From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Back Again To Father Notification...
Date: 8 Nov 92 18:08:31 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: mydog in exile

| >| >From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
| >| [ a person's genes ]
| >|  But does he own them?  Probably not.  He owns his body
| >| >fluids (until he gives them away) but I don't know of any
| >| >law under which he can claim ownership of his particular
| >| >genome.  Genetic material _has_ been copyrighted, but only
| >| >when it was artificially produced.

| >forb0004@student.tc.umn.edu (Eric Forbis) writes:
| >|I've heard this said many times, but haven't followed it. I _am_ my genome. 
| >| I don't own myself? I can scribble off a poem in seconds and my ownership 
| >| won't be doubted. I don't own me? If identity isn't self-ownership, then 
| >| what can ownership ever be based on?

gf:
| >You produced the poem, but you didn't produce the genes.
| >And an identical twin could have the same genome, yet you
| >would not own one another.  The genome is (as far as we
| >know) just information, the specifications of how to
| [Material deleted]
| >
| >By the way, the same argument -- that the genome of an
| >individual is completely different from the genome of
| >either of its parents -- would seem to weigh against the
| >right of a father to be notified of his fatherhood, since
| >the genes would no longer be "his."

ef:
| I deleted some of your interesting comments to bring two statements into 
| closer proximity: a) I didn't make my own genes, so I don't own them, and b) 
| because my genes differ from those of my parents, they don't own them either.
| Doesn't seem like _anyone_ with a valid interest owns me- is the gov't going 
| to come along and assert possesion?

Well, actually, in a liberal state, a compelling state
interest for doing so would have to be shown; but I suppose
a law could be passed allocating ownership of genes which
gave it to the government or the individual who was "in
possession" of them.  Other things which arise in Nature
are subjected to various kinds of allocation and properti-
zation, like mineral rights and radio spectrum bandwidth.
In general, though, I think if someone somehow snitched
a copy of your genome, they could do as they pleased with
it, as long as they didn't assert it was _you_.

Too bad no misc.legal types are interested in this; I
don't know if any cases have yet arisen, but they're
probably going to as the ability to do _in_vitro_
fertilization advances.

| Fatherhood has never depended on a claim over someone's genes, so this 
| hopefully won't be an issue in the future. But I do think I "own" my genes 
| through identity. Fertilization is self-guided; my own genes did their 
| recombination bit all by their lonesome. I am my genes. Your genes aren't 
| just a template followed to spin a body, after which are no longer 
| important; you are constantly dying and being replaced, building new 
| proteins, etc.. Your genome is in constant expression. You can't be 
| separated from your genome without suffering death. 

Yes, but then, just what is "fatherhood"?  It's pretty
much been taken to mean the donation of sperm, nothing
more until metaphorized or poeticized.  This is why I
find "father notification" a bit odd; it's quite possible
for a women not to know who the father is when pregnancy
occurs under casual circumstances.  I don't see a legal
solution, short of purdah, for this.  The personal
solution for those who have a strong emotional connec-
tion to their genes or their participation in 
reproduction is to maintain an equally strong connection
to the potential mothers they become involved with.

None of this reflects on "spousal notification" as noted
previously.  Marriage is a contract; everyone should read
the rules before they get into it.  
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,alt.feminism,soc.men,misc.legal