>Kelly Hillis, over at the Bioethics.net blog scoffs at the opinion of Concerned Women of America on same sex parenting. She claims that “Science has allowed us to change the rules of biology, and DNA is becoming a tool, not a definition.”
I strongly disagree. We can’t “change the rules of biology.” With quite a bit of effort, we can accommodate to ourselves to work within the rules enough that it appears that we ignore them. While biology isn’t destiny, you have to deal with it.
Our very biology is one huge influence toward making emotional commitments to people (and animals and objects, too) that are not close relations. Where do you think the social constructs come from?
I’m a big proponent of acknowledging unconventional families. Especially in our mobile society, we often make “families” of people we love, where we are.
I’d rather add to protections than take away the unique legal protections given the “nuclear family,” however. That’s still where most of us live, and there’s evidence that it’s the best environment for children. “Best practices” don’t grow out of wishful thinking or great efforts to go around the rules: usual things are usual, and we should only advocate public policy based on findings of a real pattern leading to a desired result.
An interesting designation for experimentation with unconventional families comes from the American College of Pediatricians – a conservative off shoot of the American Academy of Pediatricians. They call it “social eugenics,” and don’t approve of attempting to “change the rules of biology.”
No comments yet.