new reproductive technologies- concerns of feminists and researchers

8/6/2019 New Reproductive Technologies- Concerns of Feminists and Researchers

1/13

38

New Reproductive Technologies:Concerns of Feminists

and Researchers

Kathryn E. Moss

This article reviews six major concerns in the feminist literatureabout thenew reproductive technologies: (1) risks to womens health,(2) threats to womens reproductive rights and options, (3) dis-

criminatory costs and benefits, (4) the expense of the procedures andtheir potential to funnel scarce resourcesfrom other pressing healthand social needs, (5) issues related to prenatal diagnosis and fetaltherapy, and (6) the minimal involvement of women in policydebates. The article also suggestssome areas in which further researchis necessary.

Since the birth of &dquo;test-tube&dquo; baby Louise Brown in Bristol, England,in 1978, there have been many new developments in the technologies

that assist with reproduction. Those concerning surrogate mother-hood have received much attention in the mass media. Others that

have been less well publicized include the creation of clinics for invitro fertilization (IVF) throughout the industrialized world, the

increasing sophisticationof

nonsurgical embryo-transfer procedures(involving the artificial insemination ofa woman, theremoval of thefertilized egg by a nonsurgical lavage procedure, and the subsequenttransfer of the embryo to the uterus of another woman), and

developments in the identification ofa babys gender before birthandin fetal therapy.Analysts from a variety of perspectives have begun to argue

passionately for and against thenew technologies.According to mostscientists and physicians, health risks and benefits are the primarycriteria by which the technologies should be judged (Edwards, 1980,______A -.. - - - .-.-. - --- -- - -


2/13

39

1981; Steptoe et al., 1980). In contrast, legal scholars tend to

emphasize therelevance of current laws and to speculateabout future

legal requirements (Robertson, 1983, 1986; Wadlington, 1983).In thebioethics literature (Andrews, 1987;Annas, 1987; Walters, 1987), thefocus is on the moral dilemmas posed by the technologies. In

addition, religious organizations, government-appointedcommis-

sions, and medical organizationshave issuedreports and recommenda-tions about which new procedures should be deemed ethicallyacceptable and obtainablewithout legal restraint (American FertilitySociety, 1986; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1987;Ontario Law Reform Commission, 1985; Warnock Committee,

1984). Furthermore, New Jerseys BabyM case served as the impetusfor proposals by many state legislatures not only about surrogatemotherhood but also about other techniques to aid reproduction(Andrews, 1987).

This article reviews the growing body of feminist literature on this

topicwhose views have not been incorporated into the social welfareliterature or been tested in sufficient research. It summarizes the

major arguments and discussessome

of the implications of thisliterature for research into the new technologies.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Feminist perspectives about the new technologies are by no means

homogeneous.As Rowland (1987b) pointed out, in thepast, especiallybefore the technologies were a reality, some feminists welcomedthem. For example, Firestone (1970) argued that womens liberationdemands a biological revolution that will free women from the

tyranny of reproduction by every possible means. For Firestone, the

reproduction of children outside the uterus is necessary to liberate

women from maternity. More recently, Menning (1981) hailed thenew

technologiesas

openingup new horizons in the alleviation of

infertility, and Singer and Wells (1983) supported ectogenesis-thatis, the growth of the fetus outside the womb-as a contributor tosexual equality.Although feminists continue to discuss the solutionsoffered by these techniques for dealing with infertility and for

childbearing without heterosexual relations, they have written littlein recent years in support of the procedures.

In contrast, an increasing number of feminists are expressingapprehension about the growing repertoire of procedures (Arditti et

al., 1984; Corea, 1985, 1987; Duelli Klein, 1987; Dworkin, 1983;Hanmer, 1983; Hubbard, 1980, 1981, 1984; Rothman, 1984, 1985,


3/13

40

1986). The concerns of feminist writers are diverse. They include risks

to womens health, threats to womens rights and choices, discrimina-

tory costs and benefits, the expense of the procedures, problemsassociated with prenatal diagnosis and fetal therapy, and the insuffi-cient role of women in policy debates.

