I think the state has a compelling interest to protect people from being born unethically, such as to siblings or children, or, especially, from genetic material that has been modified or engineered so that the person would not have equal origins to other people and might suffer severe health and psychological consequences. Also, the state has an interest in preserving everyone’s right to use their own unmodified genes to procreate or reproduce, and prevent the development of coercive and expensive genetic interventions that would waste resources and harm liberty and human dignity.
ElectricStrawberry thinks that the state cannot or should not prevent people from creating people with whatever genetic material or with whatever other person someone might want to create a person with. He apparently thinks siblings have a right to procreate together, and that same-sex conception and genetic engineering must be legal.
Look, if we are going to (continue to) allow same-sex couples to attempt to conceive together, then of course we should allow those couples to marry first, just like if we were to decide to repeal incest laws and allow siblings to procreate together, we would certainly also decide to allow siblings to marry. But it’s crazy to allow siblings to procreate together, and I think it’s crazy to allow same-sex conception, especially if it is done in order to not hurt the feelings of same-sex couples. They would much rather have tangible benefits they can use, like federal recognition and consistent recognition of their committed relationship in every state, than the unnecessary and probably impossible and certainly unethical right to attempt to conceive together. It’s absolutely crazy to prioritize conception rights over federal recognition, and we shouldn’t let crazy libertarian transhumanists like ElectricStrawberry hold back progress for same-sex couples.[poll id=”