Re: Yet another IP argument

From: Michael S. Lorrey (
Date: Mon Aug 14 2000 - 10:10:38 MDT

Loree Thomas wrote:
> Ok... I withdraw my pleasant comment.
> Further, I'll politely withdraw from this discussion. I can see it's
> pointless.

I would hardly call that polite. Quite rude while faking politeness. Complete
insincerity, in fact.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
> > On the contrary, since MY original point dealt with situations where
> > consent was not involved,
> Read what you wrote:
> "Yet every legal precedent in the country states that ultimately
> it is the biological parents who are responsible for their biological
> children."
> It simply isn't true. As you pointed out yourself.

Quoting what I said halfway through the discussion, and ignoring the stuff I
posted, like the fact that an anonymous donor is not considered a biological
parent in the legal sense, and if the husband of the recipient consents to the
process, even a known donor is not the legal 'biological parent' and has no
rights that would consistent with same.

Ultimately the biological parents ARE responsible, although that responsibility
is lifted from them by the state under certain conditions, which vary from state
to state. For those who question why is it that the state has any say in
reproductive matters (which court precedents recognise, that delving to
specifically in statute or precedent would violate the parent's right to privacy
under the Grizwold case). While I understand that with someone like you, Loree,
everything is relative and nothing is absolute, so this is probably very hard
for you to understand.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:57 MDT