Abnormal Use Interview

Attorney Jim Dedman, co-author of the Abnormal Use law blog, interviewed us about Law and the Multiverse. We think you’ll enjoy the interview, and thanks to Jim for talking with us.

Of interest to our readers: in addition to being a blog about products liability litigation, Abnormal Use also features legally-themed comic books covers on its Friday posts as well as interviews with law-related pop culture personalities such as Fairly Legal creator and show-runner Michael Sardo.

2 Responses to Abnormal Use Interview

  1. Martin Phipps

    I think I’m satisfied that there are ways superheroes can pay taxes without giving up their identity. What still bothers me though is the whole idea of clones and legal guardians. There’s the example of Conner Kent who was created using DNA from both Lex Luthor and Superman. Well now the character has shown up on Smallville. On the TV show, Tess seems to have (legally?) adopted him but (Lex’s father) Lionel Luthor has come back from the dead and is literally demanding custody, except now that he’s (rapidly) grown into young adulthood he’s starting to resemble Clark Kent, his “other father”. At one point I suggested that a clone grown in a lab could be considered property (in this case Luthorcorp) but you seemed to think that a clone of a human being would automatically have the rights afforded all human beings even though it wasn’t given birth to by a woman. If all this were possible in the real world then the law would have to address it. How do you even assign a date of birth to somebody who was never actually born?

  2. Uh, given that clones are effectively human in all respects physically (they are when all’s said and done the same as the “twin” of a person abeit made artificially instead of naturally at the same time), I don’t see why on Earth any court could legitimately default to “clone is property”. The unusual manner of birth certainly can’t justify it, otherwise in vitro fertilized people and/or people carried in a surrogate womb could be argued as non-persons, something I don’t even see many lunatics advancing. As for date of birth, release from whatever womb setup was used would probably qualify, though any clones grown to physical adulthood complete with some sort of mental imprinting could have some issues then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>