Salon: don't worry your pretty little heads

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

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...

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

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

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

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

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

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!

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Do men have children in NYT land?

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

Adultery is legal?

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

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

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish

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

OK, so what IS the ultimate destination?

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

My email to Andrew Sullivan

Just sent Andrew this email:

Hello Andrew,

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

Johnny

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

The marriage issue

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

Kaguya

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

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

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

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

"Egg and Sperm" ASAP!

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

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

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

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