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.
Showing posts with label foetus. Show all posts
Showing posts with label foetus. Show all posts
Too many ultrasounds
A recent Canadian study suggests that women with uncomplicated pregnancies are having too many ultrasounds. According to the study, out of 1.4 million cases of pregnancies studied from 1996 to 2007, 37 percent of the pregnant women were having three or more ultrasounds. 20 percent of women were having more than four tests.
How many ultrasounds have you had in a single pregnancy?
How many ultrasounds have you had in a single pregnancy?
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.
New book tell women to bond with their 'bump'
I just came across this new book, Postcards from the Bump in which the authors claim:
"Pregnant women are often advised on what to eat and how to take care of their health to nurture their developing babies. But they are rarely encouraged to get to know their unborn baby's personality. But now comes Postcards from the Bump, a guide for expectant mothers who want to bond with their babies long before they're born."
"You've got double the reason to be happy and take care of yourself because if Mommy is happy, baby is happy," Beanland says."[We suggest] going on date with your bump [baby] and kind of checking out the playground or exploring the places you're going to take your baby to once he or she gets here."
I'm sorry but this makes me insanely angry. I'm all for pregnant women having access to books that are less prescriptive (less about telling you what to do) and more about enjoying pregnancy. At the same time, however, I find it very problematic that women are encouraged or expected to think about their 'bumps' as 'babies' from the moment they conceive. As many of you would already know from having your own children, pregnancy is not always fun and games. Many women don't actually feel pregnant until they feel movement or after having an ultrasound, and even then, the idea that the thing resising in your belly will be a child one day is an extremely abstract concept and even after feeling movement, a number of women in my study told me that they still had a hard time believing that the thing moving around inside was a baby.
While I'm sure the authors of the book have nothing but good intentions, I feel like the more we focus on the hummanness of foetuses and continue to construct them as 'babies' at earlier points in pregnancy, this can lead to a slippery slope in other areas of life particularly when it comes to the rights of mothers v. the rights of foetuses (or babies, depending on what you believe). One of the reasons that abortion is so contentious, aside from the religious points of contention, has to do with the fact that as we increasingly develop more sophisticated ways in which to view foetuses with ultrasound with extremely human-like features, this has set a new precedent for understanding when foetuses are actually 'babies' or 'human'. A book like this only contributes to the fact that women should feel as though they should be bonding to their foetuses at all times and does not account for the times when pregnancy is unwanted. Besides, encouraging women to think about the baby's personality outside of the womb is also problematic considering many births do not always end in happiness. Can you imagine a woman reading this book and having a stillbirth? I think the authors give too much credit to the imprinting that takes place in the womb and not enough credit to the influences of the outside world. Babies are not 'made' in the womb, their personalities are developed through interactions with the people in the world around them.
Anyone have any thoughts? How bonded did you feel to your baby/foetus during pregnancy? Am I totally wrong?
Seeing embryos
I've just come upon a fascinating online exhibition from Cambridge University tracing the ways in which embryos and foetuses have been visualised through history. This is what I wrote my Master's thesis about, particularly trying to understand what it means to look at foetuses in 3D today.
Also have a look at A Short History of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology if you're keen!
Anyone out there looking to have a 3D ultrasound? Had one already?
Also have a look at A Short History of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology if you're keen!
Anyone out there looking to have a 3D ultrasound? Had one already?
Drinking in pregnancy = bad
I'm sorry but if isn't the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....
"Scientists believe that early exposure while still in the womb can reduce youngster's sensitivity to the underlying bitterness of many alcoholic drinks, making them more appealing."
Apparently, researchers at SUNY in Syracuse believe that women who drink can give their unborn babies a taste for alcohol by doing experiments on rats. "When offered the choice of sugared water, alcohol, or quinine flavoured water, rats who were not exposed to alcohol [in the womb] tended to plump for the sweeter alternative."
