According to a recent article in the Daily Mail (Daily Fail, if you ask me), "an average of 80 abortions are carried out in England and Wales every year on IVF babies." The author, Mohamed Menabawey, is a consultant infertility specialist at the London Bridge Fertility Centre and he is apparently appalled that women who have IVF abort the foetuses that they do not want to carry. According to Menabawey, if you are desperate enough to go through the pain and effort to conceive through IVF you should be thankful that you have any foetuses at all. 'Aborting' , according to this fertility doctor, is wrong and 'social abortion' (his term, not mine) is much different to 'medical abortion' (where physical abnormality is involved).
OMG this makes me so angry!
If Menabawey is a medical doctor, I find it extremely troubling that he would moralise about the personal choices of his patients in a national newspaper. I have no problem with doctors not agreeing with abortion but I do have a problem with forcing their own beliefs on patients. Under the Hippocratic Oath, doctors agree to do no harm to their patients. Encouraging women to keep foetuses that they do not wish to carry through into a full-term pregnancy or moralising about how these women are 'bad' is harmful and frankly, if a woman chooses to go through IVF and then changes her mind in the end, THAT IS HER CHOICE.
It is stunning that in 2010 we still have highly educated professionals placing limitations on choice. Whether a women chooses to terminate a pregnancy for 'social' or 'medical' reasons is NOT the doctor's concern. Menabawey seems to suggest that his IVF patients are 'bad' women for not consulting him before choosing to terminate an IVF pregnancy!
Thumbs down, no hugs.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
South Korea abortion debate heats up
If there is one thing I love about being in the US, it's being able to read the New York Times in its paper form and not staring at the 'pages' on a screen.
Anyway, I was intrigued by an article about abortion in South Korea, an issue that has rarely come to the fore as a topic of public interest. Abortion, whilst illegal in all but exceptional circumstances, has long been practised by obstetricians and gynecologists on the sly for cash payment for willing patients considering abortion is not covered by health insurance. In the face of an impending fertility crisis, abortion is coming under closer scrutiny as government officials worry that more aborted foetuses will put the nation at risk. According to the NYT:
"For decades, the South Korean government tended to look the other way, seeing a high birthrate as an impediment to economic growth. In the 1970s and 1980s, families with more than two children were denounced as unpatriotic, with official posters in South Korean villages driving the point home. Until the early 1990s, men could be exempted from mandatory army reserve duty if they had vasectomies."
With medical professionals now banding together against illegal abortions in light of their own guilt surrounding their participation in performing the procedures, there is increasing concern that women who are forced to have unwanted babies will either travel abroad to have an abortion or abandon their babies. Cash bonuses are now available for families with more than two children as well as greater financial aid for single mothers in need and vouchers for couples seeking help at fertility clinics.
Not unlike Costello's urge for Australian families to have one baby for mum, dad and the nation, South Korea looks to be on a dangerous road where women's reproductive rights are infringed upon. Whereas a foetus was just a foetus, now a foetus is implicitly a son or daughter.
Anyway, I was intrigued by an article about abortion in South Korea, an issue that has rarely come to the fore as a topic of public interest. Abortion, whilst illegal in all but exceptional circumstances, has long been practised by obstetricians and gynecologists on the sly for cash payment for willing patients considering abortion is not covered by health insurance. In the face of an impending fertility crisis, abortion is coming under closer scrutiny as government officials worry that more aborted foetuses will put the nation at risk. According to the NYT:
"For decades, the South Korean government tended to look the other way, seeing a high birthrate as an impediment to economic growth. In the 1970s and 1980s, families with more than two children were denounced as unpatriotic, with official posters in South Korean villages driving the point home. Until the early 1990s, men could be exempted from mandatory army reserve duty if they had vasectomies."
With medical professionals now banding together against illegal abortions in light of their own guilt surrounding their participation in performing the procedures, there is increasing concern that women who are forced to have unwanted babies will either travel abroad to have an abortion or abandon their babies. Cash bonuses are now available for families with more than two children as well as greater financial aid for single mothers in need and vouchers for couples seeking help at fertility clinics.
Not unlike Costello's urge for Australian families to have one baby for mum, dad and the nation, South Korea looks to be on a dangerous road where women's reproductive rights are infringed upon. Whereas a foetus was just a foetus, now a foetus is implicitly a son or daughter.
