I am a conservative, and may not agree with Mary Cheney's lifestyle but I don't have a problem with her loving a child and raising it in a loving home, who would have been put in foster care, otherwise..
I have a problem that she purposely found a man to impregnate herself so she could raise a child without a father. I would have less of a problem if the father is someone she knows, and if he will be involved in raising the child, but I still would have a problem with a deliberate decision to conceive and raise a child without a loving, two-parent biological family.
Yes, if a woman gets pregnant, I want her to have the child and raise it as a loving mother -- but that's a different question than whether she SHOULD have gotten pregnant.
While it is easy to agree that a child is better with a biological mother than with no family at all, that determination starts with the existance of the child.
The question of whether a woman should deliberately conceive a child is another issue entirely. I don't happen to believe that the best thing in the world would be if every woman on the planet spent their entire reproductive lives pregnant popping out children every 9 months.
Meaning that I don't think HAVING new children is itself the noblest goal of life. Since I don't believe that, I can say that Mary Chaney was selfish in forcing a child to be brought into the world without a loving biological family unit.
It is the same correct argument made by Dan Quayle about single mothers.
I have no doubt Mary Chaney will be a loving mother, at least if the baby is a girl (one has to wonder about lesbians who hate men being capable of properly raising boys to be men). I don't know if Mary is a man-hating lesbian.