Abstract
In this article I explore partial ectogenesis through the lens of choice in childbirth, framing it as a mode of delivery. In doing so, I refocus discussion about partial ectogenesis, ensuring that this centers upon the autonomy and rights of the birthing person—as the procedure required to facilitate external gestation will be performed upon their body. By drawing a critical comparison between “delivery by partial ectogenesis” and request cesarean sections, I argue that delivery by partial ectogenesis ought to be available on the basis of the pregnant person’s request alone.
Publisher
University of Toronto Press Inc. (UTPress)
Subject
Philosophy,Health (social science),Gender Studies
Reference89 articles.
1. Abortion Act. 1967. ch. 87.
2. Ayuk, Paul. 2015. “Misinformation about Caesarean Sections.” BMJ (Letters). June 29. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3489
3. Bates, Laura. 2016. “The Morning-After Pill is Safe. So Why Is It So Difficult to Access?” The Guardian, November 30. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2016/nov/30/the-morning-after-pill-is-safe-so-why-is-it-so-difficult-to-access
4. Judgements of non-compliance in pregnancy
5. Birthrights. 2018. “Report: Maternal Request Caesarean.” https://birthrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Final-Birthrights-MRCS-Report-2108-1.pdf
Cited by
14 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献