To: HawaiianGecko
Now with technology, sperm donors and "uterobots" - women willing to sell or give away the flesh of their flesh - any random collection of human beings can "parent."
I'd take an exception to author's implications and use of term "uterobots" here. Said women are providing a service; no more, no less. And while the morality of providing such services may be questioned (like prostitution), casting sly comparisons with slavery is dishonest. Also, it would be quite dishonest to mark such mere "rent-a-womb" or "egg donor" as a mother, especially if she didn't provide the egg...
23 posted on
07/29/2005 10:50:06 AM PDT by
MirrorField
(Just an opinion from atheist, minarchist and small-l libertarian.)
To: MirrorField
The word robota (and its derivatives) occurs in the Czech, Polish, Russian, and - as I recollect - Ukrainian languages (in Russian it transliterates as rabota) and has the same meaning in each: work; and robotnik means worker.
Thus a "uterobot" is a "womb-worker." That's straightforward enough. If it seems to have a negative connotation, it may be because we sense there's something wrong with the objectification, reification, "thingification" of babies and mothers, whose personal relationship with each other --- like the personal relationship of lovers --- ought not to be reduced to a laboratory procedure or a commercial transaction.
27 posted on
07/29/2005 11:11:25 AM PDT by
Mrs. Don-o
(Veritatis Splendor.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson