increible como se predicen muchas cosas en esta serie... hablan de la castatrofe del 2020 y usan telefonos igual al whatspp... increible ! la vi en el 1999 pero ahora la disfruto mas !
Interestingly, there has been a case in 2011 (UK) where a surrogate mother was bound trough contract with an infertile couple to yield her rights toward the baby to this couple. After the birth, she changed her mind and Justice Baker ruled in favor of the right of the mother to keep her child, due to the bond created by the birth. That being said, the judge gave a right of visit to the donor father. In the case of this episode, the company shouldn't have any claim over the baby if it had happened in the UK. The point here, is that the jurisprudence established that no contract should be absolute when dealing with humankind. We can see a parallel with a contract designed to sell yourself in slavery, or sell an organ, which could be rendered void, even when all sides agreed beforehand. We havent reached a society where everything/everybody would become a good... yet. Obviously this is not the case in Total Recall 2070 ^^.
That doesn't make sense to me. If it's a surrogate, then the baby isn't hers. She carries the embryo of the couple. She's basically a vessel and the child isn't hers.
In the U.S. it's legal to patent higher life forms, meaning all animals can be patented. That would technically mean that humans should also be patentable. However, they may see it as slavery so it's hard to say which way it's going to go. In Canada, you cannot patent a higher life form.
@@KyleRuggles Yeah, you can make a clone of someone and have the patent to the DNA in that clone, from what I understand, though I wonder if that DNA would have to be modified a bit to be patented. I'd have to really look into the law regarding patients, and it's possible that has changed in the meantime.
The always great Clint Howard.
THANK YOU! I THOROUGHLY ENJOYED THIS SERIES WHEN I WAS YOUNGER. NOW I GET TO DO THAT AGAIN. aND AGAIN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
Funny how this episode is about babies in altering their DNA to keep them safe and the previous episode is about a kid who is DNA was altered
A Brave New World is a good read.
@@incominghitdadirt9587 I didn’t like it.
increible como se predicen muchas cosas en esta serie... hablan de la castatrofe del 2020 y usan telefonos igual al whatspp... increible ! la vi en el 1999 pero ahora la disfruto mas !
Interestingly, there has been a case in 2011 (UK) where a surrogate mother was bound trough contract with an infertile couple to yield her rights toward the baby to this couple. After the birth, she changed her mind and Justice Baker ruled in favor of the right of the mother to keep her child, due to the bond created by the birth. That being said, the judge gave a right of visit to the donor father. In the case of this episode, the company shouldn't have any claim over the baby if it had happened in the UK.
The point here, is that the jurisprudence established that no contract should be absolute when dealing with humankind. We can see a parallel with a contract designed to sell yourself in slavery, or sell an organ, which could be rendered void, even when all sides agreed beforehand. We havent reached a society where everything/everybody would become a good... yet. Obviously this is not the case in Total Recall 2070 ^^.
That doesn't make sense to me. If it's a surrogate, then the baby isn't hers. She carries the embryo of the couple. She's basically a vessel and the child isn't hers.
0:35 GASP* Mentions the year #2020
Have you seen 12 Monkeys? The tv show? Whoaaaa....
In the U.S. it's legal to patent higher life forms, meaning all animals can be patented. That would technically mean that humans should also be patentable. However, they may see it as slavery so it's hard to say which way it's going to go.
In Canada, you cannot patent a higher life form.
In America you can patent a virus.
Really? Though I'm not surprised if true, given what we've seen from the US these days. Hi from Canada! 9 years later..
@@KyleRuggles
Yeah, you can make a clone of someone and have the patent to the DNA in that clone, from what I understand, though I wonder if that DNA would have to be modified a bit to be patented. I'd have to really look into the law regarding patients, and it's possible that has changed in the meantime.
What will happen if the Supreme Court rules in favor "Human Gene Patenting".
'The Troubles of 2020'
:|
Really?
I'm really enjoying this show which I don't remember seeing. I could however do without the wife. She annoys me.
Obamacare