From: ahk@chinet.com
Rhino wrote:
>On 2026-02-15 12:53 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino wrote:
>>>On 2026-02-15 2:53 a.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Rhino wrote:
>>>>>On 2026-02-14 9:01 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>Rhino wrote:
>>>>>>>On 2026-02-14 4:30 p.m., Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>New medical technologies and techniques have made it possible for
>>>significantly premature babies to survive now so the question of where
>>>life begins is not so clear cut any more.
>>That doesn't mean change the common law definition. With the foetus
>>birthed through a surgical procedure separating it from it's mother, a
>>separate team handles incubation, if there is some possibility of
>>survival. There are now two patients to treat and at this point, the
>>mother is being helped without considering the consequences to the baby.
>Agreed. What's your point?
Without such a law, a birth has occurred with surgical separation from
the mother. Maybe the premature baby may be artificially brought to term
with modern medical devices and treatment. I don't agree with you that
improved technology requires any changes in legal definitions.
>. . .
>Or maybe I do. I'm just remembering the case of a little boy that
>suffered from hydrocephaly ("water on the brain"). The situation was
>discovered when he was still in the womb and there was so much water in
>his brain that his brain was compressed into only 3% of the space
>normally occupied by a brain. Doctors said he'd be a complete vegetable
>when he was born and there was only one slim shot for him if they did an
>in utero procedure that drained much of the water. The parents agreed to
>the procedure and the boy turned out to be very close to normal even
>though they hadn't succeeded in improving the volume of the brain very
>much. Apparently, the doctors/scientists were astounded at the level of
>"neuro-plasticity" (ability of the brain to rewire itself) this boy showed.
With this law, the mother would not be allowed to abort and required to
undergo such a procedure, the intended consequence of making foetal life
"human" and tnerefore superior to the mother's.
>. . .
>>And now let's talk about the inheritance rights of artificially conceived
>>embryos. And suing sperm donors for child support while still in
>>embryonic stage. And the possibility of forcing a woman into surrogacy
>>since the law has now made the rights of fertilized eggs superior to the
>>rights of woman.
>I'm not sure what scenarios you are envisioning here. Have there been
>suits where the sperm donor was successfully sued for child support?
This is the first law of its kind in the United States. Lawsuits are a
given.
>If so, I think I'm appalled. If a guy goes to a sperm bank and donates some
>of his swimmers, I assume he's doing so either because of a humanitarian
>impulse to help someone who can't conceive with their partner or perhaps
>for some spare change. Making him pay child support seems really wrong
>to me. I'm assuming that he got only a small honorarium for his
>"contribution", not a multi-million dollar payout, and I have no reason
>to assume he was already wealthy.
I believe sperm donors have been sued but I don't know if there have
been support awards or inheritance rights. We do know that such fathers
have been tracked down by their spawn wanting to know where they came
from, which sounds like a horrid invasion of privacy.
What I'm suggesting is that the sperm donor might be sued for child
support starting the moment of conception and for storage of the
fertilized egg and implantation procedure.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
