Month: March 2018

In the article “Reproductive Technologies and Surrogacy: A Feminist Perspective,” Barbara Katz Rothman describes her experience through the lens of her involvement in media. While her background is in sociology, writing, and feminism, she explains that a majority of her “title” is centered around feminism. The media coverage at the time was centered on the “Baby M” case. She emphasizes that from her personal stance she is against surrogacy yet simultaneously recognizes a different perspective from a religious point of view. She also expands on the importance of understanding the true definition of patriarchy, which she explains as “a system to which men rule as fathers.” She makes a strong point about control, with which I personally disagree; she believes that the only way to maintain control of the seed planted into a woman is to also maintain control of the woman. While creating a baby happens in the woman’s body, I do not think that it necessarily means the woman’s body is being controlled by the man. Of course, there are circumstances where this type of control could potentially occur and could lead to negative implications, I do not believe It can be generally applied.

I find it very interesting the way she describes and defines surrogacy. She relates surrogacy to incest in a fascinating way, through varying cultural perspectives. For example, she says that some societies would find it acceptable for two children with the same father to get married while for us that would be “distasteful.” She makes the argument that there is potential for incest when it comes to surrogacy because we all define it differently. In my opinion, the problems and obstacles that cultures face defining “right” from “wrong” within themselves is very challenging. Furthermore, when bringing together varying and often opposing cultural norms, defining “right” from “wrong” is nearly impossible. I agree with how she describes the potential of seeing surrogacy as incest, yet this is based on one culture. It makes me think more critically about the process of distinguishing right from wrong as well as the foundation upon which societies base it.

The Baby M case is described as a family with privilege who essentially took advantage of a 17-year-old catholic girl by seducing her and then claiming patriarchy through the dad in a custody battle. At the time of this case, it was a misconception that women got rights to their children; they would sometimes get half of the rights. Women faced a lot of adversity when it came to bearing and keeping children and were seen as “simply dirt” for the seed to grow. She also talks about inheritance, exclusivity of marriage, and changes in human reproduction. The author describes how many religions reject reproductive technologies on a broad scope and not just when it comes to the use of surrogates. I find it particularly complicated for women to know how to interact with their religions, especially if they are expected to have the role to reproduce. On one hand, religious leaders can ban reproductive technologies, while on the other hand they expect women to have the role of mother. This dichotomy puts women in vulnerable circumstances. I think that in this instance the patriarchy plays a detrimental role as it is one of the foundations that leads to women having challenges such as these. It makes me question and wonder if religion and patriarchy share the responsibility of placing women in this tough circumstance or if one plays a more substantial role. I connect strongly with her conclusion that every instance is, different, and every family should be able to choose how they approach their disabilities, in this case infertility.

In the article “New Reproductive Technologies: Protestant Modes of Thought” Gilbert Meilaender emphasizes the “creative chaos” of Protestantism. He clarifies that he will be focusing on the reasoning behind modern Protestant thought more than the conclusions themselves. I specifically appreciate his openness and admittance to the fact that there are many other valuable perspectives and opinions out there on this topic specifically. I believe this creates a more open space for productive interpretation and understandings of his text. One aspect of his argument that I have a hard time understanding is when he says: “lacking an accepted teaching magisterium within the church.” He emphasizes that a typical protestant approach has been to reject the way the church interprets biblical text. An author named Janet Dickey McDowell looks at the Bible to better understand parenthood as the Bible does not explicitly focus on surrogacy. He brings up the interesting juxtaposition in how the Bible can be interpreted and that we are two-sides as human beings, “both finite and free.” The idea that we are brought into this planet by God’s own spirit is not only what protestants think but it is central to their beliefs. However, if we are free as humans, the issue of artificial reproduction becomes hard to oppose. The idea Smith brings up when it comes to partnership is interesting. He argues that with adoption parents remain equal partners while with the case of a surrogate the focus is only one partner, the mother. I don’t entirely agree with this idea as I think it is hard to take a stance when each partners dynamic is different. Perhaps, a mother who cannot have children prefers a surrogate over adoption.  I see the idea as freedom and power to be very personal and varies based on the individual, which makes it challenging to interpret through a religious stance. In addition to looking at human duality, he emphasizes that we should also look at Jesus to understand what is truly human. This challenges the idea of reproductive technology as it makes the birth of those children seen as “the creature of the doctors who assisted her conception…not as begotten but as made.” In conclusion, Protestantism often looks at the general themes of the Bible rather than specific themes and has a strong focus on the “duality of finitude and freedom.” This theme plays a large role in understanding and creating societies relationships with various reproductive technologies.

