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
237 readers
407 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
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?