Ectogenesis and the Right to Life Discussion Note on Pruski and Playford’s, “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?”
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstrakt
In this discussion note on Michal Pruski and Richard C. Playford’s “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?,” I consider whether the prospect of ectogenesis technology would make abortion impermissible. I argue that a Thomson-style defense may not become inapplicable due to the right to life being conceived as a negative right. Further, if Thomson-style defenses do become inapplicable, those who claim that ectogenesis would be an obligatory alternative to abortion cannot do so without first showing that fetuses have a right to life, something that Thomson assumed rather than argued for. I also include a discussion on ethical problems concerning what to do about children born from artificial wombs put there by those who looked to terminate their pregnancies because they sought to avoid parenthood.
Article Details
Numer
Dział
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
Teksty zaproponowane do naszego czasopisma nie powinny być nigdzie publikowane przed ukazaniem się w „Diametros”. Wraz z przesłaniem swojego utworu redakcji autor akceptuje, że w momencie zakwalifikowania tekstu do publikacji czasopismo „Diametros” będzie stosowało licencję the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Na podstawie tej licencji autorzy zgadzają się, że ich prace mogą być zgodnie z prawem ponownie wykorzystywane do jakichkolwiek celów bez konieczności uzyskania uprzedniej zgody ze strony autora lub wydawcy. Każdy może prace te czytać, pobierać, kopiować, drukować, rozpowszechniać oraz przetwarzać, pod warunkiem poprawnego oznaczenia autorstwa oraz oryginalnego miejsca publikacji. Autorzy zachowują prawa autorskie do swoich utworów bez żadnych innych ograniczeń. Pełna informacja na temat licencji CC BY: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.
Jak cytować
Bibliografia
Berens A.E., Nelson C.A. (2015), “The Science of Early Adversity: Is There a Role for Large
Institutions in the Care of Vulnerable Children?,” The Lancet 386 (9991): 388–398.
Blackshaw B.P., Rodger D. (2019) “Ectogenesis and the Case against the Right to the Death of the Foetus,” Bioethics 33 (1): 76–81.
Kaczor C.R. (2010), The Ethics of Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice, Routledge, New York.
Lumos (2017a), “Children in Institutions: The Global Picture,” URL = https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2017/03/Global_Numbers.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
Lumos (2017b), “Children in Institutions: The Risks,” URL = https://lumos.contentfiles.net/media/documents/document/2017/03/Factsheet_Lumos_Risks.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
Pruski M., Playford R.C. (2022), “Artificial Wombs, Thomson and Abortion – What Might Change?,” Diametros 19 (73): 35–53.
Rodger D. (2021), “Why Ectogestation Is Unlikely to Transform the Abortion Debate:
A Discussion of ‘Ectogestation and the Problem of Abortion’,” Philosophy & Technology 34 (4): 1929–1935.
Romanis E.C. (2018), “Artificial Womb Technology and the Frontiers of Human Reproduction: Conceptual Differences and Potential Implications,” Journal of Medical Ethics 44 (11): 751–755.
Simkulet W. (2020) “Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise,” Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (2): 93–98.
Thomson J.J. (1971), “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1 (1): 47–66.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau (2021), “Trends in Foster Care and Adoption: FY 2011–FY 2020,” URL = https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cb/trends-fostercare-adoption-11thru20.pdf [Accessed 17.12.2022].
World Health Organization (2021) “Abortion,” URL= https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abortion [Accessed 17.12.2022].