首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Law and the Biosciences >Privatizing procreative liberty in the shadow of eugenics
【24h】

Privatizing procreative liberty in the shadow of eugenics

机译:在优生学的阴影下私有化生产自由

获取原文
           

摘要

The late John Robertson is renowned for the theory of ‘procreative liberty’ that he expounded in his pioneering book, Children of Choice. Procreative liberty captures the ‘freedom to reproduce without sex’ above and beyond the ‘freedom to have sex without reproduction’ that are recognized by constitutional rights to abortion and birth control. Most controversial among Robertson's work on procreative liberty was its application to prenatal selection. Unless the state had very good reasons, he argued, people should be free to access reproductive medicine or technology to have a child who or would be born with particular traits. Prospective parents in the USA today face no official limits in using sperm banks, egg vendors, IVF clinics, or surrogacy agencies with an eye toward choosing for certain characteristics. But should they be protected, this essay asks, when mix-ups or misdiagnoses thwart the selection of offspring traits? The best answer to this question extends the theory of procreative liberty from government restrictions to professional negligence. It also demands sensitivity to genetic uncertainty, the limits of private law, and the history of eugenics in America. Or so I argue in this tribute to the inimitable John Robertson.
机译:已故的约翰·罗伯逊(John Robertson)以“进步自由”理论着称,他在他的开创性著作《儿童的选择》中阐述了这一点。宪法规定的人工流产和节育权利承认,“生殖自由”超越了“无性繁殖的自由”。罗伯逊关于生殖自由的工作中最具争议的是它在产前选择中的应用。他认为,除非政府有充分的理由,否则人们应该可以自由地使用生殖医学或技术来生育一个或将要出生具有特殊特征的孩子。今天,美国的准父母在使用精子库,卵子销售商,IVF诊所或代孕机构以选择某些特征方面没有任何官方限制。但是,这篇文章问,当混淆或误诊阻碍了子代性状的选择时,它们是否应该受到保护?这个问题的最佳答案将生产自由的理论从政府的限制扩展到职业过失。它还要求对遗传不确定性,私法的局限性以及美国优生学的历史保持敏感。或因此,我在此向无与伦比的约翰·罗伯逊致敬。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号