Posted on 06/01/2006 6:55:41 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
It was put forth that there is an "absolute right" to have babies with whoever you choose. That is, of course, hogwash.
I am not allowed to have babies with my sister, but there is nothing in this free market of gametes that prohibits her from buying my sperm as an anonymous donor.
"Absolute" means something and the word should not be used where it does not fit.
SD
OK I see what you're saying now, you're reading Steve-B comment differently than I'm reading it.
Where Steve says "Shopping for what one might consider superior or preferable genetic material is an absolute individual right" I'm not seeing that as saying you can select ANYONE you want, merely that you have the right to say "no not that one". When shopping for a car you don't get to buy any car you want, because not all cars are for sale, you only get to select from the cars that are for sale. When shopping for genetic material for you offspring you don't get to select anyone you want, because the other half of that equation ALSO has an absolute right to say "no not you". The absolute right is in the ability to say yes or no, but doesn't extend to the other person's answer, and if one says yes and the other says no well too bad for the "yes" person, they're going to need to continue to shop.
Yes, you're close. But you're still not getting the whole point. If someone says they have "an absolute right" they are saying that there is no room for reasonable regulation by the state. There can be no fetters at all.
Take incest. Two adult siblings are generally forbidden from mating by the state. Most rational people accept this as a necessary restriction on the right to choose a mate.
Likewise, you can't mate with children or people who are already married.
That means the right is not "absolute."
SD
I don't see Steve's original post as saying you have an absolute right to have babies with whoever you choose. I think the key word is the first word: "Shopping for what one might consider superior or preferable genetic material is an absolute individual right." Shopping is just shopping, in any shopping situation there are two decision makers, both have the ability to say no and any no answer overrides any yes answer.
Well technically speaking you are allowed to have babies with your sister. You can't marry her but if you were to make her pregnant they can't force her to have an abortion. I'm thinking these donor houses have some sort of mechanism to make sure nobody buys their brothers sperm, if only because of the serious health problems such inbreeding causes and how HUGE the law suit would be.
I don't think there's a violation of the word "absolute" when it's working with a word like "shopping", "shopping" is not "buying" and an absolute right to shop is not an absolute right to buy.
What I have to wonder is, when will one of thse psychos sue for "child support" or because she didn't get what she thought she was getting.
Two adult siblings are generally forbidden from MARRYING, mating is a different matter, and while it's wrong and icky and all that other stuff it's really outside the state's acceptable list of powers.
If the married couple in question is willing to allow one partner to be involved in the birth of a child with someone outside the marriage they can. Again it's icky and wierd, but if that's their choice that's their choice and the state shouldn't be getting involved.
Children aren't consenting adults, so they cannot "shop" in this sense and therefore cannot be involved in the "shopping".
None of this effects whether the right to "shop" is absolute.
Can you imagine having to audition the other four hundred sperm donors in person before you got to #401?
You may think so, I disagree. It may not be very enforceable, especially in the midst of societal decay. But it is certainly within the power of the state to forbid certain relationships and behaviors.
SD
Don't know, but she was only eight steps away from choosing Forumla 409.
SD
Until she feels the need to collection child support payments.
I just hope the single women who have babies this way realize that being a single parent is a lot of work, and babies don't have an off switch, and you can't dump them at the pound for a few days to take a trip like you can with Fluffy.
Finally, I read once about single women who did the in-vitro thing. They formed some sort of support group, because they didn't have husbands I guess. Anyway, in one discussion, one woman said, "I won't be able to tell my son anything about his dad except he was number 45353." After the meeting, a woman asked if she just made that number up, but she said it was actually the number of the dad. The other woman said it was also the number of her donor, so their children were half-brothers. I wonder how often the "good" donors get chosen.
Finally, I'm unconvinced about nature vs. nurture. I know a bunch of people who are very smart, motivated and hard-working have brothers or sisters who are stupid, lethargic and lazy. Same nature. Same nurture. What gives?
"What I have to wonder is, when will one of thse psychos sue for "child support" or because she didn't get what she thought she was getting."
The advertisement said the donor was athletic and my kid can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. Gimme some money.
Only in the sense that breeding children as consumer products is better than destroying them as consumer products. But it's that "consumer" mentalty that makes it all possible.
*badumbum!*
I was reading the other day about some scientists' excitement about the idea of women no longer having to give birth. The woman would have the embryo taken out of her body, put in an incubator, then pick it up nine months later. It seems so creepy to me. Morning sickness might be annoying. Labor hurts. But, I cannot imagine not giving birth to my own children. It's worth the effort.
Now how about addressing the substantive issues: the ongoing replacement of families (based on relationships) with commercial transactions (based on ownership.) The transformation of children from "persons" to "property." And the erosion of that quaint idea of "human dignity" as children are produced and distributed via laboratory procedures and commercial transactions.
Sometimes I'm amazed that people can't see any further than the tips of their noses. Aldous Huxley, a humanist and agnostic, understood more clearly 75 years ago what's happening to us spritually, than virtually any other person living today. He knew, as very few seem to know today, that the technological manipulation of the sources of human life leads to the total commoditization of the peson: i.e. slavery.
"But...but...but... that's not what we want!"
No? You can't want every incremental, successive step, and not "want" the destination.
1. It's not as if it's an either-or choice. What does choosing a donor out of a catalogue and then raising the kid without a Dad have to do with abortion?
2. What can you tell me about the effect of single motherhood on kids?
That much is true. But as I pointed out in regards to abortion, that's not an either or choice either. It's not as if a woman walks into the sperm bank and says to herself "clone and kill and embryo or conceive a baby...decisions, decisions."
Rant?
Look, whether it's a good idea to try and ban this stuff may be open to debate, but what's not open to debate is that we've allowed babies to be a commodity. That's bad road, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.