Yours,
Eric
boddhisatva wrote:
> C. Yoshie,
>
> "Sex change" surgery "changes nothing about reproductive
> capacity"? Since when? Clearly it changes everything about reproductive
> capacity, in fact all it really does on a reliable, functional level is
> remove a person's reproductive capacity.
>
> As for the cultural-political implications of reproductive
> technology, until we can grow babies in test tubes, they all grow in
> women. Whether women get pregnant in vitro or in utero, or whether they
> have surrogates make babies for them is not all that significant, taken
> all around. After all, single mothers, lesbians and surrogates don't
> *require* in vitro fertilization to get pregnant, clearly. I think it's
> interesting that many leftist women seem to take delight in this idea of
> making men sort of unnecessary and vestigial to the reproductive process
> when arguably the biggest problem that faces mothers in America is men who
> decide to opt out of their parental responsibilities or act sexually
> without regard to the reproductive consequences. What we're really talking
> about is increased alienation in the reproductive process which, it seems
> to me, is a pretty consistent trend among the bourgeoisie (wet nurses,
> etc.). Birth control is very different in effect (although it arguably
> comes out of the same trend) since it makes the majority of pregnancies
> deliberate rather than incidental to other social relationships. That
> arguably decreases alienation between parent and child.
>
> peace