Аборты: аргументы pro et contra = S. Holm, J. Lewis. Abortion: pro et contra
https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131
EDN: YSEOFY
Аннотация
В статье содержится критический обзор ряда наиболее распространенных аргументов, активно применяемых в дебатах по проблеме абортов. На основе понятия моральной личности выделяются и характеризуются основные группы таких аргументов (отсутствия полного морального статуса, полного морального статуса и градуализм). Отдельно рассматриваются вопросы о праве беременных женщин на аборт, юридической защите права плода на жизнь, а также практике использования медицинской концепции жизнеспособности в законодательстве.
Об авторах
C. Хольм
Университет Осло; Манчестерский университет
Норвегия
Норвегия
Осло; Великобритания; Манчестер
Дж. Льюис
Манчестерский университет
Великобритания
Великобритания
Манчестер
А. В. Нехаев
Омский государственный технический университет; Тюменский государственный университет; Томский научный центр СО РАН
Россия
Россия
Андрей Викторович Нехаев, переводчик с английского языка, доктор философских наук, доцент (Россия), профессор, профессор кафедры, научный сотрудник
кафедра «История, философия и социальные коммуникации»; кафедра «Философия»; Лаборатория логико-философских исследований
Омск; Тюмень; Томск
Источник перевода: Holm S., Lewis J. Abortion // Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy / Eds.: M. Sellers, S. Kirste. Dordrecht: Springer, 2023. P. 1–8. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6730-0_1049-1.
Ссылка на полный текст статьи: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369659180_Abortion
AuthorID (РИНЦ): 394939; AuthorID (SCOPUS): 57211853279; ResearcherID: M-7208-2016
Список литературы
1. Sulmasy D. P. Emergency Contraception for Women Who Have Been Raped: Must Catholics Test for Ovulation, or Is Testing for Pregnancy Morally Sufficient? // Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2006. Vol. 16, № 4. P. 305–331. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2006.0026.
2. Purdy L. Is Emergency Contraception Murder? // Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2009. Vol. 18. P. 37–42. DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60114-9.
3. Sheldon S. The Regulatory Cliff Edge Between Contraception and Abortion: The Legal and Moral Significance of Implantation // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2015. Vol. 41, № 9. P. 762–765. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-102712.
4. Hall A. Selective Reduction of Pregnancy: A Legal Analysis // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1996. Vol. 22, № 5. P. 304–308. DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.5.304.
5. McClimans L. Elective Twin Reductions: Evidence and Ethics // Bioethics. 2010. Vol. 24, № 6. P. 295–303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.01704.x.
6. Rao R. Selective Reduction: ‘A Soft Cover for Hard Choices’ or Another Name for Abortion? // Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 2015. Vol. 43, № 2. P. 196–205. DOI: 10.1111/jlme.12233.
7. Jackson E. Regulating Reproduction: Law, Technology and Autonomy. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2001. 368 p.
8. Cook R. J, Dickens B. M, Fathalla M. F. Reproductive Health and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 584 p.
9. Abortion Care Guideline. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. URL: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240039483 (дата обращения: 14. 12. 2023).
10. Romanis E. C. Abortion Access and the Benefits and Limitations of Abortion-Permissive Legal Frameworks: Lessons from the United Kingdom // Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2023. Vol. 32, № 3. P. 378–390. DOI: 10.1017/S096318012200086X.
11. Scott R. Interpreting the Disability Ground of the Abortion Act // The Cambridge Law Journal. 2005. Vol. 64, № 2. P. 388–412. DOI: 10.1017/S0008197305006902.
12. Holm S. The Expressivist Objection to Prenatal Diagnosis: Can It Be Laid to Rest? // 2008. Vol. 34, № 1. P. 24–25. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2006.019984.
13. McGuinness S. Law, Reproduction, and Disability: Fatally ‘Handicapped’? // Medical Law Review. 2013. Vol. 21, № 2. P. 213–242. DOI: 10.1093/medlaw/fws041.
14. Caplan A. L., Wilson J. M. The Ethical Challenges of in Utero Gene Therapy // Nature Genetics. 2000. Vol. 24, № 2. P. 107. DOI: 10.1038/72747.
15. Savulescu J. Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children // Bioethics. 2001. Vol. 15, № 5/6. P. 413–426. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00251.
16. Cameron C., Williamson R. Is There an Ethical Difference Between Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Abortion? // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2003. Vol. 29, № 2. P. 90–92. DOI: 10.1136/jme.29.2.90.
17. Steinbock B. Preimplantation Genetic Diagnosis and Embryo Selection // A Companion to Genethics / Eds.: J. Burley, J. Harris. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004. P. 175–190.
18. Baker L. R. Persons and Bodies: A Constitution View. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 233 p.
19. Chisholm R. M. Person and Object: A Metaphysical Study. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1976. 230 p.