This and that!
OMG. You are probably so cross with me for disappearing for a week without warning. Well, let me tell you, it's been one busy week for me and pretty slow week for pregnancy news. I'll save the details for another day and get on with what I do best. Here is a smattering of things on my radar:
So, I'm amused to see the US News and World Report's 7 Strategies for a Successful Maternity Leave. What I find particularly funny (or perhaps ironic?) is that strategising about your maternity leave is really only necessary when you actually have maternity leave. Even more amusing is the tip to 'Find Good Child Care' while you are on maternity leave. If any woman here in Melbourne actually waited until her baby was actually born to work on childcare, no one would have care until the kid was three. Ladies here get on the waiting lists at the first whiff of pregnancy.
And if this isn't a cautionary tale, I don't know what is, in spite of the researcher's warning that the research should not be used to prevent women from choosing to terminate their pregnancies. I can just see the pro-life lobby falling over themselves to find a way to use this new 'risk' to challenge choice.
Australian obs are pissed off with Health Minister Nicola Roxon after accusations that they have been raising their fees as much as 20% by taking advantage of the existing Medicare safety net. Come January, however, Roxon is cutting them off when Medicare refunds are capped. According to new reports, the increase in charges helped turn obstetricians into millionaires with the highest earning 10 per cent of obstetricians now earning $1.8 million a year - $1.1 million of which comes from Medicare. Perhaps another reason to go with a midwife!
And finally, while I'm happy that Kim Clijsters made such a spectacular 'comeback' to tennis this week winning the US Open, I'm annoyed (again) that the fact that she is a mother somehow makes this astonishing victory more astonishing. Clijsters is a great player; why are our expectations so low for women when they rebound from motherhood?
So, I'm amused to see the US News and World Report's 7 Strategies for a Successful Maternity Leave. What I find particularly funny (or perhaps ironic?) is that strategising about your maternity leave is really only necessary when you actually have maternity leave. Even more amusing is the tip to 'Find Good Child Care' while you are on maternity leave. If any woman here in Melbourne actually waited until her baby was actually born to work on childcare, no one would have care until the kid was three. Ladies here get on the waiting lists at the first whiff of pregnancy.
And if this isn't a cautionary tale, I don't know what is, in spite of the researcher's warning that the research should not be used to prevent women from choosing to terminate their pregnancies. I can just see the pro-life lobby falling over themselves to find a way to use this new 'risk' to challenge choice.
Australian obs are pissed off with Health Minister Nicola Roxon after accusations that they have been raising their fees as much as 20% by taking advantage of the existing Medicare safety net. Come January, however, Roxon is cutting them off when Medicare refunds are capped. According to new reports, the increase in charges helped turn obstetricians into millionaires with the highest earning 10 per cent of obstetricians now earning $1.8 million a year - $1.1 million of which comes from Medicare. Perhaps another reason to go with a midwife!
And finally, while I'm happy that Kim Clijsters made such a spectacular 'comeback' to tennis this week winning the US Open, I'm annoyed (again) that the fact that she is a mother somehow makes this astonishing victory more astonishing. Clijsters is a great player; why are our expectations so low for women when they rebound from motherhood?
Plaster foetuses: creepy and weird.
Could pregnancy get any more ridiculous? First it was entertainment ultrasounds set to lullably music. Then it was the Bebescope Ultrasound Belt (sounds like a machine from the future, if you ask me). Now some Brazilian designer has come up with a way to produce life-size plaster models of foetuses from 3D ultrasound scans. Stuart Campbell, head of obstetrics and gynaecology at King’s College London says he wants to use the models to help women who are having trouble bonding with their unborn.
First of all, ew. Second of all, how many more ways can we possibly make women feel guilty for not feeling bonded to a foetus or for even considering the thought of having an abortion. Aside from its potential 'entertainment' purposes (women get to see how big their foetus is at any stage of development with the plaster model), this is just another feather in the hat from the pro-life lobby.
What's next? Plaster models of foetuses that talk?
'Mummy, don't eat that slice of cake or I'll be obese by the age of 3.'
'Put that glass of wine down. Are you trying to kill me?'
'Do you really think horizontal stripes are a good idea'.
Again. Seeing the future. NOT. GOOD.
