92
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
92 points (100.0% liked)
El Chisme
250 readers
251 users here now
Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.
Rules:
Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.
Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 4: No sectarianism.
Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
I didn't think I'd need to clarify that doctors is NOT a real person and certainly not the person from the Telegraph article. The person who actually suggested using braindead women as surrogate mothers is Anna Smajdor, professor of practical philosophy at the University of Oslo. Except she apparently actually suggested using braindead people in general, meaning that braindead people without wombs would be fitted with them.
So that's something.
Sent from Mdewakanton Dakota lands / Sept. 29 1837
Treaty with the Sioux of September 29th, 1837"We Will Talk of Nothing Else": Dakota Interpretations of the Treaty of 1837
I know there's a bimbofication joke in here somewhere but my brain can't get over the existential horror to find it
Honestly I have to wonder if she was just suggesting something so clearly dystopian and existential-horror-y and just generally icky and fucked up as a way to get a reaction. She argues in the article that using braindead people as surrogates is "morally no different" from organ donation, which makes me feel like the idea is intended more as a sort of commentary on the morality of organ donation, as opposed to an actual sincere suggestion.
Sent from Mdewakanton Dakota lands / Sept. 29 1837
Treaty with the Sioux of September 29th, 1837"We Will Talk of Nothing Else": Dakota Interpretations of the Treaty of 1837
That does raise a somewhat interesting ethical conversation, I suppose.
IF donating all your organs after death is a good thing and IF donating your body to "science" might also be a good thing (we're gonna ignore people's bodies being sent to firing and explosives ranges instead of medical research and teaching)... would having your entire body being used for a single purpose (after being declared brain dead) be socially acceptable? A purpose such as, an biological artificial(?) womb.
Would society be very weird about the children born (produced?) this way like it was in the USA for at least several decades?
Fair point, my off the cuff comment definitely isn't correctly using anything from the article.