This week’s readings focused on the heavily debated topic of abortion in the United States, which began in the mid 1900’s and has only become more controversial as time has gone on. The reading by Ginsburg, Contested Lives: An Abortion Debate in the American Community, is an ethnography published in the late 1900’s that delves into the conflict of abortion by using a community in North Dakota as a miniature model for the larger scale society of the United States. The other reading by Thompson, “A Defense of Abortion,” was published prior to Ginsburg’s reading and presents the ideas behind the right to life movement while also arguing against it. Overall, these two readings cover the moral reasoning behind and the consequences of the ongoing abortion debate, and the rights a woman holds in the American society in the late 1900’s.

While it is a small detail, it is important to take note of the publication dates of both of these readings and analyze how one publication may influence or inspire the other publication. In this case, Thompson’s work was published before Ginsburg’s Contested Lives and therefore created a stage for Ginsburg to organize her ethnographic paper. In Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion,” she supports the right of choice for a woman going through a pregnancy and potentially an abortion. As suspected, this defense of abortion sparked a lot of criticism and debate over whether a woman truly has the right to abortion, polarizing society into pro-life and pro-choice even more. Thompson claims that most of the debate over this issue stems from the idea that “the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception (47).” According to Thompson, most pro-life supporters do not draw a definitive line defining when abortion starts to become impermissible.

Thompson goes on to propose a thought experiment involving an unconscious, famous violinist to explain her point (48). The scenario is presented as such: you are the only person that can cure a famous violinist of his fatal kidney ailment, and because of that, the Society of Music Lovers kidnaps you and “plugs” you into the violinist. If you unplug yourself, the violinist will die. Thompson then presents a series of moral questions such as “is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?” (48) She also proposes adding a time frame and asks the reader if their decision to unplug would change if they had to be plugged in for only an hour versus nine months versus 9 years. This thought experiment is meant to parallel the scenario of pregnancy and deciding if abortion is permissible if it is desired. This part of Thompson’s reading highlights the argument between saving a mother’s life versus holding a mother accountable and responsible for supporting a fetus at the start of conception and onward.

Initially, this thought experiment seemed logical, and it was easy to resonate with the analogy. However, there seems to be an issue of oversimplification of abortion and pregnancy, and it can be concluded that there is a lack of emotional attachment in the analogy. A famous violinist does not hold the same value in a woman’s life that a fetus would. A famous violinist also does not parallel a fetus, because a famous violinist is already an established person in society while a fetus only holds potentiality. It is important to note the difference between actuality and potentiality, as the two states hold different values in society. The analogy also focuses on “against my will” scenarios, comparing kidnap to rape or imminent death of a mother during pregnancy. There are other scenarios where a mother may want to consider abortion, and those cannot be paralleled with this thought experiment.

Some questions to consider after reading this work include:

• What could have made Thompson’s argument more convincing? Did the analogy strengthen or hinder her argument?
• How could she have included emotional ties between mother and fetus in this analogy? How could she have addressed other scenarios of abortion besides rape or death?

After reading and analyzing Thompson’s work, we can use it as a background and better understand how and why Ginsburg developed her argument the way that she did. Ginsburg explains that her identity as a “young, unmarried, Jewish, and urban visitor from New York City might pose serious barriers to communication with Fargo residents.” (5) Ginsburg was very clear with the audience while explaining that she was about to communicate with a conservative, homogenous, and secluded town that has “the highest rate of church attendance of any standard metropolitan area.” (4) It is no surprise that Ginsburg’s identity made it difficult for her to understand and communicate with the Fargo residents, as their identity was much different from her own. This underscores the division of ideologies and opinions across the nation and how reactions toward abortion vary, specifically in different areas of the country.

