Regarding Copywrite:
Assuming that for some reason, an individual owns hir genetic sequence, Nick (in the abortion thread, with the fancy technology) posits that said ownership bears meaningfully on embryos which contain at least half of that sequence.
The discussion itself is in the embryonic stage, and none of the participants have explored whether an embryo necessarily owns its own unique sequence or the gamete donors mutually own the sequence until an untedetermined amount of time has passed. It becomes, in effect, the same old question: when does the embryo have rights?
US Law curently allows certain genetic traits and even entire sequences (in the form of stem-cells and frozen embryos) to be owned by parties not involved genetically with the new sequences. What does that mean, then, for an individual with some frozen siblings that never made it out of the fridge? Do I own my sequence only as expressed over a particular and specific period of time, or not at all?
In either case, the case for ownership of one's own genes seems, in the present context, shakey; and by extension so does that avenue for granting rights to embryos.
Regarding Contract:
In an effort to broaden the discussion, I suggested that contract law might be more applicable to the question of parantal rights. Invariably (here esp.) the question of "fathers' rights" to a developing embryo enters the discussion in response to a woman's bodily sovereignty. Rather than discussing what happens after conception, perhaps all should be decided based on what happens beforehand. Unless contractually stated by both parties "We intend to conceive, and further to allow the embryo to develop from zygote to adulthood," then "fathers' rights" should by a non-issue.
Nick notes that such a situation, depending on the legal or moral definitions involved, may necessarily include a third party.
...which brings us around to hir original point: that an artificial womb may supercede the abortion debate by providing a safe alternative to terminating embryonic development.
At which point it might be pointed out that The above questions of Copywrite and/or Contract might become either increasingly relevant (the right to determine whether ones own sequences are passed on) or completely irrelevant (the rights of our third party.)
Given that Capital always needs new blood or territory, the artificial womb in the hands of a state or corporate entity which has exclusive decision making power over reproduction seems, to put it mildly, icky. Haus succintly notes that supply might outstrip demand for adoptees, while Nick suggests that a systemic social overhaul might eliminate such concerns. All I have to add is that a "solution to abortion" only contributes to overpopulation and provides a steady stream of workers and consumers; an artificial baby boom.
If Capital is allowed to extend its reach into the womb, its only a few steps to science fiction from there. A dream for State Capitalist or Coporate Consumer societies, a totalitarian nightmare for individuals.
Any thoughts? |
