• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    594 months ago

    Good news boys, if we’re willing to use women this way, we can actually do the same for men! This is one unique sexual reproduction horror story that can in theory be inflicted on both sexes!

    Pregnancy without a uterus, impossible! You say. But ectopic pregnancies are a thing. We all start out as parasites. As an embryo develops, it looks for a surface of flesh rich in blood vessels to latch onto. The primary function of the uterus is to provide an inner lining that is sort of a “disposable surface.” The inner lining is rich in blood vessels, the ideal environment for a zygote to latch onto and grow from. The embryo can integrate its blood vessels with the uterine lining and thoroughly mess those up. Then after pregnancy the whole inner lining is just sloughed off. That in inelegant terms is the uterus - an organ that produces a nice safe surface for the zygote to latch onto that won’t harm the person carrying the pregnancy.

    But, things don’t always go well. If a zygote somehow tears through the uterine wall, then ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy outside the uterus, can result. And this a serious life-threatening medical condition. The fetus as it develops will latch onto not the intended uterine surface, but the vital abdominal organs. Giving “birth” in this case is done surgically, and it’s more akin to cutting out a cancer than a healthy live birth.

    But while it hasn’t been tried due to the obvious health risks and huge medical ethics issues, there’s little reason to think that ectopic pregnancies couldn’t be carried in a male admomen. DNA and chromosomes shouldn’t be a barrier. The placenta that the fetus grows is evolved to prevent the fetus from being rejected like a donor organ. It’s not like mothers and infants share their DNA.

    So in theory we could use men in vegetative states as one-time use surrogates. There has been research proposed and papers written on the possibility of trans women carrying children via uterine transplant, but this method, deliberate artificial ectopic pregnancy, is in principle a lot simpler. You don’t need to transplant a delicate organ and find a way to carry a pregnancy while taking anti-rejection drugs. You just implant an embryo in the surrogate abdomen and let it go to town. Let it latch in to whatever internal organs it wants. Then after nine months, just cut open and discard the surrogate father.

    It wouldn’t be as simple as just implanting an embryo. The pregnant vegetative man would likely need to have his hormone profile monitored and heavily manipulated. But this is easy enough. Testosterone production could be nuked by simple castration, and erogenous estrogen and progesterone could then be introduced as needed before and during the pregnancy. After the pregnancy, it is unlikely the man would survive. So this is a one time deal. But if we’re OK treating people in persistent vegetative states like resources to be exploited, I see no reason to throw out half of our potential surrogate population simply because they happen to be men.

    • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝
      link
      fedilink
      English
      254 months ago

      No, you don’t understand, people’s lives can only be thrown away in accordance with tradition. Men die in wars, women are exploited for children. You can’t cross the beams, frogs will turn gay!

      You will get this passed as soon as we have a gender neutral draft and 50-50% wartime casualties between genders.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        144 months ago

        Essentially yes. Again, we all start as parasites. A uterus primarily is just a way for pregnancy to be survivable. But in theory it is perfectly doable in males.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_pregnancy#Ectopic_implant

        As that article notes, pioneers in reproductive healthcare have even commented that it would likely be possible. We just don’t do it because it’s medically unconscionable to deliberately create an ectopic pregnancy. It goes against the whole, “and first, do no harm” principle. But if we’re throwing ethics to the wind and involuntarily impregnating people we consider already dead anyway, why not do the same to males?

    • ☂️-
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      as long as you can guarantee i’m actually braindead and not trapped inside or something, eh, ill be dead anyway.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        I mean, sure. I have no problem with people signing up for this thing voluntarily. But it should never be something you can be opted into by default, like organ donation in some locales.

    • I'll be on [email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      44 months ago

      The fact that anyone would need this amount of mental gymnastics to find reason enough to relate to the women potentially being targeted, to be against it, is pretty fucked up in its own right.

      A large part of how patriarchy works is that men aren’t expected to, so often don’t, give a shit about the harm it causes until something impacts them directly, and even then, they will only actively oppose it if it harms them significantly more than what the patriarchy benefits them (toxic masculinity being a prime example of self harm many men are reluctant to fight).

      Catering to this feature of the system only perpetuates it. Stop creating convoluted ways for them to relate (even “your mothers and sisters” shouldn’t be needed), and start expecting, and demanding, they simply consider and therefor treat all humans equally (which magically leads to caring about what happens to women just as much as they would if it were men under threat).

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        114 months ago

        With all due respect, you seem to be actively seeking to be offended. This comes down to bodily autonomy. And providing an example of how this effects everyone is not some monstrous thing perpetuating the patriarchy. I think you’re a little too deep in the gender theory here.

        I’m a trans person. I have had to fight for bodily autonomy my entire life. The fight for bodily autonomy is what ultimately connects trans rights with what are traditionally labeled “women’s issues.” Ultimate the right to abortion or contraception is about the right of everyone to bodily autonomy. To have final ownership and control of your own flesh and blood effects women’s reproductive rights, trans rights, the right to die, organ donation, etc. This goes way beyond just traditional women’s issues.

