Follow-up
The thought behind the cut is brief, and can be ignored by anyone who didn't read (or, having read, didn't care about) my last post.

Novak highlights the "natural" parents, i.e. the contributors of genetic material, as those who ought to be raising a child, a moral imperative almost on the level of a right to life. But take the example, used by Novak, of a lesbian couple, one of whom is inseminated by a man (friend or stranger, doesn't matter) so that they can have a child. This pregnancy, and subsequent child, is the product of two unions. One is biological, the man's (let's call him Ted) sperm with the woman's (let's call her Selma) ovum. The other is intentional, the two women (let's call the other woman Lisa) having decided together to raise a child.

Selma and Lisa have made this decision together. They're reading up on parenthood, setting money aside, turning the study into the kid's room, knitting baby clothes. Ted, on the other hand, ejaculated into a cup. Why is he given precedence as a parent (which he does not want to be, at least in the sense of raising a child directly) over Lisa, who desperately wants to be the mother of this child? And why does the child have a right to be raised by Ted, based on a shared genetic heritage? I just don't understand this privileging of the biological.