Bill's Notes

The decisions right: Some can have three parents
A state superior court declares a child can have three parents.


Fortunate children have many people who love them as much as their parents do. But in the best interests of children, no court should break open the rule of two when assigning legal parenthood.


Note: I'm not exactly sure of the facts of this case. But if this case concerns a sperm donor, an egg donor and a "gestational surrogate" [I already loathe the term], then clearly the child has three parents. Two from whom it received its DNA, and the mother [a better term than gestational surrogate] who carried the child to term.

Technically, two parents. But a gestational surrogate who carries the child to term -- risking her life, by the way, and going through the great fun of childbirth -- has parental rights.

It gets really complicated, though, once you open that door. What if sperm can be hybridized, and the same eggs? Does donation of a chromosone to a sperm count?

I dunno. People smarter than me have to figure that out.

Am I wrong?
Paul Burgess (www):
Coming next: a constitutional right to have three legs.

It's unnatural, you say? Ah, but their talking points are stockpiled and ready to go:
(1) "Nature" is a meaningless concept.

(2) There is no Nature.

(3) Nature is stupid, anyhow.

(4) Three legs are no more or less natural than seven legs, or twenty-one legs.

(5) Consider the centipede. We must imitate Nature.

(6) Nature is nothing but socially constructed, and it's never been anything but oppressive.

(7) Shut up and spare us your reactionary fascist arguments on behalf of "Nature"! Gentech technocracy can and will produce humans with three legs, whether you like it or not.

(8) Shut up, fascist! (And anyone who disagrees with us is a fascist.) We will brook no opposition, and in the end your children and grandchildren will belong to us. Three legs and all.
See? It's the same set of talking points every time, no matter what the issue at hand. Three parents, three legs, three heads... what's the difference?
7.17.2007 8:49am
Paul Burgess (www):
Oh, and I forgot the all-important, all-purpose, all-conquering talking point #9:
9. Anyone who opposes the right to have three legs is nothing but a hater, a bigot, and a three-legged-ophobe.
7.17.2007 10:54am
Bill (mail) (www):
But people sometimes have three legs ... this is a strange exception. Unless you don't want to count the surrogate. Still, I am sympathetic to your point.
7.17.2007 12:24pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?
Thank you for choosing to comment on IndustrialBlog. Our commenting policy is pretty simple: Be civil. If you are mean-spirited, tendentious, vexatious, quarrelsome and/or annoying, you just may get deleted. If you are charming, sophisticated and/or funny, on the other hand, you may get a free rein no matter what you say. It depends. Also, please note that commenting is for this post ONLY. Do not comment on other posts here. If I closed comments for a post, I did so for a reason. Thank you. Please enjoy your stay at IndustrialBlog, and remember the Blogosphere can be dangerous place -- be careful out there. The Management.