Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice?

Camisha Russell
{"title":"Rights-holders or refugees? Do gay men need reproductive justice?","authors":"Camisha Russell","doi":"10.1016/j.rbms.2018.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A thriving North American industry has emerged designed to help gay men become biological parents through surrogacy and egg donation. Taking as given that gay men have the same ethical right to pursue such reproductive technologies as heterosexual couples or individuals, this article asks whether access to egg donation and surrogacy for gay men specifically could be considered a matter not just of (consumer) rights, but of justice. The idea of shifting discourse about reproduction from the language of ‘rights’ to that of ‘justice’ is most notably articulated by women of colour. Their call for reproductive justice seeks to expand discussion beyond the narrow right to an abortion (as a negative privacy right) to encompass broader, positive rights, such as the rights to bear healthy children and to raise them in safe environments. What, if anything, might we learn from reproductive justice movements about how to frame gay men's desire/demand for access to surrogacy? While I find several productive connections between the two groups, two factors lead me to argue against understanding gay access to surrogacy as a matter of justice: first, the necessary reliance on women's reproductive labour; and second, the largely non-structural causes of gay couples' inability to reproduce. Nevertheless, by considering two driving forces behind gay male assisted reproduction – social norms favouring biological family formation and the need for family security – I ultimately conclude that a basis for solidarity exists between gay men and reproductive justice movements. That basis is a concept like ‘procreative liberty’.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37973,"journal":{"name":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.rbms.2018.07.001","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405661818300169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

A thriving North American industry has emerged designed to help gay men become biological parents through surrogacy and egg donation. Taking as given that gay men have the same ethical right to pursue such reproductive technologies as heterosexual couples or individuals, this article asks whether access to egg donation and surrogacy for gay men specifically could be considered a matter not just of (consumer) rights, but of justice. The idea of shifting discourse about reproduction from the language of ‘rights’ to that of ‘justice’ is most notably articulated by women of colour. Their call for reproductive justice seeks to expand discussion beyond the narrow right to an abortion (as a negative privacy right) to encompass broader, positive rights, such as the rights to bear healthy children and to raise them in safe environments. What, if anything, might we learn from reproductive justice movements about how to frame gay men's desire/demand for access to surrogacy? While I find several productive connections between the two groups, two factors lead me to argue against understanding gay access to surrogacy as a matter of justice: first, the necessary reliance on women's reproductive labour; and second, the largely non-structural causes of gay couples' inability to reproduce. Nevertheless, by considering two driving forces behind gay male assisted reproduction – social norms favouring biological family formation and the need for family security – I ultimately conclude that a basis for solidarity exists between gay men and reproductive justice movements. That basis is a concept like ‘procreative liberty’.

Abstract Image

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
权利人还是难民?男同性恋者需要生殖正义吗?
北美出现了一个繁荣的产业,旨在通过代孕和卵子捐赠帮助男同性恋成为亲生父母。假定男同性恋者拥有与异性恋夫妇或个人同样的追求生殖技术的道德权利,这篇文章提出,是否男同性恋者获得卵子捐赠和代孕的权利不仅可以被视为(消费者)权利的问题,还可以被视为正义的问题。将关于生殖的话语从“权利”的语言转变为“正义”的语言的想法,最明显的是有色人种女性的表达。他们呼吁生殖正义,试图将讨论范围扩大到狭隘的堕胎权(作为一项消极隐私权)之外,以涵盖更广泛的积极权利,例如生育健康儿童和在安全环境中抚养他们的权利。我们可以从生殖正义运动中学到什么,如果有的话,关于如何构建男同性恋者获得代孕的愿望/需求?虽然我发现这两个群体之间有一些有益的联系,但有两个因素使我反对将同性恋获得代孕视为正义问题:首先,对女性生殖劳动的必要依赖;其次,同性恋伴侣无法生育的主要非结构性原因。然而,考虑到男同性恋辅助生殖背后的两股驱动力量——支持生物家庭形成的社会规范和对家庭安全的需求——我最终得出结论,男同性恋和生殖正义运动之间存在着团结一致的基础。这个基础是一个类似于“生育自由”的概念。
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
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online
Reproductive Biomedicine and Society Online Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
7 weeks
期刊介绍: RBMS is a new journal dedicated to interdisciplinary discussion and debate of the rapidly expanding field of reproductive biomedicine, particularly all of its many societal and cultural implications. It is intended to bring to attention new research in the social sciences, arts and humanities on human reproduction, new reproductive technologies, and related areas such as human embryonic stem cell derivation. Its audience comprises researchers, clinicians, practitioners, policy makers, academics and patients.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board Telling donor-conceived children about their conception: Evaluation of the use of the Donor Conception Network children’s books The missed disease? Endometriosis as an example of ‘undone science’ Financing future fertility: Women’s views on funding egg freezing Ignoring international alerts? The routinization of episiotomy in France in the 1980s and 1990s
×
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