Health Risks to Women

Most feminist writers have focused on the health risks of IVF, basingtheir objections primarily on the poor track record in predicting the

problems resultingfrom other biotechnological interventions. Hub-bard (1980), for example, pointed out the potential parallels betweenthe many unanticipated problems that have occurred in the areas ofwaste disposal, pest control, and other aspects of the &dquo;ecologicalcrisis&dquo; and problems that might arise with IVF. She argued that justas there was no way to ensure the safety of those earlier technologies,at present, there is noway to assess the safety ofIVF procedures. Thus,she concluded that IVF represents experimentation on women.

Other feminists have expressed similar views. Duelli Klein (1987),

for example, noted that the same people who experimentedon

women with the &dquo;older&dquo; reproductive technologies (such as birthcontrol pills; the synthetic estrogen dietylstilbestrol, or DES; and theDalkon Shield) are again treating womens bodies as living labora-tories. Rowland (1984, p. 354) warned that &dquo;we should not wait, as we

, did with the Pill, until we are twenty years too late.&dquo;Another concern of feminist (and nonfeminist) writers is the

. increased possibility of a multiple pregnancy (and all its complica-tions) following IVF, since three or four fertilized ova are usuallytransferred to the uterus to increase the probability of successful

implantation and pregnancy. Furthermore, Corea (1985, p. 71)cautioned that the full effects of the superovulation process &dquo;on theoviducts and uterus and on embryos developing&dquo; remain unknown.

She also warned about numerous other potential hazards ofIVF, suchas the possible trauma to ovaries resulting from surgical manipula-tion : repeated operations, with theaccompanying risks of anesthesia;hazards related to the tools and procedures for monitoring such a

pregnancy, for instance, ultrasound radiation, amniocentesis, andendometrialbiopsy; potential damage or infection during the transferof the embryo to the uterus; and ectopic pregnancies in which theembryo is implanted outside the uterus.

Many feminist writers raise the possibility ofan abnormalnumberof congenital defects or other health problems in children bom as aresult of IVF (Hubbard, 1980; Overall, 1987; Rowland, 1987a).A few


4/13

41

are annoyed that debates about IVF and other reproductive tech-

nologies focusmuch moreonthe possible damage to the fetus or childthan on the risks to women (Corea, 1985; Duelli Klein, 1987). Somewriters also are concerned about the physical risks associated with

prenatal diagnosis (Blumberg, 1987; Saxton, 1984). This issue is

discussed later in this article.

Threats to Womens Reproductive RightsSupporters of the new technologies often maintain that all womenhave the right to bear children and that the technologies are

extending this right to thosewho werepreviously denied it (Menning,1981 ). However,many feminists worry thatalthough the interventions

may expand the rights of some women, they reduce the rights and

options of mostwomen (Duelli Klein, 1987; Hanmer, 1987; Hubbard,1980; Rothman, 1984). They argue that the claim of the supporters ofthese technologies reinforces the view that womens lives are unful-filled or worthless unless they bear children. Hubbard (1981) statedthat deep consciousness raisingmaybe more therapeutic than are thenew

techniques. Together with other critics, she questioned why achild must be biologically ones own, arguing that &dquo;foster and

adoptive parents aremuch needed for theworlds homeless children&dquo;

(Hubbard, 1980, p. 11).Furthermore, a number of feminist writers have argued that the

appearance of voluntarism by women in IVF programs is deceptive(Corea, 1985; Overall, 1987). In their eyes, although women are

clamoring for IVF, they are really being coerced emotionally by thestill deeply ingrained message that womens lives are meaninglessunless they bear children.

