生物学改良与女性自决。超越代孕禁令

Q3 Social Sciences Italian Sociological Review Pub Date : 2020-09-22 DOI:10.13136/ISR.V10I3.374
A. Balzano
{"title":"生物学改良与女性自决。超越代孕禁令","authors":"A. Balzano","doi":"10.13136/ISR.V10I3.374","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Starting with the analysis of the recent European Parliament’s stands on surrogacy, in the frame of the wider bioethical debate on reproductive rights, the aim of this essay is twofold. Considering the low number of States that allow surrogacy on a commercial basis and the relatively low percentage of live births from surrogacy itself, this paper aims firstly to trace and problematize the recurring arguments against surrogacy, involving in the analysis not only appeals and campaigns promoted against it, but also the interventions of the European Court for Human Rights and of the Committee on Social Affairs. Secondly, examining the bioethical perspectives not against surrogacy, from the neoliberal to the feminist and materialist approaches, the essay aims at presenting some of the possible thesis in favour of the recourse to new reproductive technologies.","PeriodicalId":38025,"journal":{"name":"Italian Sociological Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"655"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Biology Commodification and Women Self-determination. Beyond the Surrogacy Ban\",\"authors\":\"A. Balzano\",\"doi\":\"10.13136/ISR.V10I3.374\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Starting with the analysis of the recent European Parliament’s stands on surrogacy, in the frame of the wider bioethical debate on reproductive rights, the aim of this essay is twofold. Considering the low number of States that allow surrogacy on a commercial basis and the relatively low percentage of live births from surrogacy itself, this paper aims firstly to trace and problematize the recurring arguments against surrogacy, involving in the analysis not only appeals and campaigns promoted against it, but also the interventions of the European Court for Human Rights and of the Committee on Social Affairs. Secondly, examining the bioethical perspectives not against surrogacy, from the neoliberal to the feminist and materialist approaches, the essay aims at presenting some of the possible thesis in favour of the recourse to new reproductive technologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Italian Sociological Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"655\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Italian Sociological Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13136/ISR.V10I3.374\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian Sociological Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13136/ISR.V10I3.374","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从分析最近欧洲议会对代孕的立场开始,在关于生殖权利的更广泛的生物伦理辩论的框架内,这篇文章的目的是双重的。考虑到在商业基础上允许代孕的国家数量较少,代孕本身的活产比例也相对较低,本文首先旨在追踪和质疑反复出现的反对代孕的论点,不仅涉及对代孕的呼吁和宣传活动的分析,还涉及欧洲人权法院和社会事务委员会的干预。其次,从新自由主义到女权主义和唯物主义的方法,研究不反对代孕的生物伦理观点,本文旨在提出一些支持诉诸新生殖技术的可能论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Biology Commodification and Women Self-determination. Beyond the Surrogacy Ban
Starting with the analysis of the recent European Parliament’s stands on surrogacy, in the frame of the wider bioethical debate on reproductive rights, the aim of this essay is twofold. Considering the low number of States that allow surrogacy on a commercial basis and the relatively low percentage of live births from surrogacy itself, this paper aims firstly to trace and problematize the recurring arguments against surrogacy, involving in the analysis not only appeals and campaigns promoted against it, but also the interventions of the European Court for Human Rights and of the Committee on Social Affairs. Secondly, examining the bioethical perspectives not against surrogacy, from the neoliberal to the feminist and materialist approaches, the essay aims at presenting some of the possible thesis in favour of the recourse to new reproductive technologies.
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
Italian Sociological Review
Italian Sociological Review Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Italian Sociological Review is as an academic journal for the dissemination of theoretical reflections and results of empirical research on social science, conducted with scientific methodologies and made available to a wider audience. The research results may have an impact on policy-makers, on the processes of formation of the students and the development and integration of theories and paradigms. It is therefore important that the journal maintains a high level of quality and transparency in the process of publication.
期刊最新文献
Student Health Clusters Based on Health-Behaviour and Academic Achievement: The Hungarian Evidence in an International Comparison Getting Inked at a Tattoo Convention: Subjectivity and Belonging within an Alternative Cultural Heterotopia¹ Social Robots in the Home: What Factors Influence Attitudes Towards their Use in Assistive Care? The Prejudiced Attitudes of University Students Towards Women Generating Community through Interpersonal Relations and Digital Media: The Experience of Italian Parishes. Quantitative Research - First Stage Results
×
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