Suppr超能文献

《瘟疫:为什么堕胎比流产在道德上更严重》。

The Scourges: Why Abortion Is Even More Morally Serious than Miscarriage.

机构信息

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

J Med Philos. 2023 May 16;48(3):225-242. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhad014.

Abstract

Several recent papers have suggested that the pro-life view entails a radical, implausible thesis: that miscarriage is the biggest public health crisis in the history of our species and requires radical diversion of funds to combat. In this paper, I clarify the extent of the problem, showing that the number of miscarriages about which we can do anything morally significant is plausibly much lower than previously thought, then describing some of the work already being done on this topic. I then briefly survey a range of reasons why abortion might be thought more serious and more worthy of prevention than miscarriage. Finally, I lay out my central argument: that reflection on the wrongness of killing reveals that the norms for ending life and failing to save life are different, in such a way that could justify the prioritization of anti-abortion advocacy over anti-miscarriage efforts. Such an account can also respond to similar problems posed to the pro-lifer, such as the question of whom to save in a "burning lab" type scenario.

摘要

最近有几篇论文表明,反堕胎观点需要一个激进的、难以置信的论点:流产是我们物种历史上最大的公共健康危机,需要大规模转移资金来应对。在本文中,我澄清了问题的严重程度,表明我们在道德上可以采取行动的流产数量比之前认为的要低得多,然后描述了已经在这个话题上做的一些工作。然后,我简要调查了为什么堕胎可能被认为比流产更严重和更值得预防的一系列原因。最后,我提出了我的核心论点:对杀人错误性的反思表明,结束生命和未能拯救生命的规范是不同的,这种方式可以为将反堕胎倡导置于反流产努力之上提供正当理由。这种说法也可以回应对反堕胎者提出的类似问题,例如在“燃烧实验室”类型的场景中应该救谁的问题。

相似文献

2
Miscarriage, Abortion, and Disease.流产、堕胎与疾病。
J Med Philos. 2023 May 16;48(3):243-251. doi: 10.1093/jmp/jhad012.
5
Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing.剥夺、未来与杀人的错误性。
J Med Ethics. 2001 Dec;27(6):363-9. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.6.363.
10
Against the impairment argument: A reply to Hendricks.针对损害论证:对亨德里克斯的回应。
Bioethics. 2020 Oct;34(8):862-864. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12720. Epub 2020 Feb 3.

引用本文的文献

1
Defining 'Abortion': a call for clarity.定义“堕胎”:呼吁明确界定
Theor Med Bioeth. 2025 Apr;46(2):137-175. doi: 10.1007/s11017-025-09706-5. Epub 2025 Mar 22.

本文引用的文献

1
Human equality arguments against abortion.反对堕胎的人类平等论点。
J Med Ethics. 2023 Aug;49(8):569-572. doi: 10.1136/jme-2022-108572. Epub 2022 Nov 16.
4
Reconsidering fetal pain.重新思考胎儿疼痛。
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jan;46(1):3-6. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105701.
6
Defending the two tragedies argument: a response to Simkulet.为“双重悲剧”论点辩护:对 Simkulet 的回应
J Med Ethics. 2019 Jun;45(6):417-418. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2019-105489. Epub 2019 May 15.
9
The Two tragedies argument.两种悲剧论。
J Med Ethics. 2019 May;45(5):304-308. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2018-105145. Epub 2019 Feb 22.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验