Satz Debra
Philos Public Aff. 1992 Spring;21(2):107-31.
Much of the evolution of social policy in the twentieth century has occurred around conflicts over the scope of markets. To what extent, under what conditions, and for what reasons should we limit the use of markets? Recently, American society has begun to experiment with markets in women's reproductive labor. Many people believe that markets in women's reproductive labor, as exemplified by contract pregnancy, are more problematic than other currently accepted labor markets. I will call this the asymmetry thesis because its proponents believe that there ought to be an asymmetry between our treatment of reproductive labor and our treatment of other forms of labor. Advocates of the asymmetry thesis hold that treating reproductive labor as a commodity, as something subject to the supply-and-demand principles that govern economic markets, is worse than treating other types of human labor as commodities. Is the asymmetry thesis true? And, if so, what are the reasons for thinking that it is true? My aims in this article are to criticize several popular ways of defending the asymmetry thesis and to offer an alternative defense....I focus my discussion on those arguments against contract pregnancy that depend on the asymmetry thesis. I believe that the asymmetry thesis both captures strong intuitions that exist in our society and provides a plausible argument against contract pregnancy.
20世纪社会政策的诸多演变都围绕着市场范围的冲突展开。在何种程度上、在何种条件下以及出于何种原因我们应该限制市场的使用？最近，美国社会开始在女性生殖劳动领域尝试引入市场机制。许多人认为，以代孕为例的女性生殖劳动市场比目前其他被认可的劳动力市场问题更多。我将此称为不对称论点，因为其支持者认为，我们对生殖劳动的对待方式与对其他形式劳动的对待方式之间应该存在不对称性。不对称论点的支持者认为，将生殖劳动视为商品，即视为受经济市场供求原则支配的东西，比将其他类型的人类劳动视为商品更糟糕。不对称论点正确吗？如果正确，那么认为它正确的理由是什么？我在本文中的目的是批评几种为不对称论点辩护的流行方式，并提供一种替代的辩护……我将讨论重点放在那些依赖不对称论点反对代孕的论据上。我认为，不对称论点既抓住了我们社会中存在的强烈直觉，也为反对代孕提供了一个合理的论据。