Ginsburg’s ethnography was conducted and written post-Roe vs Wade, and it was interesting to see how strong opinions on abortion were, even after the decision to allow women the right to privacy and choice to abortion. Ginsburg’s short summary on the history and legislation of abortion aided in my understanding of her work, and strengthened her credibility once she started to address her findings in Fargo. Her credibility was also strengthened when she acknowledged that her findings in Fargo might not actually reflect the entire society of the United States, as there are different conflicts and debates going on about abortion in other cities across the nation and at different paces and gravity.

With the background of Thompson’s work explaining the national controversy over abortion, Ginsburg’s anthropological study can build upon it. The abortion debate in Fargo started with the opening of abortion clinics shortly after Roe vs Wade, specifically in 1981. This proved to be a social drama, which included a “sequence of phased conflicts typical of ‘social dramas’: breach, crisis, redress, regression to crisis, and eventually stabilization either through schism or reintegration.”(121) Essentially, after this abortion clinic opened, there were waves of pro-choice support and pro-life support throughout the late 1900s. These waves proved to be a large focal point in Ginsburg’s work, and she sought out narratives from both sides of the debate.

After several interviews and investigations, Ginsburg came to the conclusion that pro-choice women thought inequalities rose from gender discrimination. The pro-choice women believed that the issue could be mollified via economic and political solutions. Ginsburg also came to the conclusion that pro-life women thought opposition to abortion “like other moral reforms, is a gesture against what they see as a final triumph of self interest, a principle that represents both men and the market.” (216) Interestingly enough, it seems that there is an underlying feminist approach from both sides of the abortion debate. All the women that were interviewed assumed the issue of abortion came from gender discrimination and a woman’s identity in society. Ginsburg also points out that there is no socioeconomic role in the difference of opinions from the women in Fargo, as they all came from the same socioeconomic class and all seemed to have the same social identity within the city. This is incredibly important because it shows, once again, that these women are extremely similar yet they have completely opposite viewpoints on the debate. Essentially, it is the ideologies that are in opposition, not the women. Perhaps these ideological differences come from where and how the women are raised.

Overall, it seems that Ginsburg’s goal in this ethnography was to “understand how this grass roots conflict shaped and was shaped by activists’ experiences of self, gender, family, community, and culture in a specific setting.”(6) Ginsburg concludes that the differences in opinion stem primarily from the way a woman’s concern for feminism is manifested, rather than socioeconomic differences or religious differences.

Some questions to consider with this reading:

• How can women with the same inherent goal have polar opposite opinions on the abortion debate?
• Ginsburg suggests that opinions on abortion are due to where and how you are raised. What do you think is the true root to opinions on abortion?
• Ginsburg mentions briefly the role of media in society and in the debate about abortion. Does media portray the pro-life and pro-choice sides in a negative or a positive light, and how does that affect the progress of coming to a solution?

In the most recent centuries, ethical debates have been dominated by Euro-American perspective, which has largely been influenced by the Judeo-Christian religious texts and principals. Swasti Bhattacharyya’s book entitled Magical Progeny, Modern Technology: A Hindu Bioethics of Assisted Reproductive Technology, and Bob Simpson’s article entitled, “Impossible Gifts: Bodies, Buddhism and Bioethics in Contemporary Sri Lanka” attempt to freshen the discourse by introducing Hindu and Buddhist thought and principles. Simpson locates the underlying spiritual influence of donated body parts, including sperm and eggs, and discusses its ongoing implication in modern society. Bhattacharyya advocates for the use of religious language in debates raised within the public sphere, and emphasizes the importance of acknowledging all religious perspectives when working with others in the clinical, university, and legal settings. Together, both of these works use the thoughts of Hinduism and Buddhism to challenge the conventional approaches of ethical discussion platforms and aspire to revitalize an understanding of diverse perspective from that of just passive acceptance of others’ opinions into embracing such variable opinions and religious perspectives as a collective group’s source of strength.   

Simpson’s article observes Buddhist practice of tissue donating as granting a “gift of life”, and further embellishes this topic through discussion of gamete donation specific to Sri Lanki. In the spirit of Buddhist tradition, “the act of giving parts of the oneself keys into deep rooted ideas of merit, rebirth, and public virtue” (Simpson 852). However, in contrast to giving the somatic elements of life, the donation of gametes used for developing life proves to be much more complicated. On the one hand, ova donation from females is generally accepted, as the actual development of the child will still take place in the female. On the other hand, male sperm donation is usually rejected because it must be obtained through masturbation, which is an act generally frowned upon by the public, and the fact that no other genetic material would be available to make the mother’s husband the father, which is an unwanted because that man would raise a child that is not his. Buddhist tradition in Sri Lanki has therefore proven to have longstanding influence on the public’s ethical approach to complex reproductive issues, and the language and symbolism surrounding these approaches have aided the society in dealing with such issues.    

