Animating the Affect–Care–Labor Link in the Wake of “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill”: Care Ethics and Policymaking on Indian Surrogacy

IF 1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Amrita Banerjee, Priya Sharma
{"title":"Animating the <i>Affect–Care–Labor Link</i> in the Wake of “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill”: Care Ethics and Policymaking on Indian Surrogacy","authors":"Amrita Banerjee, Priya Sharma","doi":"10.1017/hyp.2023.74","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Starting from the early 2000s, India was one of the most sought-after destinations for commercial surrogacy. However, in 2015 the government decided to ban transnational commercial surrogacy, and recently “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021,” which bans commercial surrogacy altogether and confines it to its altruistic form, has been enacted. Our article makes a philosophical intervention into the policy debate around this move by analyzing various draft versions of “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill” which culminated in the ban. We argue that the Bill fails to realize its ethical potential since it is vitiated by a number of conceptual fallacies. We expose the conceptual fallacies by unpacking the concept of care in gestational surrogacy through the lens of care ethics. The robust conceptualization of care serves as a critical vantage point for analyzing the Bill's distorted understanding of care (and especially the affect–care–labor link) in gestational surrogacy. Consequently, we conclude that regulation of commercial surrogacy with fair compensation and due consideration for the agency of surrogates holds far greater ethical potential than a blanket ban on commercial surrogacy and mandating that it be practiced only in its altruistic form.","PeriodicalId":47921,"journal":{"name":"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hypatia-A Journal of Feminist Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/hyp.2023.74","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Starting from the early 2000s, India was one of the most sought-after destinations for commercial surrogacy. However, in 2015 the government decided to ban transnational commercial surrogacy, and recently “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021,” which bans commercial surrogacy altogether and confines it to its altruistic form, has been enacted. Our article makes a philosophical intervention into the policy debate around this move by analyzing various draft versions of “The Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill” which culminated in the ban. We argue that the Bill fails to realize its ethical potential since it is vitiated by a number of conceptual fallacies. We expose the conceptual fallacies by unpacking the concept of care in gestational surrogacy through the lens of care ethics. The robust conceptualization of care serves as a critical vantage point for analyzing the Bill's distorted understanding of care (and especially the affect–care–labor link) in gestational surrogacy. Consequently, we conclude that regulation of commercial surrogacy with fair compensation and due consideration for the agency of surrogates holds far greater ethical potential than a blanket ban on commercial surrogacy and mandating that it be practiced only in its altruistic form.
在“代孕(监管)法案”之后激活影响-护理-劳动联系:印度代孕的护理伦理和政策制定
从21世纪初开始,印度就成为最受欢迎的商业代孕目的地之一。但是,政府在2015年决定禁止跨国商业代孕,最近又制定了全面禁止商业代孕,将其限制在利他形式的“2021年代孕(管理)法”。我们的文章通过分析最终导致禁令的“代孕(监管)法案”的各种草案版本,对围绕这一举措的政策辩论进行了哲学干预。我们认为,该法案未能实现其伦理潜力,因为它被一些概念谬论所破坏。我们揭露了概念上的谬论,通过护理伦理的镜头在妊娠代孕护理的概念。稳健的护理概念化为分析法案对妊娠代孕中护理(尤其是情感-护理-劳动联系)的扭曲理解提供了关键的有利条件。因此,我们得出的结论是,对商业代孕进行公平补偿和适当考虑的监管,比全面禁止商业代孕并强制其仅以利他形式进行的监管具有更大的伦理潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信