Sex selection in US
A controversial article in the New York Times suggests that sex selection is happening in the US among Chinese, Indian and Korean American families. Researchers argue that they have found significant statistical evidence to show that there is most likely a preference for sex selection, IVF and sperm sorting or abortion:
"In those families, if the first child was a girl, it was more likely that a second child would be a boy, according to recent studies of census data. If the first two children were girls, it was even more likely that a third child would be male."
Now, it is dangerous and potentially racist to suggest that certain groups of people are deliberately using abortion for to have more baby boys. But, according to Columbia University economists, among American families of Chinese, Korean and Indian descent, the likelihood of having a boy increased to 1.17 to 1 if the first child was a girl. If the first two children were girls, the ratio for a third child was 1.51 to 1 — or about 50 percent greater — in favor of boys.
While sex-selection is not illegal in the US, it is surprising to find that some fertility clinics actually target Asian Americans in their advertisements. For example, The Fertility Institutes, with clinics in California and New York, which does not offer abortions, has openly advertised its services in Indian- and Chinese-language newspapers in the United States.
More restrictions on abortion.
And another bad start to your Monday.
According to reports in USA Today, lawmakers in 11 states are considering bills that would require ultrasounds before a woman is permitted to have an abortion. The most stringent laws are being proposed in Nebraska, Indiana and Texas, which would require a doctor show the ultrasound image of the foetus to the woman. Oklahoma's law is currently being challenged in court after it has been deemed to infringe on women's rights to privacy and assault dignity.
"They really do not even veil their goal, which is to make a woman feel badly and to make her change her mind," said Celine Mizrahi, a lawyer for the New York-based center. "It really is a ridiculous position to put the doctor and patient in."
Even bills that are considered 'less restrictive' are still problematic. South Carolina is trying to require that women must wait 24 hours before being permitted to have an abortion and women are given the option of viewing the foetal photograph one hour before the procedure. Mizrahi notes that women women may be referred to a centre that performs ultrasounds for free. This is a problem because many of these clinics are considered pregnancy 'crisis centres' and are run by pro-life groups which actively discourage women from having abortions.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-08-abortion-laws_N.htm
According to reports in USA Today, lawmakers in 11 states are considering bills that would require ultrasounds before a woman is permitted to have an abortion. The most stringent laws are being proposed in Nebraska, Indiana and Texas, which would require a doctor show the ultrasound image of the foetus to the woman. Oklahoma's law is currently being challenged in court after it has been deemed to infringe on women's rights to privacy and assault dignity.
"They really do not even veil their goal, which is to make a woman feel badly and to make her change her mind," said Celine Mizrahi, a lawyer for the New York-based center. "It really is a ridiculous position to put the doctor and patient in."
Even bills that are considered 'less restrictive' are still problematic. South Carolina is trying to require that women must wait 24 hours before being permitted to have an abortion and women are given the option of viewing the foetal photograph one hour before the procedure. Mizrahi notes that women women may be referred to a centre that performs ultrasounds for free. This is a problem because many of these clinics are considered pregnancy 'crisis centres' and are run by pro-life groups which actively discourage women from having abortions.
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-08-abortion-laws_N.htm
Self-induced abortion: life saver or health risk?
Today, a fascinating report from the New York Times describes a an unspoken tradition among Dominican women to perform their own 'abortion' using pills, herbal teas and other unconventional methods due to a wider cultural view of shame surrounding abortion, the use of condoms and denial about unplanned pregnancy.
A survey conducted by Planned Parenthood of 1200 Latinas in New York, San Francisco and Boston found "reports of women mixing malted beverages with aspirin, salt or nutmeg; throwing themselves down stairs or having people punch them in the stomach; and drinking teas of avocado leaf, pine wood, oak bark and mamon fruit peel." More recently, however, a number of Dominican women have been using misoprostol, an prescription drug that is approved for reducing gastric ulcers but induces miscarriage. Women often obtain the pills at pharmacies that are known to 'bend the rules' or from overseas. This is seen as the best available option to women who have no insurance, are not living in the country lawfully or who do not want to deal with the shame of pregnancy.