*rolls eyes*
Source: Mothers who drink while pregnant can give their children a taste for alcohol
"Scientists believe that early exposure while still in the womb can reduce youngster's sensitivity to the underlying bitterness of many alcoholic drinks, making them more appealing."
Apparently, researchers at SUNY in Syracuse believe that women who drink can give their unborn babies a taste for alcohol by doing experiments on rats. "When offered the choice of sugared water, alcohol, or quinine flavoured water, rats who were not exposed to alcohol [in the womb] tended to plump for the sweeter alternative."
*rolls eyes*
Source: Mothers who drink while pregnant can give their children a taste for alcohol
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
Rent-a-womb?
Interesting. In an Australian first, surrogate mothers in NSW will be paid $10,000 for carrying another woman's child in a proposed change to existing laws. Although it is argued the commercial surrogacy will still remain illegal in Australia, the money is supposed to help surrogates cover lost wages while they are pregnant as well as medical costs.
The Opposition's spokeswoman on women, Pru Goward, says the planned changes are a good idea.
"The Opposition supports compensating women for the medical costs in the last couple of months and also the loss of earnings in the last couple of months because most pregnant women don't work in the last couple of months," she said.
"What the Opposition would not encourage is the commercial surrogacy, the hiring out of a woman's uterus."
John Morrissey from the Australian Family Association says "Commercial surrogacy amounts to rent-a-womb, obviously. But our concerns are with surrogacy in itself, that it commodifies a child," he said.I tend to disagree. I think that just because women are helping other women to become mothers does not mean that pregnancy cannot also be a business transaction. I hate that as a result of this long-standing perception of women's bodies as 'natural' and being closer to nature, therefore, anything related to motherhood is automatically pure and uncommodified. If you think about it, everything about pregnancy today is totally commodified. From designer prams, boutique maternity clothing and expensive prenatal care, affluent women spend an enormous amount of money on pregnancy and their bodies during this 9 month period. No one seems to have a problem with this. It seems ridiculous to worry about the commodification of a child through surrogacy when foetuses are commodified through entertainment ultrasounds and through the purchase of baby clothing well before the baby is born. Pregnancy is commodified through IVF when couples pay to have their eggs fertilised and no one seems to have a problem with that!
I think this is a dangerous argument because it is just like saying that women who stay at home to be mothers don't 'work' because they are not being paid to stay at home. The only reason that SAHM are not paid to be mothers and to do housework is because it is too often assumed that women should selflessly do caring work; to ask for or to be offered compensation for nurturing/domestic tasks is antithetical to everything our culture believes to be associated with motherhood. This is the same situation with surrogacy. If a surrogate is being paid, it leaves an icky taste in many a mouth because it suggests that women can sell their wombs, in effect, taking the romance out of pregnancy and motherhood.
Any thoughts?
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:
Beijing baby mamma badges
So it seems the Chinese government is concerned about pregnant women. These badges which say 'Thank you for helping my mother' are being distributed to women "so that their rights and safety can be better guaranteed in public."Now, I'm not quite sure what that means. Is walking down the street now dangerous if you're pregnant? Are people supposed to treat you better if you're pregnant? Is this a way for you to get a seat on the train?
Or is this badge just an invitation for other people to tell Chinese pregnant women what to do? Perhaps we can read this badge as a foetus saying, 'Thanks for helping my mother, her womb is a dangerous place" especially when it comes to maternal behaviour. If mum is eating the wrong thing, having a drink or smoking are do strangers now have the right to intervene if you are wearing this badge?
The word "help" suggests that pregnant women are inept, need looking after, and that foetuses are the more important citizens.
Should pregnant women in other countries get badges announcing the presence of their foetuses?
Source: http://www.cctv.com/program/cultureexpress/20080627/104818.shtml
Holy foetus!
And I thought it was problematic that we think of foetuses as people before they are born...A woman in Ohio thinks you can see an image of Jesus in her ultrasound.
Kind of like those pieces of toast that are sold on eBay with images of the Virgin Mary...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)