The basic premise of "family" is that parents have the right to decide what happens to their genes. Which would be true, if those genes weren't attached to a conscious being. Being a child is being shanghai'd into a license agreement to utilize/propagate someone else's genes.
A child has their genes before they are conscious. Whose genes are they at that point, when they are just a fetus without brain cells? The essential concept of property tends to associate it with labor plus owned material, which can be applied with few gynmastics to reproduction.
-
-
Well ok, I would still say that they are the genes of the fetus... They are the genes of the parents as well... and whether or not the baby fetus is the property of the mother (or father) to do whatever they wish with it is still up for debate...
-
If the fetus were never conscious it would be unambiguously the property of the parents, is the gist of that part of the observation.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.