Bhattacharyya’s work stresses the importance of narratives in centering discussion on ethical debates. According to Bhattacharrya, “Stories capture the essence of what it means to be human; as we engage the narratives of the past, we engage the experience and wisdom of those who came before us. Through studying these myths, we gain insights that contribute to our understanding of ourselves, of those around us, and of life” (Bhattacharyya 100). Narratives serve as a guiding force for developing ethical actions in what could possibly be a scenario containing many different perspectives. Therefore, Bhattacharrya emphasizes that there does not exist a single Hindu perspective, but a guided approach that can be applied to many contexts and must be met with personal responsibility to act in favor of the good of society.   

The narrative of the Mahabharata (summarized on page 30) highlights the kinship and reproductive challenges faced by peoples thousands of years prior to modern reproductive technology. Filled with ancient histories and sometimes magical occurrences, the texts raises outstanding questions still present in today’s debate on reproductive technologies, such as, What is the moral status of an embryo or fetus? What measures are ethical to take in cases of infertility? Who are the biological and legal parents in cases of surrogacy? Although these types of questions still largely remained unanswered, the Mahabharata contributes to the debates by first raising the contextual narrative and allowing its readers and listeners to consent to traditions and values present within the story. After, the reader is able to adopt perspective when evaluating the issues put forth, and responsibly act under the influence of and through their own interpretations of the six elements of Hindu thought (summarized on page 63). Ultimately, Bhattacharyya concludes that in regards to reproductive technology, the Mahabharata encourages creativity and supports the utilization of reproductive technologies, while also strongly advocating restraint and limiting the extent to which one utilizes the technology (Bhattacharyya 53).   

Although Judaism and Christianity also derive ethical values from foundational narratives of the patriarchs and Jesus, respectively, these narratives do not embrace differing perspectives nor function as a dynamic and multifaceted tradition like that of Hinduism. Instead, these religions structure ethics as a list of laws to be adopted by every descending generation. Although this type of method may provide a platform of consistency that maintains an articulated understanding of right and wrong throughout generations, one could make the argument that this method fails to channel that understanding into appropriate behaviors within the modern context. Through use of narratives and openness to opinions of such narratives, Hinduism adapts to changing cultural of each generation and recognizes the importance of maintaining dynamic values that can be effectively transmitted to each generation. Rather than marking into stone ethical laws that will shape human behavior, Hinduism values the ability for the humans to shape how they understand and implement the ethics. By keeping grounded on laws that emphasize acting responsibly and for the good of the collective whole, the Hindu tradition can be open to diverse opinions and accept the influence these differences have on answering moral questions.    

Overall, I found both works to be insightful, and thought that both provided excellent support for integrating more diverse religious perspective into bioethical debates. Embracing this diversity would be helpful in the clinical setting for doctors and nurses when interacting with and attempting to clarify medical options. Additionally, embracing diversity would be especially helpful for academic settings that already attempt to integrate complex ideas into a clearer and more unified understanding. However, one question that left lingering for me after reading Bhattacharyya’s work was how exactly Hindu principals could transfer to the legal and public policy setting. My understanding of the reading was that these diverse approaches can exist on the basis that everyone in the society understands and acts in the best interest of the whole society. Though we are a society that embraces diversity, I would think that when writing laws or policy, one cannot assume we always act responsibly or in the best interest of others. So I am left wondering how someone in public policy would transpose these values without necessarily promoting the religion?

