Advertisement

Ultrasound, Embodiment and Abortion

  • Catherine MillsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 49)

Abstract

In her controversial documentary on abortion, ‘My Foetus’, British filmmaker Julia Black1 asks the question of whether one could ‘look at the facts’ of abortion and still be pro-choice. The film did not provide a definitive answer to this question: Black herself stated her pro-choice stance, but in the film adopted a number of strategies used by anti-abortion campaigners to probe the ethical issues raised by abortion. Primarily, Black’s focus lay on the imagery of the foetus, a powerful tool in anti-abortion campaigns, and in particular, on the effect of ultrasound technologies that allow 3D imaging of the foetus on our intuitions about the ethics of abortion. Black suggests at one point that if anything is to lead her to take an anti-abortion position, it is this capacity to ‘see the foetus’, particularly as it is performing activities normally associated with babies such as thumb-sucking. Black’s sentiments seemed to find corroboration in more recent debates about legislation on late-term abortions in the United Kingdom, sparked in large part by Professor Stuart Campbell, who pioneered the technique of 4D scanning in Britain. Campbell controversially argued that 3D and 4D scanning reveal that a foetus shows ‘signs of humanity’ such as smiling, crying, and frowning from as early as eighteen weeks, or taking steps even earlier. He also writes, “there is something deeply moving about the image of a baby cocooned inside the womb ... [I’ve] sat with parents who trembled at the sight of their soon-to-be newborn.”2 These two instances provoke questions about the specific emotive and, I will argue, ethical, force of seeing the foetus and further, how the visualisation of the foetus may impact upon intuitions about abortion.

Keywords

Bodily Imperative Feminist Ethic Foetal Image Ethical Relationship Corporeal Life 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Althusser, Louis. 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes toward an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays, (trans: Brewster, Ben) 127–186. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, Karen. 1998. Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences 10(2):87–128.Google Scholar
  3. Barthes, Roland. 2000. Camera lucida: Reflections on photography (trans: Howard, Richard). London: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  4. Black, Julie. Dir. 2004. My foetus. London: Bivouac Productions.Google Scholar
  5. Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of ‘sex’. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious life: The powers of mourning and violence. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  7. Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, Stuart. 2006. Don’t tear a smiling foetus from the womb. The Telegraph, 4 October. Accessed 13 Oct 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3632855/Dont-tear-a-smiling-foetus-from-the-womb.html
  9. Campbell, Stuart. 2008. Is it time to rethink the abortion law? The Telegraph, 1 May. Accessed 13 Oct 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3636464/Professor-Stuart-Campbell-is-it-time-to-rethink-the-abortion-law.html
  10. Cartwright, Lisa. 2008. Moral spectatorship: Technologies of voice and affect in postwar representations of the child. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cavarero, Adriana. 2000. Relating narratives: Storytelling and selfhood (trans: Kottman, Paul A.). London and New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  12. Cornell, Drucilla. 1995. The imaginary domain: Abortion, pornography and sexual harassment. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Cornell, Drucilla. 1998. At the heart of freedom: Feminism, sex and equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Diprose, Rosalyn. 2002. Corporeal generosity: On giving with Nietzsche, Merleau-Ponty and Levinas. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  15. Duden, Barbara. 1993. Disembodying women: Perspectives on pregnancy and the unborn (trans: Hoinacki, Lee). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Esposito, Roberto. 2008. Bios: Biopolitics and philosophy (trans: Campbell, Timothy). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  17. Ewigman, B.G., J.P. Crane, F.D. Frigoletto et al. 1993. Effect of prenatal ultrasound screening on perinatal outcome. New England Journal Medicine 329(12):821–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldie, Peter. 2000. The emotions: A philosophical investigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, Sarah. 2006. Foetus scans fuel abortion debate. The Guardian, 3 October. Accessed 13 Oct 2008. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/03/health.healthandwellbeing
  20. Hartouni, Valerie. 1998. Abortion politics and the optics of allusion. In The visible woman: Imaging technologies, gender and science, eds. Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley, 198–216. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Jonsson, Patrik. 2007. Ultrasound: Latest tool in the battle over abortion. Christian Science Monitor, May, 2007. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0515/p03s03-ussc.html.
  22. Lauritzen, Paul. 2008. Visual bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics 8(12):50–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levinas, Emmanuel, and Kearney, Richard. 1986. Dialogue with Emmanuel Levinas. In Face to face with Levinas, ed. Richard A. Cohen, 13–34. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Mackenzie, Catriona. 1992. Abortion and embodiment. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 70(2):136–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mackenzie, Catriona, and Jackie Leach Scully. 2007. Moral imagination, disability and embodiment. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24(4):335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nancy, Jean-Luc. 2002. L’intrus/The intruder (trans: Hanson, Susan). New Centennial Review 2(3):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nathanson, Bernard. 1984. The silent scream. USA: American Portrait Films.Google Scholar
  28. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. 2001. Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Palmer, Julie. 2009. Seeing and knowing: Ultrasound images in the contemporary abortion debate. Feminist Theory 10(2):173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perpich, Diane. 2010. Vulnerability and the ethics of facial tissue transplantation. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 7(2):173–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. 1987. Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies 13(2):263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Public Health Association of Australia. 2005. Abortion in Australia: Public health perspectives. 3rd edn. Canberra: Public Health Association of Australia.Google Scholar
  33. Sontag, Susan. 2008. On photography. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Stabile, Carol. 1998. Shooting the mother: Fetal photography and the politics of disappearance. In The visible woman: Imaging technologies, gender and science, eds. Paula A. Treichler, Lisa Cartwright, and Constance Penley, 171–197. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Taylor, Janelle S. 1997. Image of contradiction: Obstetrical ultrasound in American culture. In Reproducing reproduction, eds. Sarah Franklin, and Helene Ragone, 15–45. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  36. Trudeau, Gary. 1985. Silent scream II: The prequel. The New Republic, June 10, 8–9.Google Scholar
  37. Urban, Rebecca, and James Meikle. 2003. Womb ‘smile’ fires abortion row. The Age, 14 September. Accessed 13 Oct 2008. http://theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/13/1063341814497.html
  38. Weiss, Gail. 1999. Body images: Embodiment as intercorporeality. New York, NY: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Young, Iris Marion. 2005. Pregnant embodiment: Subjectivity and alienation. In On female bodily experience, 46–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Values, Ethics and Law in Medicine and Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations