反堕胎行动理论与自然流产与人工流产的不对称。

IF 1.3 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Medicine and Philosophy Pub Date : 2023-05-16 DOI:10.1093/jmp/jhad011
Matthew Lee Anderson
{"title":"反堕胎行动理论与自然流产与人工流产的不对称。","authors":"Matthew Lee Anderson","doi":"10.1093/jmp/jhad011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This essay defends the asymmetry between the badness of spontaneous and induced abortions in order to explain why anti-abortionists prioritize stopping induced abortions over preventing spontaneous abortions. Specifically, it argues (1) the distinction between killing and letting-die is of more limited use in explaining the asymmetry than has sometimes been presumed, and (2) that accounting for intentions in moral agency does not render performances morally inert. Instead, anti-abortionists adopt a pluralist, nonreductive account of moral analysis which is situated against a backdrop that sees the limits of our ability to control the process of fertility as themselves valuable. Although this view is complex, the paper concludes by arguing that it has the advantage of explaining features of the anti-abortion outlook that have sometimes been overlooked. First, it accounts for why the pre-Roe regime of abortion restrictions primarily imposed penalties on doctors who induced abortions rather than the women who seek them. Second, it explains why the advent of ectogestation will not prompt anti-abortionists to compromise on 'disconnect abortions,' which putatively let the embryo die by extracting it from the mother's womb.</p>","PeriodicalId":47377,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","volume":"48 3","pages":"209-224"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anti-abortionist Action Theory and the Asymmetry between Spontaneous and Induced Abortions.\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Lee Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jmp/jhad011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This essay defends the asymmetry between the badness of spontaneous and induced abortions in order to explain why anti-abortionists prioritize stopping induced abortions over preventing spontaneous abortions. Specifically, it argues (1) the distinction between killing and letting-die is of more limited use in explaining the asymmetry than has sometimes been presumed, and (2) that accounting for intentions in moral agency does not render performances morally inert. Instead, anti-abortionists adopt a pluralist, nonreductive account of moral analysis which is situated against a backdrop that sees the limits of our ability to control the process of fertility as themselves valuable. Although this view is complex, the paper concludes by arguing that it has the advantage of explaining features of the anti-abortion outlook that have sometimes been overlooked. First, it accounts for why the pre-Roe regime of abortion restrictions primarily imposed penalties on doctors who induced abortions rather than the women who seek them. Second, it explains why the advent of ectogestation will not prompt anti-abortionists to compromise on 'disconnect abortions,' which putatively let the embryo die by extracting it from the mother's womb.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47377,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"48 3\",\"pages\":\"209-224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad011\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medicine and Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jmp/jhad011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

这篇文章为自然流产和人工流产的害处之间的不对称辩护,以解释为什么反堕胎者优先考虑停止人工流产而不是预防自然流产。具体来说,它认为(1)杀戮和听任死亡之间的区别在解释不对称性方面的作用比有时假设的要有限,(2)解释道德行为中的意图并不会使行为在道德上变得惰性。相反,反堕胎者采用了一种多元的、非简化的道德分析,这种分析的背景是,我们控制生育过程的能力的局限性本身就是有价值的。尽管这一观点很复杂,但论文的结论是,它具有解释反堕胎观点中有时被忽视的特征的优势。首先,它解释了为什么在roe案件之前的堕胎限制制度主要是对引产医生而不是寻求堕胎的妇女进行惩罚。其次,它解释了为什么体外受精的出现不会促使反堕胎者在“断开堕胎”上妥协,“断开堕胎”是指通过将胚胎从母亲的子宫中取出来而导致胚胎死亡。
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
Anti-abortionist Action Theory and the Asymmetry between Spontaneous and Induced Abortions.

This essay defends the asymmetry between the badness of spontaneous and induced abortions in order to explain why anti-abortionists prioritize stopping induced abortions over preventing spontaneous abortions. Specifically, it argues (1) the distinction between killing and letting-die is of more limited use in explaining the asymmetry than has sometimes been presumed, and (2) that accounting for intentions in moral agency does not render performances morally inert. Instead, anti-abortionists adopt a pluralist, nonreductive account of moral analysis which is situated against a backdrop that sees the limits of our ability to control the process of fertility as themselves valuable. Although this view is complex, the paper concludes by arguing that it has the advantage of explaining features of the anti-abortion outlook that have sometimes been overlooked. First, it accounts for why the pre-Roe regime of abortion restrictions primarily imposed penalties on doctors who induced abortions rather than the women who seek them. Second, it explains why the advent of ectogestation will not prompt anti-abortionists to compromise on 'disconnect abortions,' which putatively let the embryo die by extracting it from the mother's womb.

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
2.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: This bimonthly publication explores the shared themes and concerns of philosophy and the medical sciences. Central issues in medical research and practice have important philosophical dimensions, for, in treating disease and promoting health, medicine involves presuppositions about human goals and values. Conversely, the concerns of philosophy often significantly relate to those of medicine, as philosophers seek to understand the nature of medical knowledge and the human condition in the modern world. In addition, recent developments in medical technology and treatment create moral problems that raise important philosophical questions. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy aims to provide an ongoing forum for the discussion of such themes and issues.
期刊最新文献
Disability, Offense, and the Expressivist Objection to Medical Aid in Dying. Kidney Sales and Disrespectful Demands: A Reply to Rippon. Plastic Resilience: Rethinking Resilience in Illness with Catherine Malabou. A Defense of the Obligation to Keep Promises to the Dead. Why Moral Bioenhancement Cannot Reliably Produce Virtue.
×
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