Coercion also occurs as a result of the commercialization of the

new reproductive technologies. Thus, pointing to Rothmans (1984)warnings about the choices that are lost towomen as the technologies

develop, Overall (1987) criticized surrogacy for a number of reasons.For example, Overall noted that although the decision to become a

surrogate mother may appear to be voluntary, the existence of

surrogacy as a choice may override or obscure other interpretationsofthe lives of womenwho have few resources or other opportunities.The new technologies,according to feministwriters, are character-

ized by the persistent medicalization of womens lives. Feministsbelieve that this medicalization makes women ever more dependenton a highly professionalized, highly technological male-dominatedmedical system (Corea, 1985; Hubbard, 1980). They argue thatinfertile women, whocould come to accept their infertility, maynow


5/13

42

spendyears in debilitatingandexpensive experimental programs. InRothmans (1984, p. 32) words, &dquo;There is always one more doctor to

try, one more treatment around.&dquo;As a result, &dquo;there is no way off the

medical treadmill&dquo; (Corea, 1985, p. 6).Feminist writers such as Corea (1985), Hanmer (1987), Rose and

Hanmer (1976), and Rowland (1987b) have expressed skepticismabout the extent to which womens consent to IVF is truly informed.

They maintain that women who were enrolled in the early IVF

programs did notcomprehend the experimental nature of IVF. Theyalso assert that most women continue to have no idea of the odds

against their becoming pregnant.As Rowland (1987b) pointed out,therates of IVF are low, vary greatly across clinics, and are representedby misleading statistics.

[Although a] recent survey in the United States found that, of

fifty-four clinics questioned, half had never sent a patient homewith a baby, ... clinics throughout the world still claim successrates of 25 percent.... Doctors questioned in this survey indicate

that the highest rate for IVF births inAustralia is 10 percent.(Rowland, 1987b, p. 520)

As if the foregoing concerns were not complex enough, feminists. become even more worried when they consider future possibilities.As

was already mentioned, they charge that the new technologiesincrease womens dependence on highly skilled male professionals.

. They fear, however, that the problem is deeper: IVF, in particular,may ultimately remove not only the control of reproduction but

_reproduction itself from women. Hanmer (1987) charged thatwomens reproductive processes are being controlledmore closely at

.

every stage and may ultimately be replaced by artificial machinery to

gestate the young. Duelli Klein (1987) supported this view, noting

that the control of womens bodies and of their reproductive biologyhas always been a major factor in the oppression of women. In adiscussion of the future of reproductive techniques, she speculatedthat &dquo;when the glass womb is perfected, women as a group may beobsolete as child bearers&dquo; (Duelli Klein, 1987, pp. 70-71).

Discriminatory Costs and BenefitsMost feminist writers who oppose IVF, for example, note that

although the stated intentions of IVF programs are therapeutic,access to them is expensive. (IVF costs approximately $5,000 perattempt, and its success rate usually improves with more than one


6/13

43

attempt.) Thus, the degree to which any woman could benefit fromIVF is linked to her economic status.

Furthermore, it should be noted that access to IVF depends onmore than economic status. Hubbard (1981, p. 261) recalled that thefirst clinic to open in this country &dquo;listed as its first qualification thata woman must be married andwant a child as

partof that

marriage.&dquo;Overall (1987) observed that access continues to be related to marital

status, as well as to skin color, sexual preference, disability, and age.But what of the other new reproductive technologies? Hanmer

(1987) pointed out that artificial insemination can expand thechoicesof lesbian and other nonpartnered women by increasing their

opportunities to bear children without the direct involvement ofmen. However, policy-making bodies have been recommending,explicitly or implicitly, that the procedure be made available only toheterosexual couples in stable relationships, married or otherwise