Coinciding with our previous discussions on kinship, unplanned pregnancy, reproduction, and prenatal testing—this week’s readings on abortion bring the entirety of our class discussions full circle. Faye Ginsberg, in her book Contested Lives, The Abortion Debate in an American Community, explores the main arguments behind both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life activists in the small town of Fargo, North Dakota. Through extensive research on the national history of abortion throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Ginsberg is able to take an educated and wholesome view on how abortion grew to be the heated and controversial topic it is today. Further, through years of immersion and ethnographic research, she is able to tell the story of the rise of the abortion controversy in Fargo, which she refers to as a “grass roots setting”. In doing this she attempts to “show how the consciousness of ‘big issues’ is constituted from and in people’s everyday lives” (pg. 61). Finally, through various interviews with pro-life and pro-choice activists she sets out to analyze how their lives and experiences have shaped their perception of the abortion debate and how this reflects in their current activism (pg. 133).

Throughout Ginsberg discussion on the controversial nature of the abortion debate, she establishes three themes of the pro-life movement that have been seen as a result of American culture. First, that abortion is a response to “irresponsible sexual behavior” (pg. 9); this sexual behavior had historically been known to be acceptable among men but extremely shameful amongst women, and thus abortion serves to provide women with a way to cover up their shame. Secondly, that in America we devalue the dependent human. Our devaluation of the dependent person, as a society, is rooted in our view of what it means to live out a normative lifestyle. This affects people like the elderly, the young, the sick, the impaired, and the unborn child. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, both sides agree that there is never a perfect time for having children, but that life is not always perfect. Shirley, a sixty-three-year-old pro-life activist, tells Faye a story about how in 1980 her congressman sent her a letter congratulating her on her daughter Jane being teacher of the year. Instead of seeing this as a kind gesture Shirley got upset, in her words “It was very inconvenient to have this daughter…we thought we needed other things besides a child. And had abortion been available to me, I might have aborted the girl who was teacher of the year. What a loss to society that would have been” (pg. 173). Shirley seems to be asking a bigger question that she thinks her congressman, and thus our national policies, is blatantly ignoring by being pro-choice: who has society lost as a result of giving women the chance to choose, especially since—for most women with unwanted pregnancies, there is always a better alternative in the form of abortion. The last theme she explores of the pro-life movement is how our current culture, based on capitalism, globalization and dramatization, is affecting the common person and the trends of society. Most of the women Faye interviews talk of this in light of the work force and how they feared leaving their jobs to be a mother to their children, but Shirley talks about the rise of television drama and the values (or lack of values) that it was instilling in the younger generation of American women.

On the other side of this argument, and one that I would say she delves into much less, is the pro-choice movement. In her research on the national history of abortion in America, Faye found that the legalization was a push that came mostly from doctors; this push came not as an attempt to help women, but as a way to regulate the practice of it and thus put more money into the pockets of doctors qualified to do the procedure. Upon speaking to activists in the pro-choice movement of Fargo, Faye found that the common theme seen among all of them was involvement in the feminist movement—their involvement in this movement helped them to establish their female identities as adult women. One of the women, Janice, talks of her passion to the pro-choice movement as a way to combat the American culture that, in itself, is creating the necessity for abortion: “it’s restrictions on abortion coupled with failure of sex education and a general social milieu that points to sexual activity as some means of personal fulfillment…that leads to the increased rate of unwed parenthood among young women” (pg. 161). This disparity between the health and sex education given to the younger generation and its consequences is a problem that is resolved through abortion. Although her analyzation of the pro-choice movement is supposed to be based on life stories, it instead analyzes in great depth the role of the feminist movement on the pro-choice movement. Feminism is about so much more than womens’ rights for their reproductive lives but many of the women in the pro-choice movement found their ‘adult feminine identities’ through their involvements with feminism. Another woman, Jan, said that she regrets to say that her believe in the pro-choice movement is not based on her disagreeance with the fact that life begins at conception—of this it is assumed she agrees—instead her belief stems from her feminist view that “the very most fundamental right [for women]…is the right to bear children…to not be able to control that single most unique part of us would devastate our entire sense of independence in every other aspect of our lives” (pg. 168).

 

Faye aims to provide a holistic view of the abortion debate in America, although her argument is compelling, I think she fails to really provide an adequate view of both sides of the story. She greatly analyzes the lives and history of the pro-life movement but only skims the pro-choice movement. The majority of her research into the pro-choice movement is instilled in the feminist movement and how that impacted women’s lives. This failure to provide the multi-faceted view on abortion that she set out to provide takes agency away from her and her argument, though does not take away or affect the story she has told and the lives she has let us into.

