[Regard this article as a draft; unfinished piece of writing] I’m not writing this article particularly because I seek to provide some answers – but because I seek to get some. I recently came across a reasonably plausible – at least seemingly – take which transparently suggests that animals do...
‘A Surrogate Motherhood Contract’ – a legal agreement whereby a woman consents to become pregnant, conduct her pregnancy accordingly, give birth to a child or children - all of this for another person or persons, who are or will ultimately become the parent(s) of the newborn child or children. Both...
I talked about the German piece of legislation - OF COURSE. It has to do with that. That's basic legal knowledge in German law. This is the last comment I am sending in respect of this issue. Maybe do your research? How many legal cases from Germany have you read, about this issue, honestly?
What you're talking about is NOT standard surrogacy. It's the exception type.
Check the case-law if you're so sure that Article which I reffered to has nothing to do with what I argued. You need to see the purpose behind a rule in order to understand it - not to merely read it. (That's quite a basic thing). That piece of legislation has the precise purpose I already told you about.
If one doesn't explicitly say it's Gestational, then it's traditional. Indeed though, mentioning it may help.
First of all, I think you don't concretely understand what (standard, as you said) surrogacy is. Or perhaps you didn't express it correctly or I did not understand what you expressed. Surrogacy is where a woman becomes pregnant with the intention of handing over the child to someone else after giving birth. Generally, she carries the baby for a couple or parent who cannot or do not conceive a child themselves - they are known as "intended parents". It is genetically her child - but the sperm she receives is possibly from the father. What do you mean by 'not hers genetically'? It is hers genetically. How can you carry a child
Thank you for your comment. I will come back to you soon.
[Regard this article as a draft; unfinished piece of writing]
I’m not writing this article particularly because I seek to provide some answers – but because I seek to get some.
I recently came across a reasonably plausible – at least seemingly – take which transparently suggests that animals do not have rights. Jordan Peterson, an apparently infamous Canadian thinker, clinical psychologist and a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, expressed it. I find it worth considering. Let’s have a look at it (I paraphrased it).
Animals do not have rights. Human beings have rights. Rights are not "inside" or part of a person. They are part of the complex... (read 385 more words →)
I think I can see your point, but I will expand a bit to transmit whether I indeed do. You argue that this matter would make sense only if moral realism were applied to it - because otherwise the answer may be relative and thus produce no practical explanation?
Now, about your suggestion, I thought about it beforehand. But I don't see how one can measure that (long-term) in the countries where such a contract is currently not enforceable. And, short-term, I think the answer is self-evident. Indeed, you said "partially" - but I don't think one can even partially analyze that, but only offer some mere predictions, like Posner did. But, maybe I am not creative enough when it comes to how I should analyze the data to provide meaningful answers to your question. You can check the data for India, where such a contract is already enforceable. And you can see the consequences.
I'll sleep on it. Good suggestions. Thanks!
Perhaps both Posner and the Court - but especially Posner - overlook the fact that a female, once she gives birth to a baby - her maternal instinct comes to life and thus influences her emotions and perhaps potentially her decisions. Her perspective thus naturally changes after she gives birth. It is something she cannot easily control. It's a biological process, after all. Could this be relevant?
‘A Surrogate Motherhood Contract’ – a legal agreement whereby a woman consents to become pregnant, conduct her pregnancy accordingly, give birth to a child or children - all of this for another person or persons, who are or will ultimately become the parent(s) of the newborn child or children.
Both the legal and moral status of surrogacy differs widely from one country to another.[1] For instance, a surrogate motherhood contract is perfectly legal in India; German law considers such contracts clearly void[2]; in the UK only altruistic surrogacy is allowed[3]; and in Romania it is uncertain what the law says in respect of such legal agreements[4]. This clearly conveys that this... (read 965 more words →)
That's a good point. I think I should have given a more elaborate basis for my argument. And I figured (quite late) that this article is not necessarily in harmony with the LW community perspective, as it involves a legal aspect rather than something related to rationality. So, after pondering for a while, I admit, my approach was flawed, and from now on I won't write anything that fundamentally involves a difficult legal problem, but something related to rationality per se.
Anyhow, what I don't personally get is why would one disagree with an argument which he does not understand. There's one thing to state: "hei, can you provide more explanation for your