2.5 ⭐not recommend this book – it really does give you an idea of the wide range of perspectives of various women on this topic – but I know I wouldn’t recommend it enthusiastically. It’s messy.“When we voice doubts and remain skeptical about the new technologies, we are often thought to be siding with the conservatives. In the United States, specifically, we are seen as siding with the New Right, a wealthy coalition of groups that attack women’s rights, and also support racist segregation, attacks on homosexuals, increased militarism and the suppression of trade unions. The New Right has become the champion of the most oppressive aspects of the nuclear family, and the Right to Life groups – one of its most active branches – is consistently working against all technological interference with pregnancy. They oppose in vitro fertilization and all experimentation with human eggs on the grounds that the fertilized egg is a ‘person’ and deserves full legal rights. They are also afraid that these technologies will destroy the ‘American’ family. We don’t think they need to worry. The new technologies are promoted in ways that support the most conservative ideas about families. For example, in the case of in vitro fertilization, women who are eligible for the procedure have to be in a heterosexual relationship, preferably married, and must provide guarantees to the scientific fathers that they will raise their children with a father, biological or not, in residence. In vitro fertilization seems unlikely to serve the needs of single women, lesbians, poor women, etc. (5)“Law reform discussions in Australia about human reproduction have been largely technical examinations of how the accepted structures of law and legal practice can assimilate new technologies, rather than how the new technologies reinforce the social relations already encoded in the law. This is no surprise, since such discussions fall into the categories implied by the separation of public and private life, categories that reinforce the male-headed family as the basic unit in a hierarchical society, and that hold up a vision of a progressive and rational science. Although the debate about reproductive technologies like IVF includes a variety of legal and ethical questions, the law reformers see questions of property as their particular brief, with the custody of the child as an area of considerable concern (Mason, 1982). To what extent does the contribution of genetic material to the biological process of reproduction entail legal and economic responsibilities? The apparent problems in case of AID (see Glossary) [artificial insemination from an anonymous donor] are multiplied when a woman is engaged to gestate a pregnancy (so-called surrogate motherhood; see Ince, this volume). The naming of the hired woman a surrogate ‘mother’ raises a different primary question than one of simple custody. What constitutes motherhood, a biological or a social relationship with a child? The separation of pregnancy from child rearing has the potential to raise questions about the role of women in new ways, but only if the assumptions behind the use of the term ‘mother’ for both pregnant women and child rearing women are subjected to searching examination.” (62)“The demands of women that their lived experience be incorporated in medical research and technology cannot be heard, much less met, while priorities are set according to the ‘needs’ of scientists to do exciting frontier research and their ‘right’ to be funded for those priorities. The priorities are hard to change when critics are accused of ignoring the pain of infertile women or denying the value of a highly reliable contraceptive, and when feminist turns of phrase are used to restructure the control of women (e.g. IVF offers the ‘choice’ to give birth) [emphasis mine]. Laws that criminalise abortion cannot be altered to acknowledge the control women have always sought to exercise over their fertility, but only to hand control to a group of male-oriented specialists. The growing orthodox literature on reproductive technology is silent about the social relations that structure human reproduction. The consequences of the changes during the past thirty years that have led to the development of IVF and other new technologies will be better understood once those silences are broken and the network of power relations in which they are embedded is exposed. Until then any changes are likely to reinforce the familiar relations of power and control. With sufficient knowledge, feminists can avoid the empty polemic that closes discussion and engage in a passionate and informed examination of the concerns of ‘private’ life. Yes, it will be hard, but, with women’s lives at stake, can anything less be attempted?” (65-6)“The metaphors of description and criticism are fascinating: Is the surrogate mother a prostitute, or is she instead a modern extension of the wet nurse? Is the surrogate arrangement like donating sperm, simply giving women the right to sell their reproductive capacity as men have done for years? Or is the arrangement more like building a house, where the father furnishes half the blueprint and materials and the labor is contracted out? Is it baby-selling? Or is it organ-selling, morally equivalent to allowing the needy to sell their kidneys to rich patients (Fletcher, 1983)? Each metaphor frames political/ethical discourse in different terms. Even the use of the term ‘surrogate mothering,’ begins by labeling the biological mother as artificial. Allowing the debate to be structured by the industry has slowed criticism from the feminist community.” (113-4)“Science is projected as ‘pure’, that is, independent of the interests that produce it. The authority of science obscures the political process in the construction of scientific knowledge. The ‘facts’, however, directly reflect the structures that create them.” (179)“The effect of Dep about which most women complained to us was that of being sexually turned off. Depo is used in two American clinics to chemically castrate male sex-offenders (Barry and Ciccone, 1975), but it is used on millions of women without any consideration of its effects on their sex lives.” (181)“Throughout the course of Western patriarchal civilization, abortion has