Women's health works, however, are concerned that women are not using these methods appropriately and might be risking their own health if using the traditional and over-the-counter methods incorrectly. Given the US abortion laws, some women are even being prosecuted for knowingly attempting to end their pregnancies. According to the NYT:
"In 2007 in Massachusetts, an 18-year-old Dominican immigrant named Amber Abreu took misoprostol in her 25th week of pregnancy and gave birth to a 1-pound baby girl who died four days later; a judge sentenced her in June to probation and ordered her into therapy. In South Carolina in February, a Mexican migrant farm worker, Gabriela Flores, pleaded guilty to illegally performing an abortion and was sentenced to 90 days in jail for taking misoprostol while four months pregnant in 2004..."
There seems to be widespread criticism of women who self-abort, mainly surrounding the idea that in causing themselves to 'miscarry' they turn abortion into a 'natural' process. I think we should be more concerned with helping women who can't afford to have an abortion with the appropriate tools to terminate a pregnancy rather than worrying about denial or what word is being used to describe such an experience. 'Miscarriage' or 'abortion', women should not have to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. In the case of these Dominican women, I think the consequences of having an unwanted child are more significant than the cost of having an abortion or 'miscarriage', etc.*
*This post is not intended to spark a heated debate as to the ethics of abortion. This is just my view and this is an old debate. Berating women who choose to have abortions is not productive and undermines the point of this post.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html?pagewanted=2&em
A survey conducted by Planned Parenthood of 1200 Latinas in New York, San Francisco and Boston found "reports of women mixing malted beverages with aspirin, salt or nutmeg; throwing themselves down stairs or having people punch them in the stomach; and drinking teas of avocado leaf, pine wood, oak bark and mamon fruit peel." More recently, however, a number of Dominican women have been using misoprostol, an prescription drug that is approved for reducing gastric ulcers but induces miscarriage. Women often obtain the pills at pharmacies that are known to 'bend the rules' or from overseas. This is seen as the best available option to women who have no insurance, are not living in the country lawfully or who do not want to deal with the shame of pregnancy.
Women's health works, however, are concerned that women are not using these methods appropriately and might be risking their own health if using the traditional and over-the-counter methods incorrectly. Given the US abortion laws, some women are even being prosecuted for knowingly attempting to end their pregnancies. According to the NYT:
"In 2007 in Massachusetts, an 18-year-old Dominican immigrant named Amber Abreu took misoprostol in her 25th week of pregnancy and gave birth to a 1-pound baby girl who died four days later; a judge sentenced her in June to probation and ordered her into therapy. In South Carolina in February, a Mexican migrant farm worker, Gabriela Flores, pleaded guilty to illegally performing an abortion and was sentenced to 90 days in jail for taking misoprostol while four months pregnant in 2004..."
There seems to be widespread criticism of women who self-abort, mainly surrounding the idea that in causing themselves to 'miscarry' they turn abortion into a 'natural' process. I think we should be more concerned with helping women who can't afford to have an abortion with the appropriate tools to terminate a pregnancy rather than worrying about denial or what word is being used to describe such an experience. 'Miscarriage' or 'abortion', women should not have to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. In the case of these Dominican women, I think the consequences of having an unwanted child are more significant than the cost of having an abortion or 'miscarriage', etc.*
*This post is not intended to spark a heated debate as to the ethics of abortion. This is just my view and this is an old debate. Berating women who choose to have abortions is not productive and undermines the point of this post.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/nyregion/05abortion.html?pagewanted=2&em
Contraception = abortion?
There are times when I miss being an American and actually living in the US...but then there are moments, like right now, when I'm happy to be living in another country.
If you thought that George W. was just a 'lame duck', let me tell you...Mr. President is planning to suck every ounce of reproductive freedom from the wombs of American women. Here's why:
A report has been released suggesting that the Bush administration is planning to strengthen their opposition to abortion by redefining contraception as abortion. Under the new regulation, abortion would be defined as:
'...any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation'.