Lina Du  Week 6

In the era of increasing attention on cutting-edge reproductive technologies, pregnancy is brought into light with Tsipy’s Ivry comparative illustration of the pregnancy experiences within the Israel and Japanese cultures. Through a “contrast-oriented comparative” methodology and ethnographies collected through participant observation and in-depth interviews, Ivry suggests two distinct forms of power structures shaping the perceived responsibilities as well as emotions of ob-gyns, pregnant women, and their partners in respect to pregnancy; she argues that while Japanese take a “environmentalism” approach to pregnancy, focusing on nurturing environment for optimal fetus growth, Israelis are rather fatalistic in a way that more attention is brought to the pre-determined, or genetic qualities of the fetus. It is only through viewing cultures as irreducible and through comparison of the two sociocultural whole could such powerful argument be generated. And within this socio-cultural play of power in these two countries, biotechnology is more or less introduced as a tool, of which it’s fate is determined by the “truth regime” of the culture itself and thus serves to reinforce the already existing cultural notion.

 

Ivry begins her account with doctoring of pregnancy in the Israel culture, raising questions derived from a macro perspective of national policies and statistics, and answering them with her following microscope analysis of the observations and conversations. Ivry represents ob-gyns as “purposeful agents who continuously negotiate and rethink their professional standards of practice among themselves and with their patients.” In other words, they serve as the central roles of this socio-cultural play on pregnancy; rather than informing patients of universal medical knowledge, they pass on certain cultural perceptions to them. The common notion of the “Jewish disease,” and the phenomenon of “hysteria of patients” perceived by the physicians prelude a sense of fatalism and high risk in the Israeli view of pregnancy. When pre-natal diagnosis (PND) is introduced in this country, it is therefore considered as “risk reducing” or even “anxiety reducing” to women, rehearsing the fatalistic ideologies of threat.

 

Presented in similar structure, pre-natal care in Japan focuses on “Gamburu,” or to “make an effort.” Thus, ob-gyns are viewed as the coaches to guide women in developing spirit for pregnancy rather than the directors of genetic tests in the Israeli context. The focus of Japanese culture is to nurture the child with environmental care from the mother, as mothers are viewed as “ohukuro,” or respectable bag of the children. With this perception in mind, premature birth and miscarriage are viewed primarily as the women’s responsibilities. Thus, the introduction of PND, weakening the cultural ideologies of environment with it’s emphasis on genetics, is often treated with lack of enthusiasm.

 

Ivry’s depiction of the direct experiences of pregnant women then add another distinctive layer to the socio-cultural play; women, in this context of power structure, are the receivers, resistors, cultivators of this culture prevalence of “geneticism” and “environmentalism.” Through descriptions about their classes, pregnancy guides, weight record keeping habits, and even the perception of pain, Ivry demonstrates how Japanese women focus on the the maternal-fetal bonding whereas “a range of emotional strategies is used to limit bonding between pregnant women and her fetus (222)” in Israel. Ivry further analyzes the distinction of these culture through gender power dynamics and notions of selfhood and disability. Ivry thus illustrates the schemes on which pregnant women draw to interpret their fetus is similar to that on which medical doctors rely for directions – the agencies shaped by power structure of the cultural ideology as “in the Japanese setting women are caught up in a ‘somatic agency:’ a collaborative enterprise of disciplining their bodies as a form of pleasure and a display of an ethical pregnant maternal self. In the Israeli setting, women are intimidated by the idea of reproductive catastrophe and are caught up in an ‘agency of choice’ and heavy reliance on the use of diagnostic technologies (243).” The cultural ideologies that shape the power structure have permeated the layers of medical professions to the pregnant women themselves, to some extent unconsciously forming their schemes of thinking regarding their pregnancies as well as biotechnologies.

 

With the argument of “Environmentalism” and “Geneticism” presented in the two cultures from a range of perspectives of both the care providers and the care receivers, Ivry reflects on the emotional postures comprehensible in ones’ culture seen in the event of pregnancy. She suggests that a culture affecting pregnancy as well as any biotechnology could be viewed on a spectrum from “Environmentalism” to “Geneticism,” and calls attention to the socio-cultural schemes of thinking regarding biotechnologies, with a focus on pregnancy which adds emotions and powerful meaning to reproductive politics.