cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/24230552
Just capitalism doing its thing
this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2024
942 points (96.5% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
9942 readers
617 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
This should be a horror movie plot
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.
I'm cool with anencephalic humans/clones, with or without genetic engineering to reduce rejection, being used for spare parts.
Have you read House of the Scorpion?
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?
I mean its alright it just covers this topic exactly while also not showing it integrated into society at large too well.
That horror movie would make any HP Lovecraft stuff look like a children's book.
They did a comedy with Arnold and Danny devito called JR
Basically face hugger reproduction from the Alien franchise?
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?
I hope this doesn't awaken anything in me...
Tap for spoiler
It most certainly did.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).
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."
I don't know, I think OP is making A Modest Proposal