Suppr超能文献

性别选择:放任自流还是家庭平衡?

Sex selection: laissez faire or family balancing?

作者信息

Dahl Edgar

机构信息

Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

出版信息

Health Care Anal. 2005 Mar;13(1):87-90; discussion 91-3. doi: 10.1007/s10728-005-2572-6.

Abstract

In a recent comment on the HFEA's public consultation on sex selection, Soren Holm claimed that proponents of family balancing are committed to embrace a laissez faire approach. Given that arguments in support of sex selection for family balancing also support sex selection for other social reasons, advocates of family balancing, he asserts, are simply inconsistent when calling for a limit on access to sex selection. In this paper, I argue that proponents of family balancing are in no way inconsistent. Provided their advocacy of family balancing is aimed at preventing a severe distortion of the natural sex ratio, they are entirely justified in insisting on restrictions to sex selection. The real question is whether a concern for the sex ratio does indeed call for a limit on sex selection. Based on a recent survey on gender preferences and data from several Gender Clinics, I argue that a restriction on sex selection to family balancing is unwarranted. In the absence of any evidence for a pending sex ratio distortion, we are actually required to adopt a laissez faire approach to sex selection.

摘要

在近期对人类受精与胚胎学管理局(HFEA)关于性别选择的公众咨询的评论中,索伦·霍尔姆声称,家庭平衡的支持者致力于采取自由放任的方法。鉴于支持为家庭平衡进行性别选择的论点也支持出于其他社会原因进行性别选择,他断言,家庭平衡的倡导者在呼吁限制性别选择的获取时是前后矛盾的。在本文中,我认为家庭平衡的支持者绝不是前后矛盾的。只要他们对家庭平衡的倡导旨在防止自然性别比例的严重扭曲,他们坚持对性别选择进行限制就是完全合理的。真正的问题是,对性别比例的关注是否确实需要对性别选择加以限制。基于最近一项关于性别偏好的调查以及几家性别诊所的数据,我认为将性别选择限制在家庭平衡范围内是没有必要的。在没有任何证据表明即将出现性别比例扭曲的情况下,我们实际上应该对性别选择采取自由放任的方法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验