        And honestly, the scenario isn’t convoluted or absurd. If the government did ever allow this kind of surrogacy, there would be no need to confine it to just one sex. Hell, I would be actively petitioning to apply it to everyone regardless of sex. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and I AM that pettty. I would absolutely demand that atrocities be applied equally. And if we’re doing this, we’re probably also doing involuntary organ donation. So again it all comes back to bodily autonomy.

        What is horrifying about this proposal is not that it would be done to women. What is horrifying about it is that it would be done to human beings. And I don’t feel the need to throw up artificial barriers and get offended that someone would dare to point out the broader implications of this beyond narrowly defined and ghettoized “women’s issues.”

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        124 months ago

        Yeah, that’s the kind of persistent vegetative state you don’t want to wake up from.

        But really this kind of abuse of people in these states goes way beyond pregnancy. If we’re willing to do this to women, why not keep vegetative patients of both sexes alive for years as continuous blood donors? I could easily see someone justifying that, especially if the victim has a rare or that universal donor blood type.

        Or how about organ donation? We do currently take organs from deceased donors, but usually it’s a one time deal. When it comes time, if the person is a willing donor, you pull the plug, and then harvest whatever organs you can that you have a recipient for at the moment. But you could make that a lot more efficient if you could keep the donor alive for a long time, perhaps years. Just keep them alive, waiting for someone in need. Someone needs the first kidney? Give it to them. Someone needs a second kidney? Give it to them and put the donor on permanent dialysis. Someone needs a hear or lung? Take the donor’s and keep them going via artificial means. Or maybe we could take skin graft after skin graft, growing new skin again and again. Treat them like sheep being shorn. It’s the difference between having to use a butchered animal up all at once vs being able to freeze most of it for later. Hospitals could have whole wards of these donors caught for years in a state of half-disassembled living death.

        This is an ethical Pandora’s box we REALLY do not want to open.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 months ago

          I’m cool with anencephalic humans/clones, with or without genetic engineering to reduce rejection, being used for spare parts.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              I have not. Looks like it’s YA, which I tend to steer away from. Is it full of tropes and oversimplification like Divergent or Mockingjay stuff, or is it better than that?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                14 months ago

                I mean its alright it just covers this topic exactly while also not showing it integrated into society at large too well.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    44 months ago

    This has very little to do with what our actual dystopia will do. I mean, I thought that this was by someone who was probably thinking of the families that lost someone to a coma and had been looking for grandchildren, but no, they are seriously suggesting this simply because of its utility… Even so, all hail the new future tech bro hivemind and all, but still, not very likely. If it is something that is capable of being truly considered by societies, it will also be capable of considering worse things over it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    84 months ago

    that paper has GOT to be a thinly veiled gruesome fetish manuscript, involving at least a couple corpses.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    14 months ago

    there are far too many fucked up hentai plots that have the same lines

    either way dude needs the nsa as his isp for a good bit

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      “States and health services should adapt their policies and procedures to allow for WBGD among other donation options,” wrote Prof Smajdor in the paper, published by Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics.

      Prof Smajdor argues that there is no moral difference in such circumstances between organ donation and surrogacy.

      Thats pretty much what she’s arguing for.

      What’s more interesting is that she claims men could be modified to be hosts as well.

  • ☂️-
    link
    fedilink
    64 months ago

    id love to keep it “boring”

    the “interesting” parts of a dystopia arent usually very healthy for us…

  • Maeve
    link
    fedilink
    64 months ago

    USA, where abortion is effectively illegal. Went Why can’t adoption be a solution?

  • 2ugly2live
    link
    fedilink
    204 months ago

    My brother in christ, this is not OG sleeping beauty, wtf. How did they expect that conversation to go down?

    “Yes, I know your daughter is brain dead, but good news, she will be able to breed for the nation! What? You don’t like the idea of state sanctioned rape and forced breeding?” It baffles me that some people really just see women as a vessal. No thoughts on how horrific that would be for any woman going into the hospital (if something goes wrong, I don’t even get a respectful death), and for their families should one of the worse case scenarios occur (“You can bury her after we’ve popped out a few wave slaves”). Not even thoughts on the children that would be produced by such horrors.

    Literally anything than make the world a better place for people to raise children in.

    • ZeroOne
      link
      fedilink
      14 months ago

      No one sees Women as a Vassal buddy, but you do see Unborn Children as a “Cluster of cells” that can be murdered at a whim

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        24 months ago

        You’ll be pleased to know that it would be perfectly possible to use men in persistent vegetative states as well. In theory, it’s perfectly possible for a male to carry a pregnancy ectopically. It just hasn’t been done, because as the embryo grows, it latches onto and messes up the internal organs. The placenta has to be cut out like a cancer afterwards.

