Questions for Scott Brown and Martha Coakley

What are your views regarding Postgenderism, same-sex conception, designer babies, artificial wombs, natural procreation rights, and marriage’s protection of procreation rights?

Specifically, do you support each of the three laws that make up the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise?

These three laws are:

1) A law prohibiting creating people by any means other than joining the egg of a woman and the sperm of a man.  This was urgently recommended to Congress in 2004 by the President’s Council on Bioethics, was enacted in Missouri in 2006, and is the law in most European countries such as England, France, and Germany, where they are very vigilant against eugenics.  Massachusetts has an “egg and sperm law”, but does not define “egg” or “sperm”, so that the law does not prevent use of artificial or modified gametes, and leaves same-sex procreation and designer babies perfectly legal here.

2) A law protecting the right of every marriage to attempt to procreate using the couple’s own genes.  This law is needed because people are starting to deny that a married couple has a right to use their own genes to procreate, people are equating their right to the right of same-sex couples to procreate, which requires use of modified gametes and is subject to safety checks and prohibition, or requires use of substitute gametes.   Those should not be equated with every person’s right to procreate with someone of the other sex.  This law would merely codify the historic understanding that married couples have a right to procreate using their own genes, before it is undermined and forgotten.  No state should call couples that are prohibited from procreating together married, all states should protect married couples right to procreate with their own genes.

3) A law that would recognize state Civil Unions as marriages for all federal purposes, provided the Civil Unions were defined by the state as “marriage minus conception rights” – that is, having all the same rights and benefits and obligations as marriage except that they would explicitly not protect the right of the couple to procreate using their own genes.

All three of these laws are urgently needed in Congress.  If they are not enacted, not only will the marriage debate drag on, consuming resources and creating animosity and division, but we will drift into a Brave New World of designer children and huge entitlements for genetic modification, eugenic pressure to use improved gametes.

I hope both of you will agree with me that Congress should resolve the marriage debate ASAP by enacting the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise, or be willing to explain why it should not.

Thank you

John Howard

Candidate for US Senate

About John Howard