(American Fertility Society, 1986; WarnockCommittee, 1984). Further-more, numerous feminists and nonfeminists (as well as the courts) are

strongly opposed to surrogate motherhood because of the devastating

way in which poorwomen

are exploited (Corea, 1985; Dworkin,1983).As will be discussed later, feminist writers also object to what

they see as thediscriminatory costs and benefits ofprenatal diagnosisand fetal therapy (Blumberg, 1987; Holmes and Hoskins, 1987).Men generally benefit from the new reproductive technologies,

according to mostfeminist writers on the topic (Corea, 1985; OBrien,1985; Rowland, 1987a). Physicians, scientists, and pharmaceuticalrepresentatives-most ofthem male and white-reap financial successand professional advancement. Even men who are not rewarded

financially and professionally gain. First, as Hanmer (1987, p. 97)noted, &dquo;the control of womens reproduction [by men] furthers the

power... of men over theirwives by demonstrating thepower ofmenper se.&dquo; Second, according to OBrien ( 1981 ), as medical interventions

in the birth process increased and men became more active in theoverall medical control of womens bodies, men have abolished thealienation of men from, and the envy of men of, the reproductiveprocess. Writing of mens historical envy of womens certainty oftheir essential participation in genetic continuity, Corea (1985, p.314), pointed out that men need no longer envy; &dquo;now they havelaboratories.&dquo;

Expense of the ProceduresAnother concern of feminist writers is that most of the new

reproductive technologies are too expensive. Hubbard (1980), for


7/13

44

example, stated that IVF requires lengthy experimentation, highlytrained professionals, and sophisticated equipment. She argued that

reproductive technologies such as IVF skew the priorities of this

country and shift scarce resources into a dubious effort.

Another major issue, according to Rowland (1987b), is whether

scarce resources should be devoted to researchon

the technologies oron methods to aid infertility. Mayrand (1981, p. 250) put it this way:&dquo;If our goal is indeed to help the woman who is infertile because ofblocked oviducts, is it better to work toward perfecting methods tocorrect blocked oviducts or to develop in vitro techniques?&dquo;

Because of the expense of the procedures, their benefits must alsobe weighed against other more important social needs that remainunmet in many parts of the world, including the United States: theneed for adequate housing, food, and jobs and for access to medicalcare (Hubbard, 1984). Similarly, Duelli Klein (1987) pointed out that

many poor women continue to be sterilized and in otherways coerced

into not having babies while a small number of women, who canafford to, will continue to be experimented on in the hazardous new

reproductive technologies.

Prenatal Diagnosis and Fetal TherapyPrenatal diagnosis may enable socially and economically fortunatewomen to identify the gender and fetal abnormalities of their

offspring and to abort fetuses with which they are dissatisfied. Someof these women are also beginning to benefit from the newlydeveloping fetal therapies. Nevertheless, many feminist writerscontend that there are costs even for these women (Blumberg, 1987;Hubbard, 1984; Overall, 1987). Judges, attorneys, and physicians are

beginning to view pregnancy as a conflict between the rights of a

pregnant woman and those of her fetus. Feminist writers, therefore,worry about an increase in prescriptions about how women must

behave to ensure a fetuss right to be born &dquo;healthy.&dquo; They are alsoconcerned about the thinking of some researchers in the technologieswho already regard women as &dquo;ineffective, wasteful storers of eggsand embryos&dquo; andwhoview technologiessuch as IVF as an effort &dquo;to

improve on natures errors or mistakes&dquo; (Overall, 1987, p. 56).These same writers worry that attitudes about people with

disabilities, already negative, will continue to worsen as a result of therecent interventions into pregnancy (Blumberg, 1987; Hubbard, 1980,1984; Overall, 1987). The stigma about people with disabilities willbe compounded by the focus on &dquo;fetal rights&dquo; or &dquo;fetal qualitycontrol&dquo; that is preventing the birth of disabled children. Thus, these


8/13

45

writers fear that because technology allows the repair and improve-ment of characteristics of the embryo/fetus, standards of &dquo;acceptable&dquo;offspring may change. They argue that any trend toward coercingwomen into having fetal therapy or an abortion would invadewomens rights as much as not allowing abortions. Hence, women

maybe viewed as deviant for

decliningabortions or fetal

therapywhen prenatal tests reveal a disability or even an imperfection.It should be noted that there is agrowing feminist literatureon the

implications of the new reproductive technologies for people withdisability that goes beyond the scope of this article.A major text inthis body of literature is Fine andAsch (1988).

