Page 22

Update item information
Title Sex and consequences: world population growth vs. reproductive rights?
Subject Birth control--Moral and ethical aspects; Population policy; Contraception
Description The 54th Annual Frederick Reynolds Lecture
Creator Battin, M. Pabst
Publisher Division of Continuing Education, University of Utah
Date 1994-05-25
Date Digital 2008-05-29
Type Text
Format application/pdf
Digitization Specifications Original scanned on Epson Expression 10000XL flatbed scanner and saved as 400 ppi uncompressed tiff. Display images generated in PhotoshopCS and uploaded into CONTENTdm Aquisition Station.
Resource Identifier,830
Source HQ766.2 B38 1994
Language eng
Relation Digital reproduction of "Sex and consequences," J. Willard Marriott Library Special Collections
Rights Digital Image Copyright University of Utah
Metadata Cataloger Seungkeol Choe; Ken Rockwell
ARK ark:/87278/s6b85633
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-08-04
ID 320093
Reference URL

Page Metadata

Title Page 22
Description vidual or as a member of a group singled out for the imposition of any contraceptive technology which is not similarly imposed on all other fertile womenâ€"and eventually, menâ€"across the board. It is a guarantee of fairness. Thus the quite legitimate specific fears of minority groups that they will be the special targets of population-control projectsâ€"as they often have been in the pastâ€"are put to rest by this first condition. b) guaranteed reversibility. As a second criterion of morally permissible universal use, it must also be a matter of political, legal, and social guarantee that any woman (and, eventually, any man) can have the device removed or neutralized upon request, without restrictive conditions, though it is to be replaced at the completion of pregnancy To do otherwise is to undermine the gain in reproductive freedom that the technology introduces in the first place. This means that there must be no stipulation concerning the maximum number of children a woman or couple may have, the type of child care, the physical or mental health of the mother or father, their income or marital status, their criminal status, or any expected genetic defect in the child. To be sure, guaranteed reversibility will result in some pregnancies which conscientious observers believe ought not occur, but this is not to introduce a new problem; such pregnancies can and do now already occur. Guaranteed removal imposes an obligation upon providers of medical services to make removal available upon demand, without financial disincentives, undue waiting periods, or requirements like a minimum use period before removal. Guaranteed removal would answer some of the objections from population-control programs in the third worldâ€"for example, women's frequent experience of finding physicians trained and available to implant devices, but unavailable, untrained, or unwilling to remove them. It would preclude insurance companies or other cost managers from insisting that in order to obtain "full value" from an expensive device, it must remain in place for the full term of its effective period, or something close to it. Like the first requirement, universality, there are two principal reasons for this second one, reversibility, as well. First, and ...22..-
Format application/pdf
Identifier 023-RNLT-BattinMP_Page 22.jpg
Source Original Manuscript: Sex & consequences : world population growth vs. reproductive rights? by Margaret P. Battin.
Setname uu_fwrl
Date Created 2008-07-29
Date Modified 2008-07-29
ID 320087
Reference URL