5 ms·

I'm going to wade in on this against my better interests. To me, the debate seems to have a paradox that can't be resolved using the logic we've inherited from

I'm going to wade in on this against my better interests. To me, the debate seems to have a paradox that can't be resolved using the logic we've inherited from the Enlightenment (mostly). Namely: People have rights to their bodies. Yes, it's super-duper more complicated than just that, I know. But, to my brain, it seems to boil mostly down to that. We have to define rights, people, bodies, what 'have' means, etc. Sure, yeah, I know. But Nature, she don't care about the Enlightenment and all our attempts at reasoning. Nature cares about making babies. We're mammals. This is how we reproduce, how all mammals do it. We raise our young inside of our bodies until a time comes that they can survive. Then (most) mammals feed our young with our bodies for a while more. Mammals take a long time to get to be totally self-sufficient. We're not fish or crickets. This is the 'tech-debt' that Nature gave us. If we were dinosaur-people that laid eggs, we would not have these issues between rights and bodies and mammalian reproduction. We'll see what this debate is like in the future when we have babies born from artificial wombs.

AstralStorm 4y ago
Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans. At some point, when they're fully developed to sustain animals, we'll have to move on to human experimentation there.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  > Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans. Care to expand on this? I am not aware of any opinion on this other than general undefined revulsion. Has anyone articulated an actual argument?
  - Balgair 4y ago
    I'm not very well studied in this area, so bear with. I'd say it would be a good idea for people with certain diseases, those with high risks of miscarriage, in high risk professions or environments, or other situations where the development of the baby would be hindered or impacted. The only environment I can think of is somewhere that is not Earth though. In the somewhat far future, I could see it being routine. You'd all but stop miscarriages, accidents, and have a much greater window into development and how to correct things along the way. That said, you'd strip women of an incredible and deeply human/mammalian (?) experience. Also, there's no telling that it would ever actually work. I imagine something so central to species survival has a lot of things that may make artificial wombs functionally impossible.
maratc 4y ago
> I'm going to wade in I'm going to roe out then. (I'll see myself out.)
- lamontcg 4y ago
  Can we keep the reddit pun threads out of an issue which is going to result in the deaths of thousands of young women?
  - ykevinator2 4y ago
  - maratc 4y ago
    Humour is a good mechanism of coping with harsh reality that we as individuals have very little influence over. Dramatizing the (already dramatic) situation even more helps no one.
    - lamontcg 4y ago
      I'm a big fan of gallows humor. Lazy pun threads aren't that.
Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
Lots of examples in nature where mothers kill their newborns (and sometimes eat them). They do this for a variety of reasons. Nature does care about making babies, but it also gives a fair bit of leeway to moms.

AstralStorm 4y ago

Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans. At some point, when they're fully developed to sustain animals, we'll have to move on to human experimentation there.

alexvoda 4y ago
> Unfortunately the same people use the same argument against use of synthetic wombs for humans. Care to expand on this? I am not aware of any opinion on this other than general undefined revulsion. Has anyone articulated an actual argument?
- Balgair 4y ago
  I'm not very well studied in this area, so bear with. I'd say it would be a good idea for people with certain diseases, those with high risks of miscarriage, in high risk professions or environments, or other situations where the development of the baby would be hindered or impacted. The only environment I can think of is somewhere that is not Earth though. In the somewhat far future, I could see it being routine. You'd all but stop miscarriages, accidents, and have a much greater window into development and how to correct things along the way. That said, you'd strip women of an incredible and deeply human/mammalian (?) experience. Also, there's no telling that it would ever actually work. I imagine something so central to species survival has a lot of things that may make artificial wombs functionally impossible.

maratc 4y ago

> I'm going to wade in I'm going to roe out then. (I'll see myself out.)

lamontcg 4y ago
Can we keep the reddit pun threads out of an issue which is going to result in the deaths of thousands of young women?
- ykevinator2 4y ago
- maratc 4y ago
  Humour is a good mechanism of coping with harsh reality that we as individuals have very little influence over. Dramatizing the (already dramatic) situation even more helps no one.
  - lamontcg 4y ago
    I'm a big fan of gallows humor. Lazy pun threads aren't that.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

Lots of examples in nature where mothers kill their newborns (and sometimes eat them). They do this for a variety of reasons. Nature does care about making babies, but it also gives a fair bit of leeway to moms.