the state didn't feel that anyone has been denied any civil right to procreate by being forced to remain married to a sterile person, or it would allow them to divorce and try it with someone else. (of course, now no-fault divorce is possible, but not because of a new found procreation right.) There is only a right to not be sterilized, and there is a right to marry someone and then attempt to procreate (aka, have sex). But there's no "right to procreate." Marriage is a license to attempt to procreate. If we don't want two people to attempt to procreate, we withhold the license. We withhold it from siblings due to health risks and we can withhold it from couples of the same-sex for the same reason.

I think the issue of cloning has made people think that reproduction is something that individuals do on their own, as opposed to something marriages do, a man and woman together. Also, using the term "fully human" about individuals plays into this, as though people do not need a complimentary person of the other sex to fully represent the species, and fully flower their own body's potential. I know that in this narcissistic "me" society, the idea that we should have to cooperate with someone to reproduce and share our children must be frustrating, but to take it to Randolfe Wicker's conclusion is just misanthropic.

The steroid pushers

2004-12-16T10:17:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-12-10T14:28:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-12-10T13:30:00.000-05:00

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

2004-12-09T16:33:00.000-05:00

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?

2004-12-09T12:56:00.000-05:00

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...