Tong R
Department of Philosophy, Davidson College, NC 28036.
Theor Med. 1992 Dec;13(4):329-35. doi: 10.1007/BF02126699.
The purpose of this commentary on James Nelson's article [1] is to advocate introducing the ethics of care into the arena of gestational conflict. Too often the debate gets stalled in a maternal versus fetal rights headlock. Interventionists stress fetal over maternal rights: they believe education, post-birth prosecution or pre-birth seizure of pregnant women may be permissible. In contrast to interventionists, other philosophers stress that favoring fetal rights treats women like 'fetal containers'. I question whether we should really consider issues of moral/parental obligations to children in terms of rights. Rather, the language of care should guide moral conduct vis-a-vis children/fetuses. The particularity of each woman's story--the particulars of her human relationships--inform her story. An individual's ability to care is largely a function of whether community cares for her. We must care for others to enable them to care for themselves and their loved ones--born or unborn.
这篇对詹姆斯·纳尔逊文章[1]的评论旨在倡导将关怀伦理引入妊娠期冲突领域。这场辩论常常陷入母体权利与胎儿权利的僵局。干预主义者强调胎儿权利高于母体权利:他们认为教育、产后起诉或产前扣押孕妇可能是可行的。与干预主义者相反,其他哲学家强调,偏袒胎儿权利将女性视为“胎儿容器”。我质疑我们是否真的应该从权利角度来考虑对子女的道德/父母义务问题。相反,关怀的语言应该指导我们对待儿童/胎儿的道德行为。每个女性故事的独特性——她人际关系的细节——构成了她的故事。一个人关怀他人的能力很大程度上取决于社区是否关怀她。我们必须关怀他人,使他们能够关怀自己和他们所爱的人——无论出生与否。