If i understand correctly your genetic code is your property and your person at the same time which is why there are so many legal forms concerning it and why warrants are required for non voluntary DNA tests/archiving within the united states. If i also recall currently human dna can not be patenteted at the moment like crops or live stock as for the reelase of your ownership during sex? well if it results in conception it is not your dna any more. it is now an entirely different sequence since only 50% of your code is used in its production. Its like me using a dozen differentiated patented gears to make a new product

If your genetic pattern can't be patented then that does rather end the issue. Though to address your condom question, according to the CDC condoms fail 12% of the time (http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/contraception.htm) so yes, your consent would still have to be assumed in this day and age. Your tissue argument really doesn't relate to the point.

The general purpose of patents and copyrights is to encourage further development of stuff and the development of new things. The new stuff and further development is what is valuable to society, not the cash cow system you are probably thinking of. Patents and copyrights exist to allow creators to have certain protections to encourage further development of these things, giving them the government given right to deny anyone from using the stuff they developed. Generally, creators can make deals where they get paid in exchange for granting privileges to others to use their ideas. Without it, creators would spend resources to develop new things, but then everyone else could use the idea right away. Without the control over new ideas, creators would have to fight recoup spent resources while those good at producing things would be able to start production without spending the resources needed to create an idea (and probably out compete the creators). In such a circumstance, the best decision one could make in business would be a producer, not a creator, thus creating intellectual stagnation, hence the need for patents. Naturally, to prevent patents from becoming cash cows, patents and copyrights are designed to expire over time. If I recall correctly, US patents expire after 20 years (I forget what it is for copyrights). If you don't improve it or make the next best thing, you will lose your advantage. Part of the patent process involves documentation. Good documentation makes supporting your legal control over the patent stronger, and once the patent expires the documentation is useful to all. You also need to show that the idea is actually and is not an idea that one could easily come up with. For instance, you can't patent a toaster (because it isn't new), nor could you patent a 4 slot after seeing a 2 slot toaster (because that is an easy idea to come up with). However, a teleporter could be patented if one could figure out how to make one. ---- So no, genetics is poor grounds for copyrights. None of what was evolved can be copyrighted because no human actually created the stuff, and its been around for a long time. If you could somehow prove that you created some new DNA that actual did something new, then maybe. Anything involving reproduction is tricky because sex is going to happen (its not something you can really stop), which may or may not violate patents and stuff. I need to look up some stuff before I comment further (depends if I get some free time soon).

OneTrikPony wrote:

I also find the idea that casual sex is explicit consent for procreation just ludicrous. The truth is the oposite the law should reflect the truth.

I very strongly disagree. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems like you are strongly implying that men require a legal recourse to either avoid maternal support or compel an abortion in the event of an undesired pregnancy, under the premise of "protecting your genetic information". There are several different ways this stance is flawed: To start with the most serious problem (compelling an abortion), the issue is one of force. After conception (intended or not) the pregnancy is the sole domain of the woman, it is a biological process that is literally occurring inside her body. To force a woman to undergo an abortion against her will is literally physical and psychological assault and battery. The immorality of compelling action via force is a fundamental tenant of my worldview and I don't want to take the space to justify it here, but if you disagree let me know why and I'm open to discussing it. Second, every sex act, including those where contraception is used, involves a statistically significant chance (risk) of pregnancy. In engaging in the act, you are explicitly choosing to take this risk and deal with the consequences involved. Both participants have to accept this risk in full, or the sex was actually rape. This is why statutory rape laws exist - minors are (on average) incapable of fully evaluating this risk and its potential consequences, so they cannot consent to the risk. Further, choosing to take the risk but demanding that the unfavorable outcome not apply to you is also unethical. You can't buy a lottery ticket and demand a refund when you lose! Lastly, if the outcome is a child, then you have a moral duty to the child - not the woman (though the woman also has a duty to the child). Another way of putting that is that the child has the right to not be harmed through your neglect. This right is inherent to being a child: children are incapable of providing for themselves and only came into existence through your actions (intended or not). In your hypothetical scenario:

OneTrikPony wrote:

An actor or athlete has no protections when some company steals his genetics to sell toparrents who want to buildababy? That same actor has no protections from a woman who wants a million dollar child support suit.

