Mastering Nature
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 30th 2006
Fascinating discussion by Richard Samuelson over at Claremont. It references an LA Times article about gay men having biological children with surrogates. Samuelson’s discussion notices that it’s only with the marvel of Western science that gay men have these choices.
He asks very apt questions:
A few further thoughts: What would someone (almost anyone) have said about a story like this 100 years ago? That gay couples existed out in the open would shock them….What will they say 100 years from now? Societies with open homosexuality are rare in history, and no previous society has tried to treat homosexual couples the same as heterosexual couples. It is an experiment. Will it work? In a century, we might have some answers.
The same questions could have been asked when America was founded between 1776 and 1787. Our “Novus Ordo Seclorum” was a “great experiment” — something never done before and whose outcome was uncertain — which radically broke with tradition.
The attitude toward nature is fascinating here. On one hand, nature gives the couple its moral bearings. That they are attracted to men and not women dictates how they lead their lives. On the other hand, they use technology to overcome nature. It allows them to become, in a sense, joint fathers. What is the connection between these two attitudes toward nature?
Again, the same perplexing attitude toward nature was evident in America’s Founding. On the one hand, we appealed to “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” to found our nation. Yet, according to the East Coast Straussians, Locke’s teachings dictate that “[m]an, if he is sensible, separates himself from nature and becomes its master and conqueror. This was and still is the prevailing belief of liberal democracies, with their peace, gentleness, prosperity, productivity and applied science, particularly medical science.” Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, p. 171.
Keeping this in mind, Samuelson asks: “Finally, how does all that fit it with treating the human body as a commodity to be used according to basic instinct, and also to be rented out for hire.”
And indeed it was Locke who first posited that man owns himself. If I own my body, I can rent it out for hire!
Samuelson’s final question: “What would the founders think? Is this the liberty for which they fought and died?” Whether they realized it or not, arguably yes. Even though I often disagree with Paul Cella, he wrote a great article entitled “Locke Box”, where he noted “[i]f the[ Founders] were indeed Lockeans, and Locke was indeed a profound innovator, even a revolutionary, then America was indeed the vanguard of political modernity.” Arguably, it’s because of our founding principles that we read the story about gay men having biological children through surrogacy.
Filed in The Biosphere, The Bureau
Jason,
I didn’t read the article, so maybe my question is answered there, but I’m both curious and lazy. In cases of homosexual procreation via surrogacy, do you know if it’s typical for the gay couple to negotiate who will be making the DNA donation? Or is it ever the case to donate sperm from both partners and just let chance decide? I’m sure there’s an economics paper in there, somewhere.
Jon again.
Not sure. I think I’ve heard of cases like the one you describe. It’s all done by negotation though
One thing seems apparent — when males use surrogate mothers or when females use sperm banks, most folks realize that “genes matter” so to speak. Thus, if folks can get accurate info, most will select for “desirable” genes (better looks, higher intelligence, various talents, lack of health problems). One issue that may be tough to get around presently is that “you can’t have it all.” Most folks are dealt a set of genetic cards that are a mixed bag. Someone may have a brilliant IQ but be unnattractive and unathletic, another good looking, athletic, but lower than average IQ, or a subject to a congenital heart problem. Look at Melissa Etheridge. David Crosby isn’t the best looking guy in the world, and has had problems with addiction. They were going for musicial talent with that one.
Jon,
Sorry about that. My mind tends to compartmentalize the four authors: Jason talks about gay issues, history, and quirky mind-benders, Timothy covers eminent domain, Ed debunks Christian Nationalism, and you post YouTube files. I know there’s plenty of crossover, but my stereotypes make it simpler for me.
I would imagine the whole notion of picking which partner’s basket of genes will be thrown into the mix is a toughie for negotiation. How does one tell one’s significant other, “I love you, but I don’t want my child polluted with your genes.” I imagine the issue resolves itself more often for female homosexual couples: one may be more averse to going throug childbirth than the other. But for men there’s no real biological price to be paid.
Re: Gay men. Flip a coin. Use both sperm and whose ever wins wins. Make a deal where the first baby uses my sperm, the second yours. I’d imagine that’s how many of these issues are resolved.
And btw, I do a great deal of debunking Christian Nationalism myself.
Gay men have always had children. Just had them the old-fashioned way. Maybe not their fave thing to do, but they were more or less obliged to do their duty to keep the family line going.
Or maybe a couple of gay men could just save the $100K price for surrogacy and have enough money to put a non-genetic child through college. In addition to affluence, a huge ego must be required to spend so much money just to pass on one’s genes, rather than choose to care for the “genes” of two other people in the form of an adopted child.
Of course, this goes for straight couples as well. Maybe it should go even more for straight couples