So basically 'pregnancy' is being defined as the presence of a fertilised egg and not an implanted fertilised egg (as most gynecologists and medical dictionaries would argue). Moreover, another niggling detail of this proposed bill is that it strengthens the legislation that already exists that says that federal employees cannot be fired from their jobs if they do not want to perform certain tasks that run counter to their religious/moral beliefs. Why does this matter? Well, because there are a number of federally funded health care services that will be able to refuse treating certain patients or refuse performing certain procedures if a doctor doesn't believe it is right. This means that women (especially poor and minority women) might have their access to contraception or abortion restricted if a doctor thinks its wrong. Health providers would also have the right to share their personal beliefs about abortion, for instance, with patients. Hospitals could potentially have the right to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
This is what happens when a President allows a veterinarian to be in charge of the Office of Women's Health (no, really!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901576.html
On a lighter note, say Goodnight to Bush: http://www.goodnightbush.com/
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11147
http://www.alternet.org/story/91654/?ses=52547cd5c8ab64e91c5c017223aa7cdb
If you thought that George W. was just a 'lame duck', let me tell you...Mr. President is planning to suck every ounce of reproductive freedom from the wombs of American women. Here's why:
A report has been released suggesting that the Bush administration is planning to strengthen their opposition to abortion by redefining contraception as abortion. Under the new regulation, abortion would be defined as:
'...any of the various procedures - including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action - that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation'.
So basically 'pregnancy' is being defined as the presence of a fertilised egg and not an implanted fertilised egg (as most gynecologists and medical dictionaries would argue). Moreover, another niggling detail of this proposed bill is that it strengthens the legislation that already exists that says that federal employees cannot be fired from their jobs if they do not want to perform certain tasks that run counter to their religious/moral beliefs. Why does this matter? Well, because there are a number of federally funded health care services that will be able to refuse treating certain patients or refuse performing certain procedures if a doctor doesn't believe it is right. This means that women (especially poor and minority women) might have their access to contraception or abortion restricted if a doctor thinks its wrong. Health providers would also have the right to share their personal beliefs about abortion, for instance, with patients. Hospitals could potentially have the right to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims.
This is what happens when a President allows a veterinarian to be in charge of the Office of Women's Health (no, really!)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901576.html
On a lighter note, say Goodnight to Bush: http://www.goodnightbush.com/
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/washington/15rule.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11147
http://www.alternet.org/story/91654/?ses=52547cd5c8ab64e91c5c017223aa7cdb
Civil rights movement for foetuses
In November, it looks like Colorado voters will be asked when life begins. The Human Life Amendment is being put forward to voters to ensure that personhood starts from the moment of conception. If voters agree, fertilised eggs will have the same rights as those people with the gross motor skills, a fully formed brain and obviously, the ability to walk.Although the measure is not directly aimed at putting limitations on abortion, Colorado Right to Life is all over it for obvious reasons.
"The goal is to restore legal protection to preborn babies from the moment they are conceived, which is the only way we're going to stop abortion," said Leslie Hanks, vice president of the group.
If passed, this could have dire consequences for the progress of medical research, the rights of mothers, the continuing availability of contraception, and of course abortion. Some critics are suggesting that if this amendment passes, this could be the start of another battle against Roe v. Wade. Also, if pregnant women are categorised as 'two' people instead of one, her ability to access medical care will also be compromised.
This measure may protect the 'human' rights of foetuses, but what about protecting the mother's human rights?
What do you think?
Source:
ARGH! Bad journalism = dangerous stereotypes
Headline: Royal college warns abortions can lead to mental illness
That's a pretty controversial headline if you ask me. According to the The Times:
"The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health".
Just as I was on the verge of becoming completely incensed with another example of biomedicine and the State intervening in women's reproductive choices with ridiculous scare tactics (kind of like how pregnant women are told if they even look at coffee, they could potentially harm their unborn), I then noticed a link to the actual statement put out by the Royal College.
Whilst the journalist has essentially written that without a doubt, women who have abortions are at risk of mental illness with no indication of which women she refers to, the statement from the Royal College paints a very different picture.
In fact, the Royal College writes that women who have a pre-existing psychiatric condition during pregnancy may be a greater risk for mental health issues following a termination which makes alot more sense than saying any woman who has an abortion is on the road to a mental breakdown. Whereas the journalists cites various studies that support her argument that abortion is bad for mental health, the Royal College notes that the evidence for this is inconclusive.
Moreover, whereas the Royal College suggests updating informational pamphlets distributed to women and putting in place better mental health screening during pregnancy, it seems that some MPs have interpreted this as a perfect oppportunity to put restrict access to abortion. MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Thankfully, this is not yet supported by the government. Even more frightening is that some conservative Christian groups have used the released statement from the Royal College saying that it is not clear whether pregnancy exacerbates mental health issues to argue that if it is not clear that pregnancy is detrimental to women's mental health than why should women be allowed to have abortions at all?
