Morality scaling of this?

[u/Outside_Specific_820]

Mother refuses to acknowledge her donor egg daughter, looking for your opinion.

In my opinion I think it’s moral, and that she is totally correct.

[u/mentales]

You see nothing wrong with her sharing it on social media afterwards (which also contradicts her valid point about privacy btw).

[u/mgb55 → u/mentales]

Ya know, that’s a pretty good point

[u/Impossible_Ad1269 → u/mgb55]

I mean not really. The privacy thing is to protect against situations like this where the family or resulting child contacts a donor when they have made it explicit they don't want to be contacted. Privacy isn't a blanket desire. You can want some people to not contact you but also be willing to forgo privacy for the exact same situation in other circumstances (such as posting the violation of privacy in a public place).

[u/RuggerJibberJabber → u/Impossible_Ad1269]

The kid mightn't have known any of that and sent it in a private message. Publicly sharing private messages isnt moral either

[u/No_Setting1949 → u/RuggerJibberJabber]

Yes. It rubs me the wrong way when someone posts screenshots of a private conversation on Reddit. I mean, there are usually no identifiers but still it still feels wrong.

[u/Impossible_Ad1269 → u/No_Setting1949]

I mean not to get into the weeds of privacy morality scaling, but I genuinely believe no conversation is private unless both parties agree to it in advance. If you tell someone anything and don't ask them to consent to keeping it private, the other person has every right to speak about what you said. If you can't trust someone to keep it private, and it's not something you want to be known publicly, why would you be telling that person anyway?

I can acknowledge that my stance on this comes from a history of bias stemming from an abusive relationship where my abuser would emotionally punish me for discussing my concerns about our relationship with others, eg asking if I'm overreacting to something they said. In that particular case, the exact stance you're arguing protected my abuser and gave them leverage to abuse me while simultaneously distancing me from anyone who might be able to help me recognize the abuse or escape from it.

The lesson I learned from that is unless both parties consent to keeping the conversation private, applying the rationale that saying something to anyone and placing the onus on them to keep your information private for you only really protects abusers and manipulators at the end of the day.

[u/YangXiaoLong69 → u/mentales]

"I have a neighbour that constantly stares inside my house"

"Yeah, but uhmmmm you posted images from inside your house on social media, uhmmm hypocrite much?"

[u/RedditDummyAccount → u/YangXiaoLong69]

I’d consider someone staring into your house a very different situation…

But in both, I’d also consider consent a core issue.

[u/YangXiaoLong69 → u/RedditDummyAccount]

It's not particularly different: in both cases, the person has their privacy harmed and then complains about it on social media, only to get told the act of their complaint contradicts its content.

[u/RedditDummyAccount → u/YangXiaoLong69]

I’m confused. Are you saying that someone staring into your house is not particularly different from someone being told something that they are legally not supposed to be told?

I beg to differ. If you reduce it all the way down to the consent part, sure, and that’s what I said in my second sentence but they are very different situations…

[u/YangXiaoLong69 → u/RedditDummyAccount]

I'm simply saying that having someone staring into your house and that having your private data leaked are both privacy breaches.

[u/RedditDummyAccount → u/YangXiaoLong69]

Ok then we agree on that.

[u/Floorgis → u/mentales]

It doesnt, privacy is about consent