From: lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Organization: "Well, a head on top, an arm on each side, two legs...."
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:57:28 GMT
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

In <nyikos.724958698@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>In <lairdb.724566025@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:
>>Hmmm.  Let's go with this a little and see where it gets us.  Taking an
>>embryo to be a body part of the mother, what is the "legal" status of a
>>body part?

>The claim that the embryo is a body part of its mother, besides being
>pseudoscience of the lowest order, is just as offensive to me as the
>notion that it is property.

Whether or not is is "pseudo-science" would appear to be a matter of 
opinion; whether or not it is offensive to you has absolutely nothing to
do with the law.  Many things in the law, many decisions in individual
cases, many actions by governments are offensive to me.  Nonetheless
I can engage in rational discussion of them without trying to squelch
the discussion on the grounds that it's `icky'.

>>Hmmm.  This would seem to be descending to the trivial (not that the law
>>doesn't, but...) since the non-gestating partner has only contributed a
>>single cell (not even that, really, just a strip of chromosome.)  BUT, 
>>stay with me for a minute....

>But without that "contribution" there would have been no embryo to begin 
>with.  Just as it takes two to tango...

True.  However, the question at hand (although you keep trying to drag the
discussion off into the weeds) is on the property/other rights the two
people might have in the offspring.  Your response would seem to say
that if your friend gives you a set of sparkplugs for your car, he
suddenly has some rights to the whole thing.  Please explain further.

>>Wellll, the non-gestating partner has contributed only a single
>>chromosome,

>Go back to high school biology.  The partner contributed 23 chromosomes.

Okay, okay, mea culpa, a minor thinko.  The point remains the same: the
partner has contributed to the mix an important component of negligible
mass (as with the sparkplug analogy above.)

>What else are you a pseudo-expert on, Laird? are you, at least,
>following the "various genetic IP cases" you mention below?  Do they
>indulge in the same pseudoscience you do?

>>so we'll ignore their physical property rights for the moment, but what
>>about their *intellectual property* rights?  Does a person have an IP
>>right in their chromosome sequence?  In another example, suppose someone
>>clones you; do you have a copyright case against them?  (Again, entirely
>>serious question, anybody following the various genetic IP cases?)

I follow them a little; part of the point of my post was to find out if
someone more up-to-date on the cases would come forth.  Since you seem 
obsessed with having a flamefest rather than a discussion, I wouldn't
be surprised if no one bothered.  WRT "pseudoscience", aside from my
admitted thinko on chromosomes vs. cells, I don't see any mention
of Kirilian auras or spoon-bending in my remarks.  Seems to me that
someone who insists on some sort of miraculous difference between 
one cell and two merged cells is more open to accusations of pseudoscience
than I.  This *still* has nothing to do with the original question of
IP rights in genetic sequences, work-product rules, or relative (no
pun intended) property rights.


-- 
Laird P. Broadfield     lairdb@crash.cts.com    ...{ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb
Hi!  I'm a shareware signature!  Send $5 if you use me, send $10 for manual!
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,misc.legal,talk.abortion