20. Wiggins D. Sameness and Substance. Oxford Blackwell, 1980. 238 p.
21. Shoemaker D. Personal Identity and Ethics // The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy / Ed. E. N. Zalta. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-ethics/ (дата обращения: 14. 12. 2023).
22. Warren M. A. On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion // Monist. 1973. Vol. 57, № 1. P. 43–61. DOI: 10.5840/monist197357133.
23. English J. Abortion and the Concept of a Person // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1975. Vol. 5, № 2. P. 233–243. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1975.10716109.
24. Glover J. Causing Death and Saving Lives: The Moral Problems of Abortion, Infanticide, Suicide, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment, War and Other Life-or-Death Choices. London: Pelican Books, 1977. 336 p.
25. Singer P. Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals. New York: Harper Collins, 1975. 301 p.
26. Raz J. On the Nature of Rights // Mind. 1984. Vol. 93, № 370. P. 194–214. DOI: 10.1093/mind/XCIII.370.194.
27. Raz J. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 435 p.
28. Kramer M. H. Rights without Trimmings // A Debate over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries / Eds.: M. H. Kramer, N. E. Simmonds, H. Steiner. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. P. 7–111.
29. Kramer M. H. Getting Rights Right // Rights, Wrongs and Responsibilities / Ed. M. H. Kramer. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. P. 28–95.
30. Kramer M. H. Some Doubts about Alternatives to the Interest Theory of Rights // Ethics. 2013. Vol. 123, № 2. P. 245–263. DOI: 10.1086/668705.
31. Tooley M. Abortion and Infanticide // Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1972. Vol. 2, № 1. P. 37–65.
32. Tooley M. Abortion and Infanticide. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. 441 p.
33. Engelhardt H. T. The Foundations of Bioethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986. 446 p.
34. Harris J. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985. 300 p.
35. McMahan J. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 540 p.
36. Singer P. Practical Ethics. Cambridg: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 395 p.
37. Buss S. The Value of Humanity // The Journal of Philosophy. 2012. Vol. 109, № 5/6. P. 341–377. DOI: 10.5840/jphil20121095/614.
38. Feinberg J., Levenbook B. B. Abortion // Matters of Life and Death: New Introductory Essays in Moral Philosophy / Ed. T. Regan. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1993. P. 183–234.
39. Clinkenbeard W. W. On the Trail of the Holy Humanhood // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1989. Vol. 15, № 2. P. 90–91. DOI: 10.1136/jme.15.2.90.
40. Kuhse H., Singer P. Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985. 228 p.
41. Warren M. A. The Moral Significance of Birth // Hypatia. 1989. Vol. 4, № 3. P. 46–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00591.x.
42. Langerak E. A. Abortion: Listening to the Middle // The Hastings Center Report. 1979. Vol. 9, № 5. P. 24–28. DOI: 10.2307/3561517.
43. Greasley K. Arguments about Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 269 p.
44. Rodger D., Blackshaw B. P., Miller C. Beyond Infanticide: How Psychological Accounts of Persons Can Justify Harming Infants // The New Bioethics. 2018. Vol. 24, № 2. P. 106–121. DOI: 10.1080/20502877.2018.1438771.
45. Lagercrantz H., Changeux J.-P. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life // Pediatric Research. 2009. Vol. 65, № 3. P. 255–260. DOI: 10.1203/PDR.0b013e3181973b0d.
46. Kluge E.-H. W. The Right to Life of Potential Persons // Dalhousie Law Journal. 1977. Vol. 3, № 3. P. 837–848.
47. Himma K. E. A Dualist Analysis of Abortion: Personhood and the Concept of Self Qua Experiential Subject // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2005. Vol. 31, № 1. P. 48–55. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2002.000828.
48. Dunstan G. R. The Moral Status of the Human Embryo: A Tradition Recalled // Journal of Medical Ethics. 1984. Vol. 10, № 1. P. 38–44. DOI: 10.1136/jme.10.1.38.
49. Aksoy S. The Beginning of Human Life and Embryos: A Philosophical and Theological Perspective // Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2007. Vol. 14. P. 86–91. DOI: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60736-5.
50. Morgan L. M. The Potentiality Principle from Aristotle to Abortion // Current Anthropology. 2013. Vol. 54, № S7. P. S15–S25. DOI: 10.1086/670804.
51. Gуmez-Lobo A. Inviolability at Any Age // Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 2007. Vol. 17, № 4. P. 311–320. DOI: 10.1353/ken.2008.0008.
52. Persons, Moral Worth, and Embryos: A Critical Analysis of Pro-Choice Arguments / Ed. S. Napier. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. 283 p.
53. Donceel J. F. Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization // Theological Studies. 1970. Vol. 31, № 1. P. 76–105. DOI: 10.1177/004056397003100103.
54. Eberl J. T. The Beginning of Personhood: A Thomistic Biological Analysis // Bioethics. 2000. Vol. 14, № 2. P. 134–157. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00186.
