{"title":"与好撒玛利亚人的争论。","authors":"Christopher Stratman","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsad012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Philosophical discussions concerning ectogestation are trending. And given that the Supreme Court of the United States overturned <i>Roe v. Wade</i> (1973) and <i>Casey v. Planned Parenthood</i> (1992), questions regarding the moral and legal status of abortion in light of the advent of ectogestation will likely continue to be of central importance in the coming years. If ectogestation can intersect with or even determine abortion policy in the future, then a new philosophical analysis of the legal status of abortion is both warranted and urgently needed. I argue that, even if there is no 'moral' right to fetal destruction once ectogestation becomes a reality, societies ought not to implement legal prohibitions on a pregnant person's ability to safely obtain an abortion that results in fetal death because such laws are systemically misogynistic.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"10 1","pages":"lsad012"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247311/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ectogestation and the Good Samaritan Argument.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Stratman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsad012\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Philosophical discussions concerning ectogestation are trending. And given that the Supreme Court of the United States overturned <i>Roe v. Wade</i> (1973) and <i>Casey v. Planned Parenthood</i> (1992), questions regarding the moral and legal status of abortion in light of the advent of ectogestation will likely continue to be of central importance in the coming years. If ectogestation can intersect with or even determine abortion policy in the future, then a new philosophical analysis of the legal status of abortion is both warranted and urgently needed. I argue that, even if there is no 'moral' right to fetal destruction once ectogestation becomes a reality, societies ought not to implement legal prohibitions on a pregnant person's ability to safely obtain an abortion that results in fetal death because such laws are systemically misogynistic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"lsad012\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10247311/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad012\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsad012","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
关于共生的哲学讨论是一种趋势。鉴于美国最高法院推翻了1973年的罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)和1992年的凯西诉计划生育案(Casey v. Planned Parenthood)，鉴于人工流产的出现，有关堕胎的道德和法律地位的问题在未来几年可能会继续成为至关重要的问题。如果堕胎可以与未来的堕胎政策相互影响，甚至决定堕胎政策，那么对堕胎的法律地位进行新的哲学分析既是必要的，也是迫切需要的。我认为，即使一旦怀孕成为现实，就不存在破坏胎儿的“道德”权利，社会也不应该实施法律禁止孕妇安全进行导致胎儿死亡的堕胎，因为这些法律是系统性的厌女主义。
Philosophical discussions concerning ectogestation are trending. And given that the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992), questions regarding the moral and legal status of abortion in light of the advent of ectogestation will likely continue to be of central importance in the coming years. If ectogestation can intersect with or even determine abortion policy in the future, then a new philosophical analysis of the legal status of abortion is both warranted and urgently needed. I argue that, even if there is no 'moral' right to fetal destruction once ectogestation becomes a reality, societies ought not to implement legal prohibitions on a pregnant person's ability to safely obtain an abortion that results in fetal death because such laws are systemically misogynistic.
期刊介绍：
The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