        But if we’re using people in vegetative states like this, there’s no reason to throw out half of our potential surrogates. Males in vegetative states could easily be used as one time use surrogates. You first castrate the male to nuke testosterone production. Then you introduce estrogen and progesterone. Finally you implant an embryo in the abdominal cavity. After it grows to term, you remove it surgically and let the surrogate father die.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        104 months ago

        Unborn children get the fuck out of here. You don’t even care about the born children so get off your pious high horse of bullshit.

        When you start supporting social welfare benefits maybe you can have a leg to stand on, but instead your insane ideology kills women and forces the birth of unwanted children who are the products of rape or incest, or who would not be viable for long in the world while risking the lives of the already living (mothers).

        • ZeroOne
          link
          fedilink
          14 months ago

          I do waaaaaay more than you, I value children’s lives over everyone else & I am a heavy supporter of social welfare The difference between me & you is that you support child-killing & I don’t As for mothers, these said mothers would rather use children as cash-cows & emotionally abuse them for fun (& I have the data to back it up, look up CircMoms) & since your priority is to kill unborn children & not punish the rapist

          I say you are pretty much a bottom-of-the-barrel in term of humanity & are unwanted in this world, so you can screw off with your fake virtue-signalling, Pro-Child murder BS

            • ZeroOne
              link
              fedilink
              14 months ago

              Says the vile monster who prioritizes killing children over punishing rapists

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                74 months ago

                Nah I’m a different person who happened to wander by and saw you expressing your fucked up misinformed beliefs while spewing hatred, vitriol, and putting words in other people’s mouths that they never said. Get bent.

      • 2ugly2live
        link
        fedilink
        74 months ago

        If they’re suggesting the brain dead body of a woman be kept alive solely to breed, that’s very vassal like to me.

        I regards to abortion, I absolutely believe that people start as a cluster of cells and would choose the mother’s life, livelihood, and happiness before the cluster. I think people that are “pro-life” are virtue signaling sycophants that are more concerned with being “right” over actually doing anything to help people. Imagine how many less abortions there would be if they put half of that energy into sex education, better access to contraception, and accessible education and extra curriculars. Imagine some of that energy pointed to the kids already here and needing support and care. But nah. Let’s all stand outside of a medical facility and scare the patients and be assholes online. For the cluster. 🙄

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 months ago

        but you do see Unborn Children as a “Cluster of cells” that can be murdered at a whim

        Do you consider acorns to be trees?

  • plz1
    link
    fedilink
    English
    194 months ago

    I know forced sterilization is bad, but people that come up with opinions this psychotic…should not be allowed to procreate.

  • Lovable Sidekick
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Seems like a super-nerdy medical idea that would work without capitalism and has nothing to do with capitalism.

    • Ricky Rigatoni
      link
      fedilink
      164 months ago

      A lot of things terminally online people claim is capitalism has nothing to do with it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      64 months ago

      Yeah, sounds like a dumb hypothetical you’re having with your nerdy friends or a staff member of Hitlers cabinet discussing the next big thing after eugenics.

  • Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    324 months ago

    The amount of babies isn’t the issue America, it’s the fact that we can’t afford them.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Okay, but imagine if you could have one really rich guy impregnate a thousand captive comatose women at once, to improve efficiency.

      From a Lomgtermist perspective, this would be great for the future of our Brave New World

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        54 months ago

        What I really hate about longtermism is that it actually tells us nothing about what policies are best, as we don’t know what paths will lead to the best future.

        You could argue that low taxes on billionaires will give them the resources needed to do space colonisation. Thus, in the long term, not taxing billionaires now is good. Or you could argue that a robust social safety net and UBI is the best path to a long term best future. How many Einsteins throughout history died illiterate peasants? By providing resources for everyone, we maximize our chances of the truly talented having a shot at elevating us all through new science and discoveries.

        Hell, I could even justify a nuclear war through longtermism. Economies grow more worn-in and sclerotic over time. Every so often you need a historical arsonist like Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan to run through an area, burn the existing order to ashes, and give people a chance to start again. Existing elites prevent necessary change. And often the only way to remove them is to burn everything down. On the next attempt at civilization, they can learn from their predecessor’s mistakes. For example, destroying the fossil fuel industry now is effectively impossible; they’re simply far too entrenched and powerful. By voluntarily starting a global thermonuclear war, we will smash their power. Civilization can then rebuild powered entirely by solar and wind. Yes, we lose 90% of the human population today, but we prevent total human extinction via complete biosphere collapse, which appears to be the road we are on now. From the long term perspective, deliberately starting a global thermonuclear war is the only rational choice.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          64 months ago

          Climate Change is good for humanity because killing off the bulk of life on earth will give us a fresh slate to build on.

          ~ Op-Ed at the Atlantic or WSJ or some other smug contrarian navel gazers warehouse

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      114 months ago

      And that the government won’t do shit-all to help them. A baby born to a corpse is not going to have a good life in America.

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        34 months ago

        I just threw up in my mouth a little when you pointed that out. Yes the article says that too, but this accurate re-wording kinda really makes it “click”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 months ago

    What does this have to do with capitalism? Did we just switch from “everything bad is communism” to “everything bad is capitalism”?