Over on the Embryo Adoption discussion...these folk are claiming that reproduction is a constitutionally protected right? Lawyers please? Constitutional scholars? They are somehow using abortion to prove their point when I went to research this odd (to me) claim.
What I found is this:
The right to privacy and personal bodily autonomy have been found to exist within the constitution as well as above and beyond the constitution itself.
Quote:
“personal right: a right that forms part of a person’s legal status or personal condition, as opposed to the person’s estate.”
Where does it say anything about the *right* to REPRODUCE? And why should any of in fighting to reform, reconstruct, redefine or or eliminate adoption even care?
Well, I for one likely won't be around to see it, but this is the future. Reproductive technology WILL replace adoption, since it is much preferred by the majority of those adopting. Gamete or (left over) fertilized embryo adoption still offers the woman the pregnancy experience she misses through traditional adoption.
One might think: Good: it replaces adoption. Stops tearing families apart to create new ones. Yes. But, hooray: it stops the pressure and coercion and the exploitation? Not exactly! There's dimply be a switch to exploiting the poor for their sperm and eggs and wombs.
AND...the bonus of embryo adoption (and other forms of assisted third party reproduction for the paying customers is never having to tell anyone, not even the kid, how - or by whom - he was conceived. He can grow up and wonder why he has an eye color that is impossible genetically based on his "parents". She can worry about getting breast cancer like her "mother" and even consider prophylactic mastectomy...but they don't have to ever be told the truth!
As Pertman points out, it it duplicates all of the problems of adoption and horrifyingly - starts them all over again back to the 1960's when standard practice was NOT to tell your child he or she was adopted. No one ever had to know!
Pertman HOPES that they learn form our lessons that secrecy is bad. But we've been HOPING for 40 years for equal access!
So there you have it. The brave new world. Back to square one for these kids in the fight to be treated like human beings with rights.
An speaking of rights, I segue back to the question of a constitutional right to reproduce. Is there such a thing?
2 comments:
No, there is no such right to reproduce. There is a right not to be prevented from reproducing, thus, forced sterilization is unconstitutional. When there is a right there is also a concomitant duty and there is no duty either to reproduce nor to provide it if it is not present.
One question,however, is who pays for reproductive technology? Right now it is those who have the money or who can find coverage. Certain states provide coverage for ARTs where infertility is considered a disability. Pressure is coming from the medical profession and pharmaceutical companies to provide insurance coverage for ARTs throughout the US. There is little to no discussion of the child's interests in America. This is in contrast to England and Europe. Canada has one on the US with Margaret Sommerville who is a vocal advocate for the children and their right to know their history.
Thanks Mark.
1) That's what I thought!
2) I have no doubt that "they" will get their coverage, just as they get tax benefits now for adopting. And the rest of us in one way or another pay for their treatments and also for their preemie babies which costs a gazillion dollars. The doctors in the field will lobby to see to it.
3) Indeed! Children have NO rights whatsoever in this country. They are property.
Post a Comment