remained an historical constant. What has changed is the tolerance or intolerance of different societies, or more precisely the ruling classes of different societies, toward it, and at all times this can be directly related to economic and political expedients of population control. The evolution of social attitudes toward sex and motherhood, of the medical technology and practice of birth control and, consequently, the individual woman’s experience of abortion have been and for the most part continue to be determined by these patriarchal imperatives. In a patriarchal society, abortion is not a tool to enhance women’s reproductive choice, it is a weapon to enforce men’s reproductive control.” (216)“In the last ten years, more and more cases of ‘dowry deaths’ became public. And about four to five years ago, hesitantly at first, newspapers started to report these incidents. While the official version mentions ‘accidents in the kitchen’ or ‘suicides’ the reality is that husbands pour kerosene (the fuel which is used in all Indian kitchens) over their wives and set them on fire. They burn to death while still alive. The reason: a wife’s dowry wasn’t high enough. The husband had further desires. But the woman didn’t want to ask her parents for still more money. So, all of a sudden her sari was on fire. Small problem for the mourning widower. He will soon find a new wife – with a new dowry. In New Delhi, to give one example, there are 400 or 500 dowry deaths each year.” (271)“One of the reasons I am concerned about the widespread use of genetic screening is because it focuses our attention on our genes at a time when environmental hazards are on the increase and need much more attention than they are getting (see also Hubbard, 1982b; Hubbard and Henifin, 1984). The reason I see worry about many of the other prenatal manipulations, including amniocentesis, is because usually at some point they involve the use of ultrasound (Bolsen, 1982). It took twenty to thirty years before epidemiological studies linked prenatal X-ray examinations to the production of leukemias and cancers. No reason to think that the health effects of irradiation with ultrasound can be evaluated more quickly. There is no question that exposure to higher doses of ultrasound than are usually used for diagnostic purposes can damage chromosomes, cells and tissues. As with other forms of radiation, the question is whether there is a threshold dose below which there are no destructive effects. If there are risks, they clearly are long-term and they may be subtle. Is it really a progressive health measure to expose large numbers of healthy women and fetuses to unnecessary ultrasound examinations in the hope of detecting a relatively small number of problem pregnancies? Some people have reason to be concerned that their fetus may have a health problem because of the family, personal or environmental health history of either partner. To some of them it may seem preferable, on balance, to undergo examinations by means of ultrasound and perhaps further tests, such as amniocentesis. Yet at present, ultrasound has become such a widely used tool in obstetrics that it is used as though it were known to be safe. Indeed, it forms the technical basis of the newly designated specialty of ‘fetal medicine.’” (341)“The advent of the Pill is now viewed with some skepticism by feminists. We found that there was a price to pay in terms of women’s health, and in the fact that we could be even more readily exploited as sexual objects for male gratification when there was no fear of pregnancy, and therefore no responsibility for their actions on the part of men should a pregnancy result. Many feminist suspect that the ‘sexual revolution’ was a new form of enslavement for women. We have to ask did we learn anything from the invention and use of the Pill. As Roberta Steinbacher says: ‘Who invented it, who manufactured it, who licensed it, who dispenses it? But who dies from it?’ (1981: 189).” (359)“The fact is that all women are guinea pigs in this exercise. We have not been included in decisions about the technology, not asked if we want it. Are we again to collude with patriarchy because our own momentary needs or desires blind us to the social responsibilities we must have to our daughters; to those who come after us and want the experience of natural conception and childbirth? Jalna Hanmer and Pat ALlen have commented that ‘women have acted, and do act, as agents of male individual and social power’ (1982: 69). Often this compliance is through ignorance. We must not turn from this difficult area of technology as if it is only relevant to infertile couples seeking children, and that any statements of hesitation on our part strikes at their ‘rights’ to have a child if they can. What may be happening is the last battle in the long war of men against women. Women’s position is most precarious. The medical profession continues to work in many areas unknown to the general community, and does so in the guise of helping women. We need to draw a distinction between helping the infertile and experimenting further with the most basic aspect of human life – its creation. In terms of the marketplace, if we do not educate ourselves on these issues, and develop a viewpoint on which we can act, we may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain. For the history of ‘mankind’ women have been seen in terms of their value as childbearers. We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete? Will we be fighting to retain or reclaim the right to bear children – has patriarchy conned us once again? I exhort you sisters to be vigilant.” (368)“The enormous increase in Caesarean sections and other birthing technologies, as well as the engineering of human reproduction made possibly by sex preselection, test-tube fertilization, and the like, as discussed in this volume, cannot but add to the chronic medicalization of women’s bodies, and thus to the bio-medical management of women’s lives. Obscured and submerged in all the recent accounts of the ‘miracles’ of reproductive technologies is the immense amount of bio-medical probing, manipulation, and experimentation to which women who seek out such ‘wonders’ of technological fertility and birthing are subject.” (428)
