Location: United States

Thursday, June 08, 2006

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things..."

This is the first post. It isn't very long, and should be relatively free of controversy.


Blogger rob said...

Like the name of yr blog! And you're clearly a fan of Monty Python (The Walrus and the carpenter were walking ahnd-in-hand/"If only, said the Walrus, the law would understand")- so hey, the first post IS controversial! Cheers-

6/13/2006 10:15 PM  
Blogger Phil Thibedeaux said...

Thanks, Rob. Although I am a fan of Monty Python, I wasn't familiar with the "Walrus and Carpenter" parody you mentioned, but it's appropriate enough, given the content of the first longer post.

6/14/2006 8:01 PM  
Blogger John Howard said...

Phil, On Lawn deletes my comments on Opine Editorials, but I'd like you to respond to my point. He seems to want to help you ignore my point, as if you don't need to consider it because Opine and NOM and other prominent anti-SSM blogs don't make the argument I make. Maybe they are upset that I have proposed a compromise for Civil Unions and they oppose Civil Unions. Or maybe they oppose banning genetic engineering and same-sex procreation. Whatever the reason, it is a bad one.

Here is the comment he most recently deleted from this thread, please respond to it:

Anyone going to take a stab at it? I'll offer my definition, which would have to be part of an egg and sperm law: in general, a man contributes sperm and impregnates a woman, a woman contributes an egg and gets pregnant. Specifically, someone is a man if they would be more likely to be able to reproduce with an average woman if they were healthy, and vice versa for a woman.

When is Phil going to answer R.K.'s question: "Who in your opinion, should still not be able to get married? And, more importantly, why shouldn't they?"

2/25/2010 9:59 PM  
Blogger Phil Thibedeaux said...

Hi John,

Thanks for commenting. It's off-topic, but that's okay; nothing would really be on-topic for this post. ;)

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me to comment on. It sounds like you're saying that, to you, a legal marriage should be one person who is capable of producing viable sperm and another person who is capable of producing viable eggs.

Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying?

3/02/2010 5:09 PM  
Blogger John Howard said...

Hi Phil, thanks for asking for clarification.

The original question involved coming up with definitions for "man" and "woman". I say the definition should be based on how they would most likely be able to reproduce, if they were healthy. In general (in both humans and other animals), female is the sex with a womb and the larger gamete, and male is the sex with smaller motile gametes.

So if a person would more likely be able to reproduce with a random woman than with a man, then that person is a man. (A person's legal sex need not match this definition, but it would need to be defined for the purposes of an egg and sperm law which prohibited conception except by combining a man and a woman's sperm and egg.)

Regarding marriage, my point is that a marriage should always approve and allow the couple to conceive children together using their own genes. Whether they are able to or not doesn't matter. This is where On Lawn always deletes my comments, because I point out that siblings are perfectly capable of procreating, but are not allowed to, and similarly same-sex couples should be not allowed to, even if technology makes it possible using stem cell derived gametes.

I think On Lawn just doesn't like the idea of a federal law that prohibits genetic engineering, but without prohibiting same-sex couples from procreating together, there is no basis to prohibit them from marrying...

3/27/2010 11:58 AM  
Blogger Phil Thibedeaux said...

To be honest, John, that sounds like one of the most reasonable definitions I've seen for "man" and "woman." It sounds like you're saying that we could define each sex/gender by what that organism would be most likely to naturally procreate with, were they healthy.

But as for your egg-and-sperm law, that sounds like a separate issue--banning artificially combining gametes.

Would you propose that the law ban only artificial combinations of the same gametes--so, sperm and sperm, and egg and egg? Or do you also advocate banning the _artificial_ combination of egg and sperm? Is genetic engineering kosher when it involves egg and sperm?

3/27/2010 12:23 PM  
Blogger John Howard said...

I think the law should be similar to Missouri's 2006 cloning law, that prohibited implanting an embryo created by any means other than fertilizing the egg of a woman with the sperm of a man. It needs to prohibit using modified gametes, which would not be "of" anyone anymore, and preserve everyone being created equal and having equal rights to conceive children with their own genes and their spouse's own genes.

Have you ventured over to my eggandsperm blog? It explains my proposal for Civil Unions that give all the rights of marriage except the right to conceive children together, while preserving the right of marriage to conceive children together.

3/29/2010 5:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home