- The Oxford Handbook of Reproductive Ethics
- Biographical Sketches
- The Discursive Context of Reproductive Ethics
- Access to Basic Reproductive Rights: Global Challenges
- Constructing the Abortion Argument
- Victims of Trafficking, Reproductive Rights, and Asylum
- The Commodification of Women’s Reproductive Tissue and Services
- Twenty-First-Century Eugenics
- Procreative Rights in a Postcoital World
- Reproduction as a Civil Right
- Conscientious Objection in Reproductive Health
- The Role of Providers in Assisted Reproduction: Potential Conflicts, Professional Conscience, and Personal Choice
- Ethical Issues in Newborn Screening
- How We Acquire Parental Rights
- Mothers and Others: Relational Autonomy in Parenting
- Procreators’ Duties: Sexual Asymmetries
- Reproductive Control for Men: For Men?
- Societal Disregard for the Needs of the Infertile
- Is Surrogacy Ethically Problematic?
- Parents with Disabilities
- Late-in-Life Motherhood: Ethico-Legal Perspectives on the Postponement of Childbearing and Access to Artificial Reproductive Technologies
- Justice, Procreation, and the Costs of Having and Raising Disabled Children
- Ethical Issues in the Evolving Realm of Egg Donation
- Sperm and Egg Donor Anonymity: Legal and Ethical Issues
- Who Am I When I’m Pregnant?
- Contemplating the Start of Someone
- The Possibility of Being Harmed by One’s Own Conception
- Understanding Procreative Beneficence
- Opting for Twins in In Vitro Fertilization: What Does Procreative Responsibility Require?
- Procreative Responsibility in View of What Parents Owe Their Children
Abstract and Keywords
Although women have many contraceptive options—gels, foams, pills, patches, rings, injections, subdermal implants, intrauterine devices, most with low failure rates and good reversibility—men have only the condom, withdrawal, and vasectomy, all with high failure rates or no guarantee of reversibility. This leaves men with unequal options for reproductive control, yet they may be held responsible for support of a child whether they wanted to reproduce or not. Five types of modern male contraception are now under development: they all raise issues of effectiveness, acceptability, and risk, but would give males far greater reproductive control. However, the common “one’s enough” assumption—that it is sufficient if either the male or the female contracepts—means that reproductive control could shift from females to males. “One’s enough” must be challenged in favor of “double coverage,” highly effective long-acting reversible contraception as routine for both parties, the nearest guarantee of female–male equality in reproductive control.
Margaret P. Battin is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and Adjunct Professor of Internal Medicine, Division of Medical Ethics, at the University of Utah. She has authored, edited, or co-edited twelve books, including The Least Worst Death (1994), Ethical Issues in Suicide (1982/1990), trade-titled The Death Debate (1986), as well as several co-edited collections, including Drug Use in Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia(1986), and Physician-Assisted Suicide: Expanding the Debate (1998). She has also published Praying for a Cure (1999), a jointly authored volume on the ethics of religious refusal of medical treatment. She is currently working on a historical source- book on ethical issues in suicide.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.