55. Meyer J. R. Embryonic Personhood, Human Nature, and Rational Ensoulment // The Heythrop Journal. 2006. Vol. 47, № 2. P. 206–225. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2265.2006.00285.x.
56. Al-Bukhari Imam M. Sahih Al-Bukhari (Hadith). In 9 vols. Beirut: Dar Al Maarifah, 1995. Vol. 3. 238 p.
57. Albar M. Human Development as Revealed in the Qur’an and Hadith: The Creation of Man Between Medicine and the Quran. Jeddah: Saudi Publishing House, 1996. 149 p.
58. Khitamy B. A. Divergent Views on Abortion and the Period of Ensoulment // Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. 2013. Vol. 13, № 1. P. 26–31. DOI: 10.12816/0003192.
59. Rosner F. Modern Medicine and Jewish Ethics. New York: Yeshiva University Press, 1986. 405 p.
60. Jakobovits I. The Status of the Embryo in the Jewish Tradition // The Status of the Human Embryo: Perspectives from Moral Traditions / Eds.: G. R. Dunstan, M. J. Seller. London: King’s Fund Publishing, 1988. P. 62–73.
61. Marquis D. Why Abortion Is Immoral // The Journal of Philosophy. 1989. Vol. 86, № 4. P. 183–202. DOI: 10.2307/2026961.
62. Marquis D. Deprivations, Futures and the Wrongness of Killing // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2001. Vol. 27, № 6. P. 363–369. DOI: 10.1136/jme.27.6.363.
63. Marquis D. Brill’s Objections to the Future of Value Argument // Social Theory and Practice. 2005. Vol. 31, № 1. P. 105–114. DOI: 10.5840/soctheorpract20053115.
64. Marquis D. Why Abortion is Seriously Wrong: Two Views // Bioethics with Liberty and Justice: Themes in the Work of Joseph M. Boyle / Ed. C. Tollefsen. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. P. 3–22.
65. Strong C. A Critique of ‘the Best Secular Argument Against Abortion’ // Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008. Vol. 34, № 10. P. 727–731. DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.024646.
66. Stone J. Why Potentiality Matters // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1987. Vol. 17, № 4. P. 815–829. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1987.10715920.
67. Hare R. M. Abortion and the Golden Rule // Philosophy & Public Affairs. 1975. Vol. 4, № 3 P. 201–222.
68. Persson I. Inclusive Ethics: Extending Beneficence and Egalitarian Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. 272 p.
69. Persson I. Harming the Non-Conscious // Bioethics. 1999. Vol. 13, № 3/4. P. 294–305. DOI: 10.1111/1467-8519.00158.
70. Warren M. A. Do Potential People Have Moral Rights? // Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 1977. Vol. 7, № 2. P. 275–289. DOI: 10.1080/00455091.1977.10717018.
71. Holm S. The Moral Status of the Pre-Personal Human Being: The Argument from Potential Reconsidered // Conceiving the Embryo / Eds.: D. Evans, N. Pickering. Dordrecht: Klьwer, 1996. P. 193–220.
72. Burgess J. A. Potential and Foetal Value // Journal of Applied Philosophy. 2010. Vol. 27, № 2. P. 140–153. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-5930.2010.00482.x.
73. Engelhardt H. T. The Ontology of Abortion // Ethics. 1974. Vol. 84, № 3. P. 217–234. DOI: 10.1086/291919.
74. Sumner L. W. A Third Way // The Problem of Abortion / Eds.: J. Feinberg, S. Dwyer. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1997. P. 98–117.
75. Little M. O. Abortion and the Margins of Personhood // Rutgers Law Journal. 2008. Vol. 39. P. 331–348.
76. Warren M. A. Moral Status: Obligations to Persons and Other Living Things. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 265 p.
77. Global Abortion Policies Database. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2022. URL: https://abortion-policies.srhr.org/ (дата обращения: 14. 12. 2023).
78. The World’s Abortion Laws. Center for Reproductive Rights, New York, 2022. URL: https://reproductiverights.org/our-issues/abortion/ (дата обращения: 14. 12. 2023).
79. Romanis E. C. Is ‘Viability’ Viable? Abortion, Conceptual Confusion and the Law in England and Wales and the United States // Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2020. Vol. 7, № 1. P. 1–29. DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa059.
80. Jackson E. Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis // Social & Legal Studies. 2000. Vol. 9, № 4. P. 467–494. DOI: 10.1177/096466390000900401.
Рецензия
Для цитирования:
Хольм C., Льюис Д., Нехаев А.В. Аборты: аргументы pro et contra = S. Holm, J. Lewis. Abortion: pro et contra. Омский научный вестник. Серия "Общество. История. Современность". 2024;9(2):120-131. https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131. EDN: YSEOFY
For citation:
Holm S., Lewis J., Nekhaev A.V. Abortion: pro et contra. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2024;9(2):120-131. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2024-9-2-120-131. EDN: YSEOFY
Просмотров:
35
JATS XML
Послать статью по эл. почте 