Murphy Timothy F
J Med Ethics. 2015 May;41(5):388-90. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2014-102507. Epub 2015 Feb 5.
One way to help ensure the future of human life on the planet is to reduce the total number of people alive as a hedge against dangers to the environment. One commentator has proposed withdrawing government and insurance subsidies from all fertile people to help reduce the number of births. Any proposal of this kind does not, however, offer a solution commensurate with current problems of resource use and carbon emissions. Closing off fertility medicine to some people-or even to all-would have only negligible effects on environmental protection. Moreover, the proposal to withdraw financial subsidies from fertile individuals would have prejudicial effects on lesbian and gay people, who must always reach beyond their same-sex relationships for help in having children. It is, moreover, entirely unclear why some people turning to fertility medicine for help in having children should have to pay their own way even though they contribute to the pool of money available for government and insurance subsidies. Entitlements based on an alleged moral difference between the 'fertile' and the 'infertile' cannot support such a conclusion.
确保地球上人类生命未来的一种方法是减少地球上的总人口数量，以此作为应对环境危险的一种保障措施。一位评论家提议取消政府和保险对所有有生育能力者的补贴，以帮助减少出生人口数量。然而，任何此类提议都无法提供与当前资源利用和碳排放问题相匹配的解决方案。对某些人——甚至所有人——停止提供生育药物，对环境保护的影响微乎其微。此外，取消对有生育能力者的财政补贴这一提议，会对女同性恋者和男同性恋者产生不利影响，因为他们要生育孩子，总是需要在同性关系之外寻求帮助。而且，完全不清楚为什么一些求助于生育药物来生育孩子的人，即使他们为政府和保险补贴的资金池做出了贡献，却仍需自己承担费用。基于所谓“有生育能力者”和“无生育能力者”之间道德差异的权利主张，并不能支持这样的结论。
