There's a case: if we're fracturing the natural role of mother into parts—donor, gestator, social mother—natural justice suggests all get a say. Otherwise we're commodifying, that is, dehumanizing, fundamental social relations, as if we aren't already dehumanized enough.
-
-
-
That’s an interesting idea re: fracturing the mother role. I’m wrestling with this question and your comment is helping me sort it out. I wonder if that necessitates a hierarchy of interests/authority amongst the roles. Thanks for the insight!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Deep question. Many, many facets. (Who owns your DNA and the history of the HeLa cells; Libertarianism and the separation of family and State; Psychological adaptations for kin recognition; Daly and Wilson book; Etc. etc.)
-
(And .. compared to sperm donors is there a moral psychology difference here in how we psychologically value motherhood versus fatherhood?)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Not unless you’re willing to legally give up closed adoptions too
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes. The father has the right and duty to defend his child.
-
That's not even what was asked.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Did
@JonHaidt concoct this controversy?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No. The mother is the person who rears, loves and fights for her child, certainly not the egg layer.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This video dives into it, if you're interestedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjHn6QEgh4 …
End of conversation
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.