Theorists such as Luce Irigaray, Moira Gatens, Gayatri Spivack, Hélène Cixous, and Elizabeth Grosz, (known either as sex difference or corporeal feminists) set about providing an analysis of the sexed body as it is lived and experienced arguing that the body is not a brute, passive, or inert object merely inscribed by social forces, but rather that it is actually created through the workings of prevalent social systems of representation, meaning, and signification.
The ongoing work of these feminists can be characterised as an attempt to theorise beyond the problematic binaries of mind/body, sex/gender, culture/nature, reason/passion, which have lead to the association of men with the privileged terms (mind, reason, culture) and women with the devalued (body, passion, nature).
Reproductive technologies, far from being tools of liberation, were in fact seen as tools of oppression, providing yet another means by which the patriarchy could erode womens control over their own bodies and lives.
At the same time, in a slightly different forum, however, other feminist theorists were critiquing the assumptions that underlay both positions.
Savior Siblings The subject of savior siblings is a complex dilemma that encompasses multiple issues.
Is it ethical to have a child in order to save another? Can parents make the decisions for their kids about organ donation?
The Nash family never discarded healthy embryos; instead they saved the embryos so they could have another child in the future, which they eventually did.
It is also important to note that both parents were carriers for fanconi anemia, which means if they had another child via a natural pregnancy, the child have would have a 25% chance of being afflicted with the genetic disease.
Arising in the context of corporeal feminism, this article presents an investigation into reproductive technologies through analysis of the female bodies at the centre of their implementation. In this article, I interrogate three of the multiple types of techno-maternal bodies, created when reproductive technologies meet pregnant flesh – the maternal body as a body ‘at risk,’ as an ‘in/visible’ body, and as a ‘commodified’ body.
As such, the questions surrounding these technologies are reconfigured from “How do reproductive technologies women’s bodies? Techno-Maternity as a Body At Risk The historical construction of the female body as the medical object par excellence has led in its contemporary manifestations to the conceptualisation of the female body as a body ‘at risk.’ Everywhere women go, from the public toilet to the doctor’s surgery, there are reminders that by virtue of the ‘unique’ female biology, women’s bodies are at risk – of breast cancer, cervical cancer, or osteoporosis, Metaphors of chance, likelihood, and probability abound, and nowhere more than in medical discourse relating to the maternal body, as will be highlighted in the following section.