Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
no. next. on edit: the woman is the one harmed and her tort is what needs to be made right.
Well, I suppose you’re at least consistent. Most people agree that terminating a pregnant person’s pregnancy against her will should be a murder charge, myself included.
Does that mean a woman can sell her zygote? I’m working through the implications.
You know, it’s far simpler just to say “yeah, it has rights but in these circumstance this other person who also has rights has precedence.”
Women already ‘sell their zygotes’, its called a surrogate mother. We just pretend that is somehow different.
Isn’t that closer to renting ones uterus?
Perhaps research surrogates? In some cases the mother is transferring ownership of her half of the ‘zygote’ to another party.
Her… half of the zygote? This is some tortured logic haha
Her egg, somebody else’s sperm.
It’s wholly off topic, but the egg would be what was “sold”. Not the zygote. This is a crazy conversation. Haha