Interesting how many different ways one very neutral statement can be interpreted depending on one's political agenda.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece
That's a pretty controversial headline if you ask me. According to the The Times:
"The Royal College of Psychiatrists says women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health".
Just as I was on the verge of becoming completely incensed with another example of biomedicine and the State intervening in women's reproductive choices with ridiculous scare tactics (kind of like how pregnant women are told if they even look at coffee, they could potentially harm their unborn), I then noticed a link to the actual statement put out by the Royal College.
Whilst the journalist has essentially written that without a doubt, women who have abortions are at risk of mental illness with no indication of which women she refers to, the statement from the Royal College paints a very different picture.
In fact, the Royal College writes that women who have a pre-existing psychiatric condition during pregnancy may be a greater risk for mental health issues following a termination which makes alot more sense than saying any woman who has an abortion is on the road to a mental breakdown. Whereas the journalists cites various studies that support her argument that abortion is bad for mental health, the Royal College notes that the evidence for this is inconclusive.
Moreover, whereas the Royal College suggests updating informational pamphlets distributed to women and putting in place better mental health screening during pregnancy, it seems that some MPs have interpreted this as a perfect oppportunity to put restrict access to abortion. MPs will shortly vote on a proposal to reduce the upper time limit for abortions “for social reasons” from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. Thankfully, this is not yet supported by the government. Even more frightening is that some conservative Christian groups have used the released statement from the Royal College saying that it is not clear whether pregnancy exacerbates mental health issues to argue that if it is not clear that pregnancy is detrimental to women's mental health than why should women be allowed to have abortions at all?
Interesting how many different ways one very neutral statement can be interpreted depending on one's political agenda.
Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3559486.ece
South Dakota sonogram harassment
The South Dakota House and Senate recently passed a bill requiring doctors to offer pregnant women sonograms before they decide to have an abortion. If the woman refuses to 'see' her 'baby', she must sign a form indicating she has been offered the technology.
According to a number of conservative male legislators, the use of the ultrasound in this particular encounter is supposed to encourage women to keep their fetuses because 'seeing' a fetus as a 'baby' and 'not just a blob of tissue' will clearly overwhelm women who are ambivalent about motherhood with maternal feelings.
One female senator has called this 'harassment', and rightly so.
Isn't it interesting that pregnancy can be received so differently just on the basis of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not? For women who want to be pregnant, a little 'blob of tissue' on a screen is a 'baby'. For women who have found themselves uncomfortably pregnant, that same blob of tissue might be perceived as an alien or even a parasite. With regard to the fetus, as a number of feminist scholars have suggested in light of the abortion debate, the increasing use of sophisticated imaging technology is dangerous precisely because of what is happening in South Dakota. Personhood, as in many 'non-Western' cultures is not conferred upon birth when a child is welcomed into a community. Rather, personhood is conferred upon 'seeing' a fetus as early as 4 weeks in some cases simply because we have the technology to do so. As such, the mother's identity/personhood is eclipsed in favour of the fetus and her body is perceived as merely a receptacle for life, without regard for her own.
Source: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/top/doc479f941307871396515177.txt
According to a number of conservative male legislators, the use of the ultrasound in this particular encounter is supposed to encourage women to keep their fetuses because 'seeing' a fetus as a 'baby' and 'not just a blob of tissue' will clearly overwhelm women who are ambivalent about motherhood with maternal feelings.
One female senator has called this 'harassment', and rightly so.
Isn't it interesting that pregnancy can be received so differently just on the basis of whether the pregnancy is wanted or not? For women who want to be pregnant, a little 'blob of tissue' on a screen is a 'baby'. For women who have found themselves uncomfortably pregnant, that same blob of tissue might be perceived as an alien or even a parasite. With regard to the fetus, as a number of feminist scholars have suggested in light of the abortion debate, the increasing use of sophisticated imaging technology is dangerous precisely because of what is happening in South Dakota. Personhood, as in many 'non-Western' cultures is not conferred upon birth when a child is welcomed into a community. Rather, personhood is conferred upon 'seeing' a fetus as early as 4 weeks in some cases simply because we have the technology to do so. As such, the mother's identity/personhood is eclipsed in favour of the fetus and her body is perceived as merely a receptacle for life, without regard for her own.
Source: http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2008/01/29/news/top/doc479f941307871396515177.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)