Feminists object to gender-selection techniques because these

techniques are based on the assumption that the value of humanbeings rests primarily on their sex; that they are, therefore, blatantlysexist; and that they are simply another way of oppressing women(Powledge, 1981; Steinbacher, 1983). Moreover, studies have foundthat most people continue to prefer male over female offspring(Pharis and Manosevits, 1984; Rowland, 1987b). Feminist writers are

afraid that sex-ratio imbalances caused by gender selection willexacerbate thealready second-class status ofwomen. They also chargethat the technologies are racist and classist.As Holmes and Hoskins

(1987) pointedout, poor orThird Worldwomen are most likely to be

pressured to have fewer children or only male children. In theirwords

(p. 24), &dquo;Male choice population control might well stabilize the

present rich-white/poor-non-white gap.&dquo;Feminist writers also are concerned about the physical risks of the

interventions, noting that the safety of both amniocentesis andultrasound has already been questioned. Indeed they believe that

prenatal diagnosis procedures are too risky and invasive, given theirlimited benefits. Saxtons (1984, p. 308) indictment of amniocentesiswas one of the most pointed:

Fewof us aremade aware that while some medical procedures maybe necessary and life-sustaining, many are also in the financialinterest of the health-care industry. Ninety-five percent of allamniocenteses performed indicate no anomalies, and thus their

only function consists of reassuring parents that their baby is fine.

Role of Women in Policy DebatesFeminist writers have paid much more attention to the issuesdiscussed previously than to the role of women in policy debatesabout thenewreproductive technologies. Nevertheless, Holmes et al.


9/13

46

(1981) noted the marked absence of women in discussions of which

technologies to develop and where and when to deploy them. On theone hand, they pointed out, women most fully experience the

consequences of human reproductive technologies. On the otherhand, it is &dquo;men who convene to evaluate such technologies.... So

often the input ofwomen is neither sought nor listened to&dquo; (Holmes

et al., 1981, p. ix).Several feminists have directly addressed the scarcity of women in

policymaking. Powledge (1981), who objects to many aspects of the

reproductive technologies, is against attempts to regulate thembecause of the danger that such regulations will be generalized toabortion and other reproductive freedoms. However, she, togetherwith Rowland (1987b) and Overall (1987), have argued for thewithdrawal of support for research in this area, because researchers

and thosewhoapplyresearch results give insufficient attention to the

dangers that these technologies pose to women. What this argumentimplies is that researchers and those who apply research findings,including policymakers, are primarily male and white and are

concerned more with economic and professional gain than with theneeds of women.

NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The problems raised by the new reproductive technologies involve

complex medical, legal, ethical, political, organizational, financial,

=

and social factors. The feminist literature has made an important

contribution by focusing on all these factors. However, althoughfeminists have generated useful data, more systematic research isneeded. With regard to therisks to the health of women, it is necessaryto study empirically such questions as these: What are the preciserisks to womens health of the different technologies? To what extent

and in whatwaydo the risks compare to those usually associated withpregnancy? To what extent and in what manner do women whodonate eggs to help women who cannot produce eggs risk theirhealth? How did women who underwent the technologies view thehealth risks initially, and did their views change with actual

experience?Concerning the rights and options of women, the discriminatory

costs and benefits of the technologies, and their financial costs,researchers should inquire about the following: What factors areinvolved in a womans decision to make use of the technologies? Towhat extent and in what way are women truly informed about the


10/13

47

physical and emotional risks and benefits during the decision-making process? Do some technologies reflect womens needs andinterests more than do others?Are the socioeconomic characteristics

of women who decide to undergo these technologies different fromthose of women who choose not to? If so, what role do these

characteristics play in decision making? In retrospect, arewomen

satisfied or dissatisfied with their decision? What are the economic

and social costs of the procedures?About prenatal diagnosis and fetal therapy, research could in-

vestigate these questions: What stresses and benefits are women

encountering as a result of the procedures? Howdo they accommodatethe stresses, behaviorally and attitudinally? Are attitudes about

disability and giving birth to disabled offspring changing as a resultof the procedures? If so, what is the nature of these changes?

