自然与辅助生殖:寻求公平

D. Cutas, L. Bortolotti
{"title":"自然与辅助生殖:寻求公平","authors":"D. Cutas, L. Bortolotti","doi":"10.2202/1941-6008.1109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this paper, we are concerned with the ethical implications of the distinction between natural reproduction (via sexual intercourse) and reproduction that requires assistance (either medical or social). We argue that the current practice of enforcing regulations on the latter but not on the former means of reproduction is ethically unjustified. It is not defensible to tolerate parental ignorance or abuse in natural reproduction and subsequently in natural parenting, whilst submitting assisted reproduction and parenting to invasive scrutiny. Our proposal is to guarantee equal (ethical and legal) treatment to people engaging in either form of reproduction or parenting.","PeriodicalId":88318,"journal":{"name":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1109","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Natural versus Assisted Reproduction: In Search of Fairness\",\"authors\":\"D. Cutas, L. Bortolotti\",\"doi\":\"10.2202/1941-6008.1109\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In this paper, we are concerned with the ethical implications of the distinction between natural reproduction (via sexual intercourse) and reproduction that requires assistance (either medical or social). We argue that the current practice of enforcing regulations on the latter but not on the former means of reproduction is ethically unjustified. It is not defensible to tolerate parental ignorance or abuse in natural reproduction and subsequently in natural parenting, whilst submitting assisted reproduction and parenting to invasive scrutiny. Our proposal is to guarantee equal (ethical and legal) treatment to people engaging in either form of reproduction or parenting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in ethics, law, and technology\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2202/1941-6008.1109\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in ethics, law, and technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1109\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in ethics, law, and technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1941-6008.1109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在本文中,我们关注的是自然生殖(通过性交)和需要帮助的生殖(无论是医疗还是社会)之间的区别的伦理含义。我们认为,目前对后者而不是前者的生殖手段实施管制的做法在伦理上是不合理的。在自然繁殖和随后的自然养育过程中,容忍父母的无知或虐待,同时将辅助生殖和养育置于侵入性审查之下,这是不可辩护的。我们的建议是保证对从事生育或养育的人给予平等(道德和法律上的)待遇。
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
Natural versus Assisted Reproduction: In Search of Fairness
Abstract In this paper, we are concerned with the ethical implications of the distinction between natural reproduction (via sexual intercourse) and reproduction that requires assistance (either medical or social). We argue that the current practice of enforcing regulations on the latter but not on the former means of reproduction is ethically unjustified. It is not defensible to tolerate parental ignorance or abuse in natural reproduction and subsequently in natural parenting, whilst submitting assisted reproduction and parenting to invasive scrutiny. Our proposal is to guarantee equal (ethical and legal) treatment to people engaging in either form of reproduction or parenting.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Political Legitimacy Review of Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age Review of Interfaces on Trial 2.0 From ICH to IBH in Biobanking? A Legal Perspective on Harmonization, Standardization and Unification The Price of Precaution and the Ethics of Risk
×
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