3 ms·

I find it chilling that a government can force the donation of your genetic material "for the greater good". Unless we explicitly consent to our genetic materia

I find it chilling that a government can force the donation of your genetic material "for the greater good". Unless we explicitly consent to our genetic material being used in a certain way (i.e. donating eggs or sperm) it's terrifying to think that we can essentially be forced to. Also, see the case where parents got permission to use their dead son's sperm to create a grandchild. Presumably the parents picked the partner to conceive the grandchild. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/west-point-cadet-sperm-grandchild.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/nyregion/west-point-cadet...

tathougies 7y ago
My daughter should not be treated under the law as 'my genetic material'. Firstly, she is not just my genetic material, she is her mothers too. Secondly, she has her own genetic makeup being the product of two people. Thirdly, as a result of her conception and the fact that she is different genetically from both her mother and father and the fact that her interests as a living thing are not identical to her mother and fathers, she is actually a separate person, and thus my property rights over my DNA (if they exist) certainly ought not to affect how the law treats her best interests as a minor. Due to virtue of having separate interests, the law should primarily focus on her interests, and in certain cases, it would be appropriate to subsume my interests as her father (or her mother's interests) in order to best serve hers. This is not a novel application of law. The law exists in part to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, people such as minor children and the disabled. In these cases, the law infers their interests. The same can be said of the children in question, who are not simply the property of the female lawyer. Although they share her DNA, simply sharing DNA does not give her the right to do with them as she pleases, just as my mother does not have rights over me (and neither does my father of course). Under this framework, no one is telling the lawyer what to do with her genes. They are telling her how she is to interact with other people, who in this case, happen to be her children and the children of whichever men fathered them.
- MyHypatia 7y ago
  In the case of the female lawyer, the government is deciding that it is better for the embryo to be implanted in a genetically unrelated woman because she has a partner, rather than the mother of the embryo herself. If you believe that an embryo should be treated as an individual, how is this different than forcing a single mother to give up custody of her child to be raised by strangers? What has the mother done to lose the right to raise her own child? Should single mothers lose custody of their children, since being raised by two parents is preferable? If not, why is okay for her to lose custody of her embryo? In the case of the West Point cadet, they took his sperm and created an embryo after he died. He didn't explicitly consent to an embryo being created at all.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    So I actually disagree with the Polish government here, but not on the grounds that a government should not be able to set policy in this area, but rather I think the policy they set is wrong.
    - MyHypatia 7y ago
      I also think a government should be able to create policy in this area. What's horrifying is that the government has deemed it morally preferable to assign custody to strangers over the mother. Losing custody is usually due to things like neglect, child endangerment, drug use... now simply "being single" can be added to the list. When two people who may disagree on the personhood status of an embryo can agree that this policy is bad. It must be a pretty terrible policy.
      - tathougies 7y ago
        I don't object to the single mother part. I object to the adoption part of already created embryos. I don't think it's a bad idea to prevent the systematic creation of children alienates from one of their parents

tathougies 7y ago

My daughter should not be treated under the law as 'my genetic material'. Firstly, she is not just my genetic material, she is her mothers too. Secondly, she has her own genetic makeup being the product of two people. Thirdly, as a result of her conception and the fact that she is different genetically from both her mother and father and the fact that her interests as a living thing are not identical to her mother and fathers, she is actually a separate person, and thus my property rights over my DNA (if they exist) certainly ought not to affect how the law treats her best interests as a minor. Due to virtue of having separate interests, the law should primarily focus on her interests, and in certain cases, it would be appropriate to subsume my interests as her father (or her mother's interests) in order to best serve hers. This is not a novel application of law. The law exists in part to protect those who cannot speak for themselves, people such as minor children and the disabled. In these cases, the law infers their interests. The same can be said of the children in question, who are not simply the property of the female lawyer. Although they share her DNA, simply sharing DNA does not give her the right to do with them as she pleases, just as my mother does not have rights over me (and neither does my father of course). Under this framework, no one is telling the lawyer what to do with her genes. They are telling her how she is to interact with other people, who in this case, happen to be her children and the children of whichever men fathered them.

MyHypatia 7y ago
In the case of the female lawyer, the government is deciding that it is better for the embryo to be implanted in a genetically unrelated woman because she has a partner, rather than the mother of the embryo herself. If you believe that an embryo should be treated as an individual, how is this different than forcing a single mother to give up custody of her child to be raised by strangers? What has the mother done to lose the right to raise her own child? Should single mothers lose custody of their children, since being raised by two parents is preferable? If not, why is okay for her to lose custody of her embryo? In the case of the West Point cadet, they took his sperm and created an embryo after he died. He didn't explicitly consent to an embryo being created at all.
- tathougies 7y ago
  So I actually disagree with the Polish government here, but not on the grounds that a government should not be able to set policy in this area, but rather I think the policy they set is wrong.
  - MyHypatia 7y ago
    I also think a government should be able to create policy in this area. What's horrifying is that the government has deemed it morally preferable to assign custody to strangers over the mother. Losing custody is usually due to things like neglect, child endangerment, drug use... now simply "being single" can be added to the list. When two people who may disagree on the personhood status of an embryo can agree that this policy is bad. It must be a pretty terrible policy.
    - tathougies 7y ago
      I don't object to the single mother part. I object to the adoption part of already created embryos. I don't think it's a bad idea to prevent the systematic creation of children alienates from one of their parents