重新定义家庭:女同性恋者应该获得辅助生殖吗?

IF 0.8 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW Melbourne University Law Review Pub Date : 2001-08-01
T Dower
{"title":"重新定义家庭:女同性恋者应该获得辅助生殖吗?","authors":"T Dower","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The recent Federal Court decision in McBain v. Victoria, which rendered inoperative a Victorian law that restricted assisted reproductive technology to married or heterosexual de facto couples, has raised the issue of whether lesbians should have access to such technology. This article provides an overview of State laws currently regulating lesbian access to assisted reproduction in Australia. It then explores the growing body of empirical research indicating that the welfare of children raised in lesbian households does not differ in any significant respect from the welfare of children raised in comparable circumstances by heterosexual parents. This research undermines the view that children suffer social stigma or experience hardship caused by the lack of a 'father figure.' The 'welfare of child' rhetoric has in fact been used to mask marginalisation of 'alternative' family forms, and the reluctance to extend assisted reproductive technology to lesbians is underpinned by a deep-rooted fear of undermining the traditional heterosexual nuclear family.</p>","PeriodicalId":46300,"journal":{"name":"Melbourne University Law Review","volume":"25 2","pages":"466-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2001-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redefining family: should lesbians have access to assisted reproduction?\",\"authors\":\"T Dower\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The recent Federal Court decision in McBain v. Victoria, which rendered inoperative a Victorian law that restricted assisted reproductive technology to married or heterosexual de facto couples, has raised the issue of whether lesbians should have access to such technology. This article provides an overview of State laws currently regulating lesbian access to assisted reproduction in Australia. It then explores the growing body of empirical research indicating that the welfare of children raised in lesbian households does not differ in any significant respect from the welfare of children raised in comparable circumstances by heterosexual parents. This research undermines the view that children suffer social stigma or experience hardship caused by the lack of a 'father figure.' The 'welfare of child' rhetoric has in fact been used to mask marginalisation of 'alternative' family forms, and the reluctance to extend assisted reproductive technology to lesbians is underpinned by a deep-rooted fear of undermining the traditional heterosexual nuclear family.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"25 2\",\"pages\":\"466-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Melbourne University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Melbourne University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,联邦法院在麦克贝恩诉维多利亚一案(McBain v. Victoria)中做出的判决,使维多利亚一项限制已婚或事实上的异性恋夫妇使用辅助生殖技术的法律失效,这引发了女同性恋是否应该获得此类技术的问题。这篇文章概述了目前在澳大利亚规范女同性恋获得辅助生殖的国家法律。然后,它探讨了越来越多的实证研究,这些研究表明,在女同性恋家庭中长大的孩子的福利与在类似环境中由异性恋父母长大的孩子的福利在任何重要方面都没有区别。这项研究打破了孩子们因缺乏“父亲形象”而遭受社会耻辱或经历困难的观点。“儿童福利”的修辞实际上被用来掩盖“另类”家庭形式的边缘化,而不愿将辅助生殖技术推广到女同性恋者身上,是由于人们对破坏传统异性恋核心家庭的根深蒂固的恐惧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Redefining family: should lesbians have access to assisted reproduction?

The recent Federal Court decision in McBain v. Victoria, which rendered inoperative a Victorian law that restricted assisted reproductive technology to married or heterosexual de facto couples, has raised the issue of whether lesbians should have access to such technology. This article provides an overview of State laws currently regulating lesbian access to assisted reproduction in Australia. It then explores the growing body of empirical research indicating that the welfare of children raised in lesbian households does not differ in any significant respect from the welfare of children raised in comparable circumstances by heterosexual parents. This research undermines the view that children suffer social stigma or experience hardship caused by the lack of a 'father figure.' The 'welfare of child' rhetoric has in fact been used to mask marginalisation of 'alternative' family forms, and the reluctance to extend assisted reproductive technology to lesbians is underpinned by a deep-rooted fear of undermining the traditional heterosexual nuclear family.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Assessing Refugee Protection Claims at Australian Airports: The Gap Between Law, Policy, and Practice Tricked into marriage Is a cause of action a castle? Statutory choses in action as property and s51(xxxi) of the Constitution The Protection of Stateless Persons in Australian Law: The Rationale for a Statelessness Determination Procedure Non-consensual porn and the responsibilities of online intermediaries
×
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