Family Matters

I, for one, am happy for Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, her partner of 15 years, who are expecting a baby girl! The 'base' is none too happy about this, of course. They invoke a lot of biology in their pseudointellectual attacks, and since I privy myself a biologist, I figure I'd take a stab at their questions here. A telling excerpt from the social conservative right, and my responses:

"1. How did the exclusive sexual union of these two women bring about this conception?"
It's basically a turkey baster. and a sperm donor. The donor could be unrelated to the couple, or could have come from, in this case, Heather's family, to confer the child with biological relatedness to both Mary Cheney (who is carrying and we are assuming the egg donor) and Heather Poe.

"2. What does it mean, from a biological nature to realize that a man WAS in fact necessary for this conception to take place?"
It means exactly that genes are needed from different sex parents in order for successful conception to take place. By the way, it is stupid to gleam morality tales from biological facts (infanticide is practiced all over the animal world, should we do it too whenever there's a famine?). This fact, in otherwords, is amoral, and dictate nothing about moral behavior, or the moral worth of the child. However, it does say plenty about the deep drive to have children and raise families, regardless of orientation, and the general desire of humans to use technology to overcome biology for human ends. That is significant.

3. What does it mean to the supposed "intimacy" that "two people share" which was intended by the Creator to be a function that creates life, to be forced to include a third party?
Intimacy is relative, and so is religion. As for the third party issue, infertile hetersexual couples are 'forced' to consider this option too if they want to be biologically related to their child. This is part of the human (social/biological/both?) instinct to share genes with one's progeny. Sure, one can argue that this instinct needs to be abolished in contemporary society, and I'd entertain that notion, but for the time being, gay couples and infertile couples have similar biological obstacles, and gut wrenching choices still need to be made.

4. Doesn't it make a rather strong statement that biologically speaking, the sexual union these two women share - is in fact, scientifically speaking - inadequate?
Sure, it does. But our society's treatment of people should not be based on their supposed evolutionary worth. I refer to Hitler and the eugenics movement. To muse on the biological meaning of infertility or sexual orientation or genetic mutants within the human germ line is one thing, but to talk about whether these people deserve their dignity as human beings is an entirely separate, and more relevant, issue. I suggest a reading of the US constitution as a starter.

5. Is it healthy for a society to celebrate inadequate sexual unions that lead to everything except what it was designed to be?
Good question. Is it healthy for a society to at least respect all infertile couples' struggle to follow their instincts to build families, as we have already done for infertile heterosexual couples? Isn't it healthy for society to allow people who have disabilities or genetic defects or anything else that causes them to fall short of biological human 'norms to live free of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination?

6. Knowing from scientific data that children excel best when given the full and natural parental structure of one mother and one father, is it moral to bring a child into such a scenario - purposefully, simply to stroke one's own desire to have a child - sort of like a new handbag, or pair of shoes?
First of all, what data? Second of all, well referenced studies have found that children with 2 gay parents do as well as children in straight 2 parent homes. (see/search Ellen C. Perrin, MD.-Tufts). But the moral question is a different matter; is it 'moral' for children to be raised in 1 parent homes? With their relatives instead of their biological parents? In foster care/adoption? Such a hypothesis of morality ignores and belittles actual human conditions that often fall far short of idealized norms. And yes, having a child should be a purposeful decision; that's not debatable. Finally, is it ever apt to compare the overwhelming biological and social drives to have children with the desire to buy a pair of shoes? Now that is an immoral and incoherent analogy.