Cahill L S
Boston College, Chestnut Hill 02167.
J Med Philos. 1989 Oct;14(5):497-522. doi: 10.1093/jmp/14.5.497.
The Vatican Instruction on reproductive technologies and the OTA report, Infertility, both use "rights" language to advance quite different views of the same subject matter. The former focuses on the rights and welfare of the embryo, and the protection of the family, while the latter stresses the freedom and rights of couples. This essay uses the work of Alasdair MacIntyre and Jeffrey Stout to consider the different traditions grounding these definitions of rights. It is proposed that a potentially effective mediating language could be that of "human nature", and argued that donor methods raise more serious moral objections than homologous ones.
梵蒂冈关于生殖技术的指令以及技术评估办公室的报告《不孕不育》，都使用“权利”语言来推进对同一主题的截然不同的观点。前者侧重于胚胎的权利和福利以及家庭的保护，而后者强调夫妻的自由和权利。本文运用阿拉斯戴尔·麦金太尔和杰弗里·斯托特的著作来思考这些权利定义背后的不同传统。有人提出，一种可能有效的调解性语言或许是“人性”语言，并认为捐赠方法比同源方法引发更严重的道德异议。
