I thought you backed off on the second statement if the genetic father was a sperm donor or other person who only provided genetic material and the need was years later.
My son’s birthmother has zero legal obligations to him. And since he is eighteen, my legal obligations to him are quickly ending. He IS a stranger to her. By accident, he got half her genes.
In Davis v. Davis a divorce case about the custody of frozen embryos the “preborn humans” ended up being destroyed.
Jean-Pierre Bosze died of leukemia because the court would not allow his half-siblings to be tested as potential bone marrow donors.
Yes. I’m currently thinking that the obligation should arise from the existence of a parental relationship that society is prepared to recognize as existing and having obligations to support.
Yes. And?
And?
Shouldn’t people to legally forced to carry frozen embryos to term and be tested for bodily donations to their genetic relatives? Isn’t the alternative the taking of a life, or murder???
And there is no parental relationship between a fetus and a woman who is intending to have an abortion.
That’s begging the question. You’re trying to show that the statement under examination is true by assuming the statement under examination to be true.
More specifically, you’re right – but that just means you’re right that the current state of the law permits abortion, which I freely acknowledge. I argue that society should recognize a parental relationship between a fetus and a woman who is intending to have an abortion.
Annie, I think you’re very confused about how debate works.
Neither example you gave is precisely on point. The frozen embryo is close, but the genetic testing involves three year old half-siblings of the person in need. Nowhere have I suggested that my model extends to siblings or half-siblings.
This would be an example of the strawman fallacy.
The frozen embryos could remain frozen without the taking of any life, although I agree their deliberate destruction is the death of a human.
At what cost, for how long…and who would be paying for this?
Why should society recognize a parental relationship? The woman doesn’t acknowledge it. The fetus will be months away, even after its born, from acknowledging it (about six months before a baby creates a permanent attachment with its primary caregiver). Moreover, why should that parental relationship extend to the use of her body against her consent, when you agree that the use of a persons body against their consent when they deny a parental relationship is wrong?
The only way I get your logic here is if you start with the premise that abortion is wrong, and then do all sorts of ethical gymnastics to justify that.
If you believe abortion is wrong, the simple solution is not to have one yourself.
I happen to belong to a religious tradition where war is wrong. I’m far too old (and female) to get called up, but my daughter is an active member in the same religious tradition - and there is no guarantee that the female thing will hold. She’ll be a conscious objector - she has laid the groundwork in her social action work for years - and she’s seventeen. But neither of us argue that our tax dollars shouldn’t be used to wage war - just that we don’t want to put our own selves in the situation of waging it. Our money and our selves are two different things.
The government does a lot of things with our tax dollars that I don’t think are awesome. But I don’t think I have a right to pick and choose.
Suppose someone extended that model to suggesting that if you think rape is wrong, don’t commit a rape, and if you think robbery is wrong, don’t commit a robbery?
I think abortion is wrong because it is the deliberate ending of a human life. That means I seek to end its legality to protect the human lives that would otherwise be lost.
That’s not what I agreed. I agreed that the use of a persons body against their consent when society does not recognize a parental relationship is wrong.
I don’t know. That’s one reason I said “could.”
And I’m asking if “could” = “feasible for the average person”. If it isn’t, why bother bringing it up?
Except abortion is legal, and you keep pointing that out. And when accused of arguing that it should be made illegal, you seem to want to say that isn’t what you are arguing at all.
Should abortion be made illegal? If so, on what basis should abortion be made illegal, but a genetic parent not be legally required to donate a kidney?
The model wouldn’t hold up because rape and murder are active crimes one person commits against another (Intent can also be factor in some cases). Abortion is a simply a medical procedure for separating a fetus from a mother who no longer wishes to gestate it. On a philosophical level it isn’t different from refusing to donate blood or an organ. Both of which are completely legal. Or killing someone to prevent them from cannibalizing you which is also completely legal.
If that parental relationship should exist, then I have having a hard time not seeing how birth parents and sperm donors shouldn’t also be held to have that same relationship.
For instance, Woman A is pregnant by Man B. She does not wish to be pregnant, nor have a child, but abortion is illegal (in this scenario). Her only option is to carry the fetus to term, because in this scenario, she is recognized to have a parental relationship. So though she then gives the baby up for adoption, she is still held to be responsible for carrying the fetus inside her body for nine months. Man B has no apparent obligation, at this point, though he has the exact same biological relationship to the fetus. If she has the obligation due to genetic relationship to carry the fetus, why then shouldn’t all birth parents be held responsible for any medical needs the child may need down the road, such as organ or bone marrow transplant?
The relationship of a birth parent or sperm donor to a baby put up for adoption should be the sane as that of the Woman who wishes to abort but is prevented by law. That is, a relationship of biology, not of parental connection.
At the point of the vast majority of abortions, it isn’t a son or daughter. This is why folks like you shouldn’t be making laws that severely affect others - you can’t divorce your emotional/religious feelings from the process.
The definition of parent by Merriam-Webster is “one that begets or brings forth offspring <just became parents of twins>”. Interesting that the female isn’t a parent until birth, but the man is a parent at conception …
That is the major difference here. You believe a zygote or fetus is a human life, others don’t. However, you would be hard pressed to find anyone who didn’t consider rape or robbery to be crimes against humans.
The average person doesn’t have frozen embryos. So the question should be, “Is it feasible for the average IVF patient?”
I think it is, but since I don’t know the subject in detail, I am prepared to learn I am wrong.