Women most fully experience the consequences of human reproductive technologies. Men who convene to evaluate such technologies discuss "them": the women who must accept, avoid, or even resist these technologies; the women who consume technologies they did not devise; the women who are the objects of policies made by men. So often the input of women is neither sought nor listened to. The privileged insights and perspectives that women bring to the consideration of technologies in human reproduction are the subject (...) of these volumes, which constitute the revised and edited record of a Workshop on "Ethical Issues in Human Reproduction Technology: Analysis by Women" (EIRTAW), held in June, 1979, at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Some 80 members of the workshop, 90 percent of them women (from 24 states), represented diverse occupations and personal histories, different races and classes, varied political commitments. They included doctors, nurses, and scientists, lay midwives, consumer advocates, historians, and sociologists, lawyers, policy analysts, and ethicists. Each session, however, made plain that ethics is an everyday concern for women in general, as well as an academic profession for some. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article: The Custom‐Made Child? Women‐Centered Perspectives. Helen B. Holmes, Betty B. Hoskins, Michael Gross, editors.

Book reviewed in this article: The Custom‐Made Child? Women‐Centered Perspectives. Helen B. Holmes, Betty B. Hoskins, Michael Gross, editors.

Life situations often seem to require dualistic, either or decision making, but this common method does not always clarify moral decisions. To show this, standard arguments on why to choose or not to choose the sex or ones child are presented. Then, our feminist thinking, which regards clusters of values, and which reframes questions rather than choosing between desirable alternatives, suggests another possibility, in a gynandrous world vision.