Ectogenesis, gestational preferences and the social coercion argument.

IF 1.6 Q2 ETHICS
Jolie Zhou
{"title":"Ectogenesis, gestational preferences and the social coercion argument.","authors":"Jolie Zhou","doi":"10.1007/s40592-025-00253-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article challenges a subtle critique of ectogenesis-what I call the \"social coercion argument\" (SCA). The SCA holds that if ectogenesis becomes a standard gestational option, those who prefer pregnancy might be pressured into adopting it, thereby infringing on their autonomy and reinforcing inequality. On this view, ectogenesis might not be a morally sound solution to gender inequality. I first analyze the SCA within the liberal framework that underpins it. While its descriptive claim-that future women who prefer pregnancy may face pressure-may be valid, it cannot justify discounting the emancipatory potential of ectogenesis. I then examine some women's preference for pregnancy over ectogenesis through feminist insights into adaptive preferences (APs). I argue that such preferences may be harmful and shaped by injustice, suggesting that gestational preferences are dynamic, and that addressing gender inequality requires strategies beyond cultural and social inclusivity. I conclude that the SCA's core concern should be separated from the ethical evaluation of ectogenesis and addressed by continually \"levelling up\" choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":43628,"journal":{"name":"Monash Bioethics Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Monash Bioethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-025-00253-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article challenges a subtle critique of ectogenesis-what I call the "social coercion argument" (SCA). The SCA holds that if ectogenesis becomes a standard gestational option, those who prefer pregnancy might be pressured into adopting it, thereby infringing on their autonomy and reinforcing inequality. On this view, ectogenesis might not be a morally sound solution to gender inequality. I first analyze the SCA within the liberal framework that underpins it. While its descriptive claim-that future women who prefer pregnancy may face pressure-may be valid, it cannot justify discounting the emancipatory potential of ectogenesis. I then examine some women's preference for pregnancy over ectogenesis through feminist insights into adaptive preferences (APs). I argue that such preferences may be harmful and shaped by injustice, suggesting that gestational preferences are dynamic, and that addressing gender inequality requires strategies beyond cultural and social inclusivity. I conclude that the SCA's core concern should be separated from the ethical evaluation of ectogenesis and addressed by continually "levelling up" choices.

体外发生,妊娠偏好和社会强迫的争论。
本文挑战了对异种发生的微妙批评——我称之为“社会强制论证”(SCA)。SCA认为,如果体外受精成为一种标准的妊娠选择,那些喜欢怀孕的人可能会被迫接受它,从而侵犯了他们的自主权,加剧了不平等。根据这种观点,体外生殖可能不是解决性别不平等的道德上合理的办法。我首先在支持SCA的自由框架内分析SCA。尽管它的描述——未来的女性更愿意怀孕可能会面临压力——可能是有效的,但它不能证明忽视体外生殖的解放潜力是合理的。然后,我通过女权主义者对适应性偏好(APs)的见解,研究了一些女性对怀孕的偏好。我认为,这种偏好可能是有害的,并受到不公正的影响,这表明妊娠偏好是动态的,解决性别不平等问题需要超越文化和社会包容性的策略。我的结论是,SCA的核心关注点应该从生殖的伦理评估中分离出来,并通过不断“升级”选择来解决。
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
2.70
自引率
6.20%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Monash Bioethics Review provides comprehensive coverage of traditional topics and emerging issues in bioethics. The Journal is especially concerned with empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Monash Bioethics Review also regularly publishes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. Produced by the Monash University Centre for Human Bioethics since 1981 (originally as Bioethics News), Monash Bioethics Review is the oldest peer reviewed bioethics journal based in Australia–and one of the oldest bioethics journals in the world. An international forum for empirically-informed philosophical bioethical analysis with policy relevance. Includes empirical studies providing explicit ethical analysis and/or with significant ethical or policy implications. One of the oldest bioethics journals, produced by a world-leading bioethics centre. Publishes papers up to 13,000 words in length. Unique New Feature: All Articles Open for Commentary
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信