Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:42:49.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adoption, ART, and a Re-Conception of the Maternal Body: Toward Embodied Maternity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Sarah-Vaughan Brakman  and
Sally J. Scholz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We criticize a view of maternity that equates the natural with the genetic and biological and show how such a practice overdetermines the maternal body and the maternal experience for women who are mothers through adoption and ART (Assisted Reproductive Technologies). As an alternative, we propose a new framework designed to rethink maternal bodies through the lens of feminist embodiment. Feminist embodied maternity, as we call it, stresses the particularity of experience through subjective embodiment. A feminist embodied maternity emphasizes the physical relations of the subjective lived-body rather than the genetic or biological connections. Instead of universalizing claims about the maternal body, embodied maternity looks to communicable experiences and empathetic understanding.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 21 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Maternal Bodies , Winter 2006 , pp. 54 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al‐Hibri, Azizah. 1984. Reproduction, mothering, and the origins of patriarchy. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory, ed. Treblicot, Joyce. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Andrews, Lori B. 1988. Surrogate motherhood: The challenge for feminists. Law, Medicine, and Health Care 16: 72–80.10.1111/j.1748-720X.1988.tb01053.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartholet, Elizabeth. 1999 [1994]. Family bonds: Adoption, infertility, and the new world of child production. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1952. The second sex. London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Brakman, Sarah‐Vaughan. 2003. Open adoption and the ethics of disclosure to children. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 10, no. 1: 61–67.10.5840/pcw200310110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brakman, Sarah‐Vaughan. 2004. Ethics and embryo “adoption.” Talk given at the annual meeting of the Ametican Society of Bioethics and Humanities, October 2004.Google Scholar
Cassidy, Lisa. 2002. My mother's daughter: Thoughts about adoption. In Knowledge, Power, Gender, ed. Christensen, B.Zurich: Chronos Publishers.Google Scholar
Conceptual Options. 2005. Extraordinary Donors. http://www.conceptualoptions.com/ExtraordinaryDonors.htm.Google Scholar
Corea, Gina. 1986. The mother machine: From artificial insemination to artificial wombs. New York: Harper and Row.10.1097/00005721-198609000-00014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworkin, Andrea. 1983. Right‐wing women. New York: Perigee Books.Google Scholar
ESHRE Task Force on Ethics and Law. 2002. Gamete and embryo donation. Human Reproduction 17, no. 5: 1407–8.Google Scholar
Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The dialectic of sex. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
Fogg‐Davis, Hawley. 2002. The ethics of transracial adoption. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fogg‐Davis, Hawley. 2005. Racial randomization: Imagining nondiscrimination in adoption. In Adoption matters: Philosophical and feminist essays, ed. Haslanger, Sally and Witt, Charlotte. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Freundlich, Madelyn. 2001. Adoption and ethics: Adoption and assisted reproduction. Washington, D.C.: Child Welfare League of America Press.Google Scholar
Hartsock, Nancy. 1983. The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In Discovering reality, ed. Harding, Sandra and Hintikka, Merrill B.Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1993. Feminist morality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Institute for Adoption Information. 2005. A Journalist's Guide to Adoption. http://www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org/JGuide.html.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This sex which is not one. Trans. Porter, Catherine. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kass, Leon R. 2002. Life, liberty, and the defense of dignity: The challenge for bioethics. San Francisco: Encounter Books.Google Scholar
Kruks, Sonia. 2001. Retrieving experience. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Lee, Julinda, and Christine Yap. 2003. Embryo donation: a review. Acta Obstetricia el Gynecologica Scandinavica 82: 991–96.Google Scholar
Lugones, Maria. 1987. Playfulness, “world”‐traveling, and loving perception. Hypatia 2, no. 2: 3–19.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1987.tb01062.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahoney, Joan 1995. Adoption as a feminist alternative to reproductive technology. In Reproduction, ethics and the law, ed. Callahan, Joan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, Kathryn Pauly. 1993. Of woman born? How old‐fashioned! New reproductive technologies and women's oppression. In A reader in feminist ethics, ed. Shogan, D.Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.Google Scholar
Pertman, Adam. 2000. Adoption nation: How the adoption revolution is transforming America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rich, Adrienne. 1986 [1976]. Of woman born. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Robertson, John A. 1994. Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal thinking. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Scholz, Sally J. 2000. On de Beauvoir. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Shanley, Mary Lyndon. 2001. Making babies, making families: What matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption, and same‐sex and unwed parents. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Shanthi, K. 2004. Feminist bioethics and reproductive rights of women in India: Myth and reality. In Linking visions: Feminist bioethics, human rights, and the developing world, ed. Tong, Rosemarie, Donchin, Anne, and Dodds, Susan. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Vivian B., Shapiro, Janet R., and Paret, Isabel H. 2001. Complex adoption and assisted reproductive technology: A developmental approach to clinical practice. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sherwin, Susan. 1992. No longer patient: Feminist ethics and health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Sistare, Christine. 1994. Reproductive freedom and women's freedom: Surrogacy and autonomy. In Living with contradictions, ed. Jaggar, Alison. Boulder, Colo.: West‐view Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Janet Farrell. 1984. Parenting and property. In Mothering: Essays in feminist theory, ed. Treblicot, Joyce. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Smith, Janet Farrell. 2005. A child of one's own: A moral assessment of property concepts in adoption. In Adoption matters: Philosophical and feminist essays, ed. Haslanger, Sally and Witt, Charlotte. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Spallone, Patricia, and Steinberg, Deborah, ed. 1987. Made to order: The myth of reproductive and genetic progress. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Treblicot, Joyce, ed. 1984. Mothering: Essays in feminist theory. Totowa, N J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Whitbeck, Caroline. 1984. The maternal instinct (1972) and Afterword (1982). In Mothering: Essays in Feminist Theory, ed. Treblicot, Joyce. Totowa, N.J.: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Young, Iris. 1984. Pregnant embodiment: Subjectivity and alienation. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9, no. 1: 45–62.10.1093/jmp/9.1.45CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zilberberg, Julie. 2004. A boy or a girl: Is any choice moral? The ethics of sex selection and sex preselection in context. In Linking Visions: Feminist Bioethics, Human Rights, and the Developing World, ed. Tong, Rosemarie, Donchin, Anne, and Dodds, Susan. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar