David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Hypatia 21 (1):35-53 (2006)
: This article critically examines the constitution of impairment in prenatal testing and screening practices and various discourses that surround these technologies. While technologies to test and screen (for impairment) prenatally are claimed to enhance women's capacity to be self-determining, make informed reproductive choices, and, in effect, wrest control of their bodies from a patriarchal medical establishment, I contend that this emerging relation between pregnant women and reproductive technologies is a new strategy of a form of power that began to emerge in the late eighteenth century. Indeed, my argument is that the constitution of prenatal impairment, by and through these practices and procedures, is a widening form of modern government that increasingly limits the field of possible conduct in response to pregnancy. Hence, the government of impairment in utero is inextricably intertwined with the government of the maternal body.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Elisabeth Gedge (2011). Reproductive Choice and the Ideals of Parenting. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 4 (2):32-47.
Robert Sparrow (2008). Is It “Every Man's Right to Have Babies If He Wants Them”?: Male Pregnancy and the Limits of Reproductive Liberty. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (3):pp. 275-299.
Carla Saenz (2010). Virtue Ethics and the Selection of Children with Impairments: A Reply to Rosalind McDougall. Bioethics 24 (9):499-506.
Maren Klawiter (1990). Using Arendt and Heidegger to Consider Feminist Thinking on Women and Reproductive / Infertility Technologies. Hypatia 5 (3):65 - 89.
Rebecca A. Schwartz-Mette (2009). Challenges in Addressing Graduate Student Impairment in Academic Professional Psychology Programs. Ethics and Behavior 19 (2):91 – 102.
Jonathan C. Pettibone, Daniel J. Segrist, Andrew M. Pomerantz & Bailey E. Williams (2010). How Impaired Is Too Impaired? Ratings of Psychologist Impairment by Psychologists in Independent Practice. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):149-160.
Bailey E. Williams, Andrew M. Pomerantz, Daniel J. Segrist & Jonathan C. Pettibone (2010). How Impaired is Too Impaired? Ratings of Psychologist Impairment by Psychologists in Independent Practice. Ethics and Behavior 20 (2):149 – 160.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads16 ( #84,463 of 1,008,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,008,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?