| I couldn't decide on one single question to ask Elizabeth Warren when she "chatted" live on Boston.com, so I sent a bunch of questions in all at once, hoping Glen Johnson would pick one to make me happy. But he didn't pick any, sparing Warren from having to answer. I don't think she ever saw them. But she surely has a staff member that reads RedMassGroup and so hopefully these questions will still get to her, and she can take some time to respond to them:
Dear Professor Warren, here are some questions about the long term future of humanity:
Do you think a man's sperm should be necessary to make a baby, or should we allow two women to combine eggs or make sperm from stem cells?
Should transgendered people be allowed to try to reproduce as their new sex, if a lab figures out how to make them sperm or eggs from stem cells?
Do you think we have a moral imperative to explore the galaxy and spread human life to other planets?
Do you think there is a moral imperative to screen out genetic defects when having children?
Do you see any limits to reproductive freedom, such as banning cloning people, or genetically engineered designer babies, or same-sex procreation/transgender reproduction?
Should marriage protect the couple's right to procreate offspring, or should that be licensed independently of marriage?
It'd be great to hear Brown's answers on that stuff too.
To provide some context, I think it'd be good to copy in this comment I just posted over at TheAmericanConservative blog, on a post about David Blankenhorn's unsurprising endorsement of gay marriage.
John Howard: "The only thing that matters is whether we want to allow people to procreate offspring with someone of the same sex or not."
Dave Dutcher replied: "There's nothing to allow, they can't. You always need a third person. They can never procreate offspring with the same sex, but they can raise offspring as same sex parents."
That's wrong Dave, we can allow, in fact we do allow, the use of genetic engineering and stem cell technologies to create sperm for a woman or an egg for a man, and use them to reproduce offspring with someone of their same sex. There is nothing else to the question of marriage than whether we will allow people to attempt making people that are not the union of a man and a woman. We should not separate marriage from conception rights, or allow genetic engineering. We should keep people created equal, as the natural offspring of a man and a woman, and everyone should have an equal right to be a man or a woman and reproduce as one or the other, but not both, not with either.
People seriously do want to allow same-sex reproduction. Whether it's possible or not or safe or not is moot, all that matters is whether it is an abstract right or not. I contend that there is no right to procreate with the same sex or change sex and procreate as the other sex. We have a right to be the sex we are, and marry and reproduce as that sex. (Transgendered people can live as either sex, but should only be allowed to attempt to reproduce as the sex they would most likely have success as using their unmodified genes.)