With respect to the role of women in policymaking, at least two

questions shouldbe studied: Towhat extent arewomen participatingin policy-making bodies? What is the nature of their involvement inthe decision-making process?

Feminists objections to the new technologies are crucial at thistime because increasing attention is being paid to which technologiesshouldbe regulatedand how to do so. The incorporation offeminists

viewpoints into the current policy debates, however, will require thatthese perspectives are based on sound knowledge derived fromadditional research.

REFERENCES

American Fertility Society. "Ethical Considerations of the New ReproductiveTechnologies." Fertility and Sterility, 46 (September 1986), Supp. 1.

Andrews, L. "TheAftermath of Baby M: Proposed State Laws on SurrogateMotherhood." Hastings Center Report, 17 (October-November 1987), pp.31-40.

Annas, G. "Baby M: Babies (and Justice) for Sale."Hastings Center Report,17 (June 1987), pp. 13-15.

Arditti, R., et al. Test Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London,England: Pandora Press, 1984.

Blumberg, L. "Why Fetal Rights Must Be Opposed." Social Policy, 18 (Fall1987), pp. 40-41.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Instruction on Respect forHuman Life. Vatican City, Italy: The Vatican, 1987.

Corea, G. The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies fromArtificialInsemination toArtificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row, 1985.

. "The Reproductive Brothel." In Man-Made Women: How New

Reproductive TechnologiesAffect Women, edited by G. Corea et al., pp.38-51. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.


11/13

48

Duelli Klein, R. "Whats NewAbout the New Reproductive Tech-

nologies ?" In Man-Made Women:How New Reproductive TechnologiesAffect Women, edited by G. Corea et al., pp. 64-73. Bloomington:University of Indiana Press, 1987.

Dworkin,A. Right-Wing Women: New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1983.Edwards, R. G. Conception in the Human Female. New York:Academic

Press, 1980.. "Test-Tube Babies." Nature, 293 (September 1981), pp. 253-256.Fine, M., andAsch,A. Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology,

Culture and Politics. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1988.Firestone, S. The Dialectic of Sex. New York: William Morrow & Co., 1970.Hanmer, J. "Reproductive Technology: The Future for Women?" In

Machine Ex Dea, edited by J. Rothschild, pp. 183-197. New York:

Pergamon Press, 1983.. "Transforming Consciousness: Women and the New Reproductive

Technologies." In Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Tech-

nologies A f fect Women, edited by G. Corea et al., pp. 88-109. Bloomington:Indiana University Press, 1987.

Holmes, H. B., et al. Preface to The Custom-Made Child? Women-Centered

Perspectives, edited by Holmes et al., pp. ix-xi. Clifton, NJ: HumanaPress, 1981.

Holmes, H. B., and Hoskins, B. B. "Prenatal and Preconception Sex Choice

Technologies:A Path to Femicide?" In Man-Made Women: How New

Reproductive TechnologiesAffect Women, edited by G. Corea et al., pp.15-29. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987.

Hubbard, R. "Test-Tube Babies: Solution or Problem?" Technology Review,82 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-12.

. "The CaseAgainst In Vitro Fertilization and Implantation." In TheCustom-Made Child? Women-Centered Perspectives, edited by H. B.Holmes et al., pp. 259-262. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1981.

. "Personal Courage Is Not Enough: Some Hazards of Childbearinginthe 1980s." In Test-Tube Women: What Futurefor Motherhood? edited byR.Arditti et al., pp. 331-355. Boston: Pandora Press, 1984.

Mayrand, T. "Response." In The Custom-Made Child? Women-Centered

Perspectives, edited by H. B. Holmes et al., pp. 249-251. Clifton, NJ:Humana Press, 1981.

Menning, B. "In Defense of In Vitro Fertilization." In The Custom-Made

Child? Women-Centered Perspectives, edited by H. B. Holmes et al., pp.263-267. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1981.

OBrien, M. The Politics ofReproduction. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul,1981.

