In my Law and Justice course at UCLA I have found out a lot about myself as a person, I have found out what I do and do not approve of and what my political standing actually is. It turns out I am a Libertarian. This article I am about to present comes form a discussion we just recently had about Surrogate Mothers giving up the baby after childbirth. Now Utilitarians are the opposite to what I am, they are all for order and government approval, which in hind site to me makes them jerkoffs.
I was almost ashamed to be human at a point in this discussion when a young lady stood up and declared that Surrogate Mothers emotional attachment to a child should be void after birth. That is insane! Yes there is a contract or at least a voluntary aspect to being a Surrogate but saying that your emotional feelings do not count in a court of law when a contract is disputed is a sickening act of humanity.
Ladies and Gents I will lay out exactly what Utilitarians argue in a court of law when it comes to Surrogate Mothers changing their minds and disputing a contract.
The Utilitarian Argument Is:
If you know what you are getting into regarding a contract or voluntary action then a deal is a deal. You then must uphold that deal no matter what. Your sudden emotional feelings and rights as a person do not factor into consideration whatsoever. Children do not have a right to their biological mother as this would render orphanages useless and also would dispute adoption. Adoption and Surrogacy are legitimate trade off businesses and a volunteer Surrogate understands the agreement in full. This means coercion cannot be applied.
The above theory can be described in many ways but I will use the most accurate way to describe this theory…..ready? This theory is diluted and a complete crock of shit. I will now lay down the Libertarian argument, which is also in line with my argument. Not 100% but in line.
The Libertarian Argument Is:
Yes, contracts should be upheld but in the case of a Surrogate Mother and a living breathing baby. It is impossible for that Surrogate Mother to fully understand how she will feel about the human life she has just given birth too, especially if this is her first ever child. So because the child did not exist at the time the contract was put into place the Surrogate could not have full knowledge of the contract. A contract involving a human baby should never be enforceable in court.
This argument holds up a lot more strongly than the regular Government of Utilitarian argument does. If you have to still ask why that is then you need to read both of these again. The answer is certainly clear.
Now let’s turn onto my full argument as a stand alone point. This is a long one, are you ready?
Kevin Dean’s Stand Alone Argument Is:
If you have never given birth to a child before in any capacity whatsoever than who are you to judge the emotional feelings of somebody else? You don’t know what its like to grant human life so your opinion is irrelevant. TA-DAH!
It is just that cut and dry I’m afraid, unlike putting a contract on a baby, that is not simply cut and dry at all.
thekevindeanauthor 