Justin\u2019s most recent salvo is to ask me to weigh in yes or no on four hypothetical and then explain the consistent framework that led to my decision.\u00a0 Given some of the ambiguities that crept into his discourse with RustBelt when they were discussing legality versus morality, I\u2019m going to give two answers for each scenario:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Do I think the government should ban it?<\/li>\n
- Do I think it is wrong for people to do it?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
And away we go.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Scenario 1: The Free Market in Babies<\/strong> Judge Richard Posner has famously argued that there should be a free market in babies. Women get to make money, and pent-up demand for children by older couples can easily be met.<\/em><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TIpS_Dq-UrI\/AAAAAAAABC0\/xXvblGVUFkM\/s320\/womb.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nIllegal?<\/strong> Yes
\nImmoral?<\/strong> Yes<\/p>\nThere\u2019s some pretty good reasons and some pretty terrible history that teaches us that poverty has a terrible coercive force.\u00a0 The institution of Human Subjects Committees to oversee research came in response to gross abuses that preyed on the most vulnerable.\u00a0 There\u2019s simply too much risk of exploitation to make this a reasonable option.\u00a0 Additionally, it\u2019s hardly necessary when there are so many orphan children who need homes.\u00a0 There\u2019s no reason to up the supply of needing-to-be-adopted babies.<\/p>\n
If we took a jaunt to the world where demand for adoption exceeded supply and gay men and infertile women were left in the lurch, that would be unfortunate for them, but I wouldn\u2019t set up a system with such potential for abuse to salve their hurt.<\/p>\n
I do think it falls down on the side of immoral, since it treats women as less like people and more like fungible wombs.\u00a0 This is problematic to begin with, and should be treated with caution, but, unlike the sperm bank example, the problem is not just that the woman is treated as a commodity, but that she is viewed as replaceable enough to expose to substantial risk in a way a sperm donor is not.\u00a0 The combination of these two facts pushes it into immoral.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Scenario 2: The Gottlieb Case<\/strong> A feminist feels her biological clock ticking and thinks marrying her boyfriend would be settling. So she goes to a sperm bank and procreates that way.<\/em><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TIpTZpomaFI\/AAAAAAAABC4\/YVtswgi9zc8\/s320\/sperm.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nIllegal?<\/strong> No
\nImmoral?<\/strong> No<\/p>\nI\u2019ve got no problems here legally.\u00a0 This route to conception is considerably more likely to be the result of careful consideration, so there\u2019s a lovely selection bias that ensures that only wanted children are born.<\/p>\n
Now I\u2019ll return to the purchasing sperm\/renting wombs problem. In both cases, I see a person primarily as a provider of a good or service I want.\u00a0 This can be problematic, especially in large doses, but is to a certain extent unavoidable.\u00a0 When I\u2019m in line at the grocery story, I see the cashier as primarily instrumental, rather than engaging with him as an end-in-himself.<\/p>\n
The distinction here is about how much I can still realize that this person exists outside of our instrumental relationship.\u00a0 The sperm donor incurs minimal harm and is not present to be objectified.\u00a0 The surrogate womb is exposed to dangerous risks.\u00a0 Therefore, to buy a woman\u2019s pregnancy, I treat her pain and her possible death as a commodity that I may purchase or not.\u00a0 A sperm donor is simply providing genetic material, without my choosing to expose him to risk.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Scenario 3: The Rock Star<\/strong><\/span> a woman wants to have a baby with her boyfriend (not husband). He does not really want to have a baby because his rock band is on the cusp of stardom, but is willing to do it to keep her happy.<\/em><\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/3.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TIpShXUXiqI\/AAAAAAAABCs\/HcAOOKxm5PY\/s200\/rockstar.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\nIllegal?<\/strong> No
\nImmoral?<\/strong> A bit<\/p>\nQuite aside from thinking our government\u2019s resources are probably not well used when they\u2019re allocated to policing contraception use, I think that the government has no reasonable basis to screen all prospective parents for fitness, rather than police them for abuses.\u00a0 There\u2019s no framework in which this could reasonably be addressed through law.<\/p>\n
This got ranked at least slightly immoral since, in my mind, this is a sin of negligence.\u00a0 The woman is clearly being short-sighted and foolish.\u00a0 Moral mistakes made out of ignorance are more forgivable, but I would say that this verges on negligence.\u00a0 There\u2019s no ignorance exemption if you fail to do due diligence.<\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Scenario 4: Polygamy<\/strong> A fundamentalist Mormon sect practices polygamy. A man would like to take a second wife and have children with her too<\/em>.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/4.bp.blogspot.com\/_b7Eh98KJ_qI\/TIpSu390mjI\/AAAAAAAABCw\/ryIsK_Yalrc\/s320\/polygamy.jpg\")
<\/a><\/div>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/4256452356987023523-6142487523356274320?l=www.unequally-yoked.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"