Ontario Law Reform Commission. Report on HumanArtificial Reproduc-tion and Related Matters. 2 vols. Toronto, Ont., Canada: Toronto

Ministry of theAttorney General, 1985.Overall, C. Ethics and Human Reproduction:A FeministAnalysis. Win-

chester, MA:Allen & Unwin, 1987.

Pharis, M. E., and Manosevitz, M. "Sexual Stereotyping of Infants: Implica-tions for Social Work Practice." Social Work Research andAbstracts, 20(1984), pp. 7-12.


12/13

49

Powledge, R. "Unnatural Selection: On Choosing Childrens Sex." In TheCustom-Made Child? Women-Centered Perspectives, edited by H. B.Holmes et al., pp. 193-199. Clifton, NJ: Humana Press, 1981.

Robertson, J. "Procreative Liberty and the Control of Conception, Preg-nancy, and Childbirth." Virginia Law Review, 69 (April 1983), pp.405-464.

.

"Embryos,Families and Procreative

Liberty."Southern

CaliforniaLaw Review, 59 (July 1986), pp. 942-1041.Rose, H., and Hanmer, J. "Womens Liberation, Reproduction and the

Technological Fix." In Sexual Divisions and Society: Process andChange, edited by D. Barker and S.Allen, pp. 199-223. London, England:Tavistock Publications, 1976.

Rothman, R. K. "The Meanings ofChoice in Reproductive Technology." InTest-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? edited by R.Ardittiet al., pp. 23-33. Boston: Pandora Press, 1984.

. "The Products of Conception: The Social Context of ReproductiveChoices." Journal of Medical Ethics, 11 (1985), pp. 188-193.

. The Tentative Pregnancy: Prenatal Diagnosis and the Future ofMotherhood. New York: Viking/Penguin, 1986.

Rowland, R. "Reproductive Technologies: The Final Solution to theWoman Question?" In Test-Tube Women: What Future forMotherhood?edited by R.Arditti et al., pp. 356-369. Boston: Pandora Press, 1984.

. "Motherhood, Patriarchal Power, Alienation and the Issue ofChoice in Sex Preselection." In Man-Made Women:HowNew Reproduc-tive TechnologiesAffect Women, edited by G. Corea et al., pp. 74-87.Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1987a.

. "Technologyand Motherhood: ReproductiveChoice Reconsidered."Signs, 12 (Spring 1987b), pp. 512-528.

Saxton, M. "Born and Unborn: The Implications of Reproductive Tech-

nologies for People with Disabilities." In Test-Tube Women: WhatFuture for Motherhood? edited by R.Arditti et al., pp. 298-312. Boston:Pandora Press, 1984.

Singer, P., and Wells, P. The Reproductive Revolution: New Ways ofMaking Babies. New York: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Steinbacher, R. "Sex Preselection: From Here to Fraternity." In BeyondDomination: New Perspectives on Women and Philosophy, edited byC. Gould. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allenheld, 1983.

Steptoe,P.

C.,et al. "Clinical

Aspectsof

PregnanciesEstablished with

Cleaving Embryos Grown In Vitro." British Journal of Obstetrics and

Gynaecology, 87 (September 1980), pp. 757-768.Wadlington, W. "Artificial Conception: The Challenge for Family Law."

Virginia Law Review, 65 (April 1983), pp. 465-514.Walters, L. "Ethics and New Reproductive Technologies:An International

Review of Committee Statements." Hastings Center Report, 17 (June1987), Special Supp., pp. 3-9.

Warnock Committee. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into HumanFertilisation and Embryology. Report to the Department of Health andSocial Security. London, England: Her Majestys Stationery Office, 1984.


13/13

50

Kathryn E. Moss isAssistant Professor, School of Social Welfare,State University ofNew York at Stony Brook. The author would liketo thank MarciaAbramson, Daniel Fox, Robert Merriam, and JoanRothschild for their helpful advice and comments on this article.

new reproductive technologies- concerns of feminists and researchers

Documents