The actor would never have a duty to the child, because the actor took no *action* (heh) to create the child. The current legal system accomplishes this just fine. But now I feel like I'm justifying why child abuse through neglect is immoral, and the need for *that* is indeed just ludicrous.

No way in Hell is he responsible if that was the terms of the contract.

OneTrikPony wrote:

Here's a beter link http://verdict.justia.com/2014/01/27/craigslist-sperm-donor-owes-child-s...

Thanks! And ah ha! Now I remember hearing about this one back when it happened. That's a mess. Ethically, I don't think that Marotta should have a duty to support the child. Legally, I see why the State ruled the way it did. I guess I see this case as being about contract law more than I see it being about reproductive ethics. The way that Kansas Code 23-2208(f) is written would have prevented this situation, if not for the "provided to a licensed physician" line. I can only construe that as a well-intentioned attempt to protect the health of the donor/recipient (tinfoil hat version: legal cronyism with the sperm donor industry). I happen to fundamentally disagree with the intent - I don't think that it's the proper role of the State to protect people from their own stupidity. If you want to get knocked up using semen in a cup from some guy you met on Craigslist, go for it (I sure as fuck wouldn't do it but hey, I'm not them). The other issue is the unenforceable contract. The fact that the State only recognizes contracts drafted by bar licensed lawyers has always seemed unethical to me. It comes across as revolving-door protectionism of the bar association and legal industry by lawmakers (who are bar lawyers, for the most part). There could have been nothing wrong with the terms of the contract they used, and even if there were problems it should have been challenged on the basis of those. Anyway, this is turning into a derailment. ======================================================== To go back a few posts to your point about Montsanto seed genes vs. the genetic material of the bull breeder - I would argue that neither of them should have legal protection. They already have other means of legal protection: In the case of the bull breeder. You can't steal his bull - that's theft. You can't break onto his property and and take genetic material - that's breaking and entering, trespassing, and theft (of the physical sample). You can't sign a contract for the bull's services in which you agree not to breed any offspring, and then breed them - that's breach of contract. Criminal and civil law already provides remedies for all of these scenarios. It should be the same in the case of Monsanto. If Monsanto sells seeds to farmer A under a contract that prohibits replanting or crossbreeding, and the farmer replants or crossbreeds them - that's breach of contract. If Monsanto sells to farmer A (under the same contract) and the pollen drifts across the road and crossbreeds with farmer B's crops - then Monsanto is fuck out of luck and should have engineered the seeds so that they didn't reproduce. Unless farmer A intentionally arranged the scenario - that's probably breach of contract for farmer A, but nothing for farmer B. Food for thought: in both these cases, I see this as a question of legal ownership of self-replicating property. People aren't property. And what about self-replicating machines?

Your body is your property, including the physical DNA that is the medium for your genetics. But how is the information itself your property? Counter examples: Monsanto develops a genetically enhanced corn strain. They then pay to dust every corn field in the world with pollen from their new strain. They don't ask for permission, they just do it from the air. The resulting plants all incorporate Monsanto's genetics. Does Monsanto now have some legal claim to all of the corn in the world? More realistically, when pollen from farmer A's field blows across the road to farmer B's crops, should Monsanto be able to sue farmer B for theft of intellectual property?

OneTrikPony wrote:

Similar to the bull and the racehorse are the athlete, actor, scientist. Except they don't even have the protections of contract law because if you are male and someone uses your genetic material for their own benefit your consent is assumed.

This conflates several points. I've argued above that your consent is explicit (not assumed) when you engage in sex. If someone collects a genetic sample without you knowing (which I would call rape), you obviously could not have consented. If your concern is paternal duty, then of course you're not ethically responsible. If your concern is financial damages, then I maintain that physical property rights are sufficient protection. I'm drawing a hard distinction between genetic material (DNA) and genetic information (gene sequences). It is not possible to acquire the information without first acquiring the material. That material is protected by property rights. Edit: I originally called your argument a straw man. In retrospect I don't think it qualifies as such, so I retract that. I still think you are conflating issues.

