Imposing a Lifestyle: A New Argument for Antinatalism.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-27 DOI:10.1017/S0963180123000385
Matti Häyry, Amanda Sukenick
{"title":"Imposing a Lifestyle: A New Argument for Antinatalism.","authors":"Matti Häyry, Amanda Sukenick","doi":"10.1017/S0963180123000385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Antinatalism is an emerging philosophy and practice that challenges pronatalism, the prevailing philosophy and practice in reproductive matters. We explore justifications of antinatalism-the arguments from the quality of life, the risk of an intolerable life, the lack of consent, and the asymmetry of good and bad-and argue that none of them supports a concrete, understandable, and convincing moral case for not having children. We identify concentration on possible future individuals who may or may not come to be as the main culprit for the failure and suggest that the focus should be shifted to people who already exist. Pronatalism's hegemonic status in contemporary societies imposes upon us a lifestyle that we have not chosen yet find almost impossible to abandon. We explicate the nature of this imposition and consider the implications of its exposure to different stakeholders with varying stands on the practice of antinatalism. Imposition as a term has figured in reproductive debates before, but the argument from postnatal, mental, and cultural imposition we launch is new. It is the hitherto overlooked and underdeveloped justification of antinatalism that should be solid and comprehensible enough to be used even by activists in support of their work.</p>","PeriodicalId":55300,"journal":{"name":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","volume":" ","pages":"238-259"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180123000385","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Antinatalism is an emerging philosophy and practice that challenges pronatalism, the prevailing philosophy and practice in reproductive matters. We explore justifications of antinatalism-the arguments from the quality of life, the risk of an intolerable life, the lack of consent, and the asymmetry of good and bad-and argue that none of them supports a concrete, understandable, and convincing moral case for not having children. We identify concentration on possible future individuals who may or may not come to be as the main culprit for the failure and suggest that the focus should be shifted to people who already exist. Pronatalism's hegemonic status in contemporary societies imposes upon us a lifestyle that we have not chosen yet find almost impossible to abandon. We explicate the nature of this imposition and consider the implications of its exposure to different stakeholders with varying stands on the practice of antinatalism. Imposition as a term has figured in reproductive debates before, but the argument from postnatal, mental, and cultural imposition we launch is new. It is the hitherto overlooked and underdeveloped justification of antinatalism that should be solid and comprehensible enough to be used even by activists in support of their work.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
强加一种生活方式:反生育主义的新论点。
反生育主义是一种新兴的哲学和实践,它对生育问题上的主流哲学和实践--代孕主义提出了挑战。我们探讨了反生育主义的理由,包括生命质量、无法忍受的生命风险、未经同意、好坏不对称等,并认为这些理由都不能为不生育提供具体、可理解和令人信服的道德理由。我们认为,把注意力集中在未来可能出现也可能不会出现的个体身上是失败的罪魁祸首,并建议把注意力转移到已经存在的人身上。生育主义在当代社会中的霸权地位将一种我们并未选择却几乎无法放弃的生活方式强加于我们。我们将阐释这种强加的本质,并考虑其对不同利益相关者的影响,这些利益相关者对反生育主义的实践持有不同的立场。作为一个术语,"强加"(imposition)曾经出现在生育问题的辩论中,但我们从产后、精神和文化强加的角度提出的论点却是全新的。它是迄今为止被忽视和发展不足的反生育主义的理由,它应该足够坚实和易懂,甚至可以被活动家用来支持他们的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
11.10%
发文量
127
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is designed to address the challenges of biology, medicine and healthcare and to meet the needs of professionals serving on healthcare ethics committees in hospitals, nursing homes, hospices and rehabilitation centres. The aim of the journal is to serve as the international forum for the wide range of serious and urgent issues faced by members of healthcare ethics committees, physicians, nurses, social workers, clergy, lawyers and community representatives.
期刊最新文献
At the Museum. Miracle. Neurorights versus Externalism about Mental Content: Characterizing the 'Harm' of Neurotechnological Mind Reading. Seeing and Having Seen: On Suffering and Intersubjectivity. The Moral Significance of Biofixtures: A Response to Nathan Goldstein, Bridget Tracy, and Rosamond Rhodes "But I have a pacer…there is no point in engaging in hypothetical scenarios": A Non-imminently Dying Patient's Request for Pacemaker Deactivation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1