...
首页> 外文期刊>Etikk i Praksis >Abort og fosterreduksjon: En etisk sammenligning
【24h】

Abort og fosterreduksjon: En etisk sammenligning

机译:堕胎和胎儿减少:道德比较

获取原文

摘要

Abortion and multifetal pregnancy reduction: An ethical comparison During recent years, multifetal pregnancy reduction has increasingly been subject to debate in Norway, and this debate reached an apex when the Legislation Department delivered the interpretation statement § 2 - Interpretation of the Abortion Act in 2016 in response to the Ministry of Health and Care Services, who had (in 2014) requested the Legislation Department to assess whether the Abortion Act allowed for multifetal pregnancy reductions of healthy fetuses. The Legislation Department concluded that the Abortion Act does regulate and permit multifetal pregnancy reductions within the framework that the law otherwise stipulates. The debate has not subsided, and in the autumn of 2018, it was further intensified in connection with the Norwegian Christian Democratic Party′s (KrF) "crossroads choice" and the signals from the Norwegian Conservative Party that they would consider reverting the Abortion Act’s section 2.3c [regulating second trimester abortions due to fetal anomalies], as well as a ban on multifetal pregnancy reduction.Many of the arguments in the multifetal pregnancy reduction debate appear very similar to the arguments pending in the general abortion debate, and an analysis of what makes multifetal pregnancy reduction significantly different from abortion is wanting. The aim of this article is, accordingly, to investigate to what extent there is a morally relevant distinction between abortion and multifetal pregnancy reduction of healthy fetuses. We take on board typical arguments from the Norwegian debate and consider them in light of the scholarly literature. We have identified the most central arguments against multifetal pregnancy reduction as the harm argument, the slippery slope argument, the intent argument, the grief argument, the regret argument (concerning long-term psychological effects for the woman), and the sorting argument. We argue that these counter-arguments do not succeed in establishing a morally relevant difference between abortion and multifetal pregnancy reduction of healthy fetuses. Our conclusion is, therefore – that despite what is often held – there is no morally significant difference between the two. Therefore, when we allow abortion, we should also allow multifetal pregnancy reductions.
机译:减少流产和多重妊娠:近年来的道德比较,挪威的辩论越来越多地进行辩论,当立法部门交付解释声明§2 - 2016年堕胎法案的解释时,这场辩论达成了一项辩论。对(2014年)的卫生和护理服务部要求立法部门的回应,以评估堕胎行为是否允许患有健康胎儿的多重妊娠。立法部得出结论,堕胎法案确实规范并允许法律否则规定的框架内的多重妊娠减少。辩论没有消退,并在2018年秋季,与挪威基督教民主党的(KRF)“十字路德选择”以及挪威保守党的信号有关,他们将考虑恢复堕胎法案的违规行为第2.3C节[调节由于胎儿异常引起的第二春季堕胎],以及禁止多次妊娠减少。多次妊娠减少争论中的论据的论点与普通堕胎辩论中待定的论点非常相似,以及分析使多重妊娠与流产显着不同的内容是想要的。因此,本文的目的是调查在多大程度上,堕胎和患有健康胎儿的堕胎和多重妊娠之间的道德相关区别。我们借助挪威辩论的典型论点,并根据学术文学考虑它们。我们已经确定了对多重妊娠减少的最重要的争论,作为危害论证,滑坡论证,意图争论,悲伤论证,遗憾的论点(关于女性的长期心理效应)以及分类论证。我们认为,这些反驳论坛并没有成功地建立堕胎和妊娠期健康胎儿的堕胎和多重妊娠之间的道德相关差异。因此,我们的结论是,尽管经常持有的事情 - 两者之间没有道德上有显着差异。因此,当我们允许堕胎时,我们也应该允许多次妊娠减少。

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