What's wrong with my specific scenario's regarding the Monsanto seeds? I thought they were interesting, and certainly more realistic than a magic cancer cure-all.

Pyrite wrote:

Producing a genetic treatment based on that part of your genome would be incredibly valuable to millions of cancer patients and to the health corporations that cater to them. In order for this treatment to become available, would companies have to bid you for a license? What if you had personal or religious objections to the idea of other people using your code, would you be within your rights to withhold its use completely?

Yes, on all counts. At some point towards the beginning of this scenario, a researcher took a physical sample of your genetic material. At that point, you had the opportunity to contractually limit what he was allowed to do with that sample. If you waived your rights, congratulations, you just cured cancer and the researcher is incredibly rich. If you maintained control, congratulations, you just cured cancer and now you're incredibly rich (though I'd imagine that both parties probably end up incredibly rich). And yes, the objector could withhold. I don't like this type of hypothetical scenario because it's much too extreme: you don't have a duty to society to cure cancer just because you can. The cancer patient doesn't have a right to take it from you by force. But no sane person is going to withhold the cure for cancer due to simple self interest: they're either going to make a shit-ton of money, feel great about themselves because they cured cancer and ended incalculable human suffering, or both.

I was writing my post at work, so I had to stop midway through to deal with some calls. I started before that scenario was mentioned, though honestly my scenario doesn't involve the owner of the material effectively forcing people to take that material without their consent, so is a more interesting dilemma. And an ethical system needs to stand up to the extreme cases to avoid collapsing into hypocrisy. Your answer (that it would be within your rights but no one would be that much of an asshole) is internally consistent, but I don't think that's everyone's answer.

Aldrich wrote:

Wait, what? You are the first person to mention religion in this thread. Obviously religion is the determining factor in ethics and morality for a lot of people, but I certainly haven't been framing my responses with that in mind. Because you brought it up, I'll suppose I should say that I'm an atheist and that I'm pro-choice.

I brougt it up actually, as a reason why someone might completely withold their consent in the situation I described.

Ohhhh! I totally missed that "religious grounds" line in the hypothetical scenario. Sorry! But anyway, aren't we agreeing about Monsanto? I'm trying to argue that Monsanto and the farmer should have exactly the same protection under the law. Monsanto isn't a special snowflake because it used gene injection instead of traditional cross-breeding to make its corn, and it shouldn't be able to sue you for planting a seed that was abandoned in the middle of the road. I think the Myriad decision was wrong. But that's where it tied into the reproductive rights debate we were having. What's the difference between planting a seed found abandoned in the road, and developing a morph from the genetic material of a hair found abandoned in a coffee-shop?

We might want to take this to a different thread, given that we're drifting rather far away from the original intellectual property rights / reproductive rights topic. But to address your points.

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

* I would disagree with this, actually. Everybody who wasn't born in a hut in the woods and promptly abandoned to be raised by the wolves has benefited in innumerable, immeasurable ways from society. If it is within their ability (especially if the extent of the effort required on their part is to give a blood sample,) to benefit society in return, I would say that they do, indeed, have a duty to do so.

I actually agree with you, though perhaps I arrived there by different logic. I phrased this the way I did because I'm trying to express my stance on ethics in terms of absolutes that hold up internally, but that also explain human behavior when applied to the real world. My third sentence (on self-interest) is my real point. The longer version is something like: - Acting in your own self-interest is ethical. - Humans are inherently social creatures, and benefit immensely from society (as you pointed out). - Taking action that benefits society inevitably benefits the individual (in lots of ways, everything from having physical needs met to the sense of satisfaction people get from helping others). - Therefore the only ethical choice in the scenario is very obviously to undergo the minor malus of the discomfort of donating the blood, for the major boon that curing cancer will return to you through an enriched society. Roughly. But most of the time things are not so clear cut, which is why I disagree with your second point:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

