美国堕胎政策中的技术和科学权威:对机械方法和更好的前进方式的关注

Momo Wilms-Crowe
{"title":"美国堕胎政策中的技术和科学权威:对机械方法和更好的前进方式的关注","authors":"Momo Wilms-Crowe","doi":"10.5399/uo/ourj/16.1.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Building on the pragmatist philosophical tradition and work done by scholars in the field of feminist technological studies, this paper considers abortion as a case study to examine how science and technology interact with systems of knowledge, truth, and power. Paying special attention to how technological authority and notions of expertise have influenced public policy and legislative agendas, I consider the role of technological artifacts in shaping our realities and our legal frameworks. Through a historical review of changes in abortion policy and in conversation with various social philosophers, I make the argument that scientific information has not objectively informed abortion opinion and policy, but rather always been a tool of power, reflective of and contributing to larger systemic inequalities. Moreover, because the fundamentally nuanced biology of human fetal development directly conflicts with the legal and moral urge to clearly demarcate personhood from non-personhood, I outline why any attempts to define personhood or viability based purely on biological evidence is arbitrary, deceptive, and ultimately inappropriate. For this reason, I conclude by advocating for the use of a more contextual approach to policy making, considering larger sociopolitical dynamics of gendered power and oppression as well as the lived experiences of those impacted directly by the legislation. In the current political moment, technology is playing an increasingly large role in our lives, and access to abortion and reproductive rights are being actively threatened by those in the highest ranks in the US government. This paper attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the philosophical journey our society took to reach this junction and suggest a better path forward, centering the values of democracy, dignity, and justice.","PeriodicalId":338305,"journal":{"name":"Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Technology and Scientific Authority in United States Abortion Policy: Concerns Over a Mechanistic Approach and a Better Way Forward\",\"authors\":\"Momo Wilms-Crowe\",\"doi\":\"10.5399/uo/ourj/16.1.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Building on the pragmatist philosophical tradition and work done by scholars in the field of feminist technological studies, this paper considers abortion as a case study to examine how science and technology interact with systems of knowledge, truth, and power. Paying special attention to how technological authority and notions of expertise have influenced public policy and legislative agendas, I consider the role of technological artifacts in shaping our realities and our legal frameworks. Through a historical review of changes in abortion policy and in conversation with various social philosophers, I make the argument that scientific information has not objectively informed abortion opinion and policy, but rather always been a tool of power, reflective of and contributing to larger systemic inequalities. Moreover, because the fundamentally nuanced biology of human fetal development directly conflicts with the legal and moral urge to clearly demarcate personhood from non-personhood, I outline why any attempts to define personhood or viability based purely on biological evidence is arbitrary, deceptive, and ultimately inappropriate. For this reason, I conclude by advocating for the use of a more contextual approach to policy making, considering larger sociopolitical dynamics of gendered power and oppression as well as the lived experiences of those impacted directly by the legislation. In the current political moment, technology is playing an increasingly large role in our lives, and access to abortion and reproductive rights are being actively threatened by those in the highest ranks in the US government. This paper attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the philosophical journey our society took to reach this junction and suggest a better path forward, centering the values of democracy, dignity, and justice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":338305,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5399/uo/ourj/16.1.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oregon Undergraduate Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5399/uo/ourj/16.1.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以实用主义哲学传统和女性主义技术研究领域的学者所做的工作为基础,将堕胎作为一个案例来研究科学和技术如何与知识、真理和权力系统相互作用。我特别关注技术权威和专业知识的概念如何影响公共政策和立法议程,并考虑技术工件在塑造我们的现实和法律框架方面的作用。通过对堕胎政策变化的历史回顾以及与各种社会哲学家的对话,我提出了这样的论点:科学信息并没有客观地为堕胎观点和政策提供信息,而一直是权力的工具,反映并助长了更大的系统性不平等。此外,由于人类胎儿发育的基本细微的生物学直接与法律和道德上明确区分人格和非人格的冲动相冲突,我概述了为什么任何纯粹基于生物学证据来定义人格或生存能力的尝试都是武断的、欺骗性的,而且最终是不合适的。出于这个原因,我最后主张在制定政策时采用更有背景的方法,考虑到性别权力和压迫的更大的社会政治动态,以及那些直接受立法影响的人的生活经历。在当前的政治时刻,科技在我们的生活中扮演着越来越重要的角色,堕胎和生殖权利正受到美国政府高层人士的积极威胁。本文试图更深入地理解我们的社会达到这一交叉点的哲学之旅,并提出一条以民主、尊严和正义为中心的更好的前进道路。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Technology and Scientific Authority in United States Abortion Policy: Concerns Over a Mechanistic Approach and a Better Way Forward
Building on the pragmatist philosophical tradition and work done by scholars in the field of feminist technological studies, this paper considers abortion as a case study to examine how science and technology interact with systems of knowledge, truth, and power. Paying special attention to how technological authority and notions of expertise have influenced public policy and legislative agendas, I consider the role of technological artifacts in shaping our realities and our legal frameworks. Through a historical review of changes in abortion policy and in conversation with various social philosophers, I make the argument that scientific information has not objectively informed abortion opinion and policy, but rather always been a tool of power, reflective of and contributing to larger systemic inequalities. Moreover, because the fundamentally nuanced biology of human fetal development directly conflicts with the legal and moral urge to clearly demarcate personhood from non-personhood, I outline why any attempts to define personhood or viability based purely on biological evidence is arbitrary, deceptive, and ultimately inappropriate. For this reason, I conclude by advocating for the use of a more contextual approach to policy making, considering larger sociopolitical dynamics of gendered power and oppression as well as the lived experiences of those impacted directly by the legislation. In the current political moment, technology is playing an increasingly large role in our lives, and access to abortion and reproductive rights are being actively threatened by those in the highest ranks in the US government. This paper attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the philosophical journey our society took to reach this junction and suggest a better path forward, centering the values of democracy, dignity, and justice.
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
×
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