From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Embryos as Property?
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:24:58 GMT

In <lairdb.724566025@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>In <1992Dec16.155842.17381@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>bard@cutter.ssd.loral.com (J H Woodyatt) writes...
>>JHW> Here.  Play with this:

>>JHW> Frozen embryos.  While in transit through another sovereign nation,
>>JHW> they are taken into custody by agents of that foreign nation, wherein
>>JHW> they expire as a result of mistreatment.  Since embryos are persons,
>>JHW> and therefore *not* property under U.S. law, the foreign nation is
>>JHW> `responsible' for the death of those `persons' rather than the
>>JHW> destruction of property
>>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Ah, so you *would* consider embryos as property, then?

>>This wasn't meant to be taken as a flame ; I'm just curious as to why you would
>>want to admit this, while many other "Pro choice" people have stayed clear of
>>using terminology such as this, perhaps out of fear of being flamed by
>>"pro-lifers" who might accuse them of believing potential children as merely
>>someone's property.

>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.

>>Of course, if embryos *are* property, then why could it not be argued that
>>*both* of the people who contributed to its creation, should have rights to
>>"its" disposition?  Naturally, it would be a different matter when the embryo
>>is located in someone else's body, but if I recall correctly, situations where
>>two parties have joint ownership, but only party has exclusive rights to the
>>disposition of that property, the other party *does* receive compensation if
>>that property is sold, used for profit, or (if you have already guessed where
>>I'm headed...), destroyed.

>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...

>>I realise that this is a Devil's Advocate argument, but I should say right from
>>the start that I consider it absolutely invidious to consider unborn persons
>>as property, *but* if they *were* considered as such, would there not be some
>>sort of financial compensation owing to men for involuntary loss of property
>>after an abortion??

>>(Boy, I can just *imagine* the flameworks starting now...)
>>/* Set Asbestos Suit On */

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

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

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?)

Peter Nyikos

Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity,alt.feminism