⁑ I would disagree with this, as well. If someone has some genetic mutation that if studied and worked with can provide some kind of massive boon to society - say, a cure or immunization against one or several types of terrible diseases - and they choose to withhold it, for whatever reason; either because of religious objections or because they're holding out for Warren Buffet type money - then I would say that society does, in fact, have the right to seize the required genetics by force. If necessary, the seizing party can invoke imminent domain and make whatever compensation they deem suitable. At this point, you're talking about the public interest, and seizing genetic material to engineer a cure for cancer is orders of magnitude more compelling a case than seizing someone's home to sell the land to Wal-Mart.

I see your stance on this as a slippery slope. Who gets to decide what counts as "massive" boon to society? How much force is "acceptable force"? What constitutes "suitable compensation", and who gets to decide that? I agree that "taking blood sample to cure all cancer" isn't even in the same ballpark as "demolishing homes to build a Wal-Mart", but at what point is that line crossed? If that line isn't an ethical absolute, and can move around, then how is its placement determined? If you'll allow me to tweak the scenario a little bit: what if the process to extract the cure will assuredly kill the person? Would it still be ethical for society to kill them and take it? How can any compensation that society "deems suitable" be of benefit to them then?

[color=red]I'm paying attention to this thread. [/color] A couple of places in this thread I felt like if it kept going that way I'd have to issue warnings. But it never went too far people re-directed. Everyone is doing a good job here. So keep up the good discussions. Kindalas

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

µ Society gets to decide what counts as a "massive" boon to society. Presumably they will have put in place some sort of prior framework of laws or customary precedent which can be called back to. They likewise will have customs or laws in place to determine how much force is appropriate (including escalation if the person they're trying to seize genetics from resists with violence,) and how much compensation they would be entitled to, if any. ¶ "Only Sith deal in absolutes." Hard and fast rules and lines are bad at adapting to situations like this. Ultimately this, again, will have to boil down to what the society in question deems appropriate: is it acceptable to use force to extract genetic samples that can cure cancers? Is it acceptable to use force to extract genetic markers that can reduce erectile dysfunction? I would say yes to the first, and no to the second, unless erectile dysfunction is somehow becoming such an endemic problem that it threatens population or civil stability.

I think the problem with this approach is that society, customs, and laws can be blatantly wrong. Just look at the history of slavery. Or the Aztecs, who used to chop off peoples' heads and throw them off of pyramids "so that the sun would keep coming up". I wasn't there, but I can only imagine that the people of those societies thought they were making the ethical choice, for the greater good and all that. In the absence of a system of individual rights, we've always seen tyranny of the majority. Individual rights only work when the rest of society isn't allowed to get together and vote them away! I generally consider individual rights to be natural rights - you get them by nature of being human, they're not bestowed upon you by society (which is generally what I mean when I talk about moral/ethical absolutes). Which brings me to your last point:

ShadowDragon8685 wrote:

¬ Absolutely it would be! Assuming you're using an ethical framework in which the sanctity of individual autonomy and life is not placed over all other concerns, then sacrificing one life to cure cancers is absolutely ethical. Likely to incur huge P.R. problems, so you'll probably want to do this black-bag style rather than publicly, and as for appropriate compensation, rendering it unto his next-of-kin or into a charitable trust in her name would seem to be one way to start.

This ideology scares the shit out of me. I definitely do hold a natural right to life as a primary moral principle (I'm also not a Utilitarian). I can go into greater detail if you like, but first let me ask a follow up question: In this hypothetical scenario, when the black-bag team comes to take the man away, do you think he would he be justified in using lethal force to defend himself? That is, would it be ethical for him to kill the black-bag team to preserve his own life? @Kindalas, OneTrikPony: \thumbs-up. I'm also enjoying the constructive civil debate. :)

The problem with calling the DNA still the person's is, well, it is notoriously difficult to repo when someone else is using it. I mean, what are you going to do, use nanomachines to extract all of your DNA from a child's cells? That's, uh, not very nice.