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: 17 Dec 92 04:20:25 GMT
Keywords: Property rights, abortion, compensation for involuntary loss...?

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?  Is my finger my "property", in the eyes of case law, or is
is something else?  Does it make a difference if it's not attached to me
any more?  Let's say my finger gets lopped off in an accident, and now
it's sitting on the table (this is analogous to the "frozen embryos"
situation proposed above.)  Is it my property?  (By the way, I'm entirely
serious with this line of questioning; perhaps someone knows of cases that
have discussed property aspects of body parts, or can search Lexis?)

>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....

>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,
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?)


-- 
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