Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:44:47.773Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rights, Relationships, Class, and Gender: Issues in the Politics of Surrogate Contracts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Patricia Bayer Richard
Patricia Bayer Richard*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Commentaries
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 2: Special Issue: The Politics of Surrogacy Contracts , February 1990 , pp. 211 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

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

Albury, R. (1984). “Who Owns the Embryo?” In Arditti, R. et al. (eds.), Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood. London: Pandora Press, pp. 54–67.Google Scholar
Andrews, L. (1989). Between Strangers: Surrogate Mothers, Expectant Fathers, and Brave New Babies. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Andrews, L.(1988). “Surrogate Motherhood: The Challenge for Feminists,” Law, Medicine & Health Care 16(1-2):72–80.Google Scholar
Atwood, M. (1985). The Handmaid's Tale. New York: Fawcett Crest.Google Scholar
Blank, R. H. (1984). Redefining Human Life: Reproductive Technologies and Social Policy. Boulder, Colo.:Westview.Google Scholar
Carson, S. A. (1989). “Sex Selection: The Ultimate Family Planning.” Endocrine and Fertility Forum 12 (2):1–3.Google Scholar
Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilization and Embryology. (1985). A Question of Life: The Warnock Report on Human Fertilization and Embryology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Edelman, M. (1964). The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Elshtain, J. B. (1989). “Technology as Destiny.” Progressive (June): 19–23.Google Scholar
Field, M. A. (1988). Surrogate Motherhood. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Different Voice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hanmer, J. (1987). “Transforming Consciousness: Women and the New Reproductive Technologies.” In Corea, Gina et al. (eds.), Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, pp. 88–109.Google Scholar
Hershey, M. R., and West, D. M. (1983). “Single-Issue Politics: Pro-life Groups and the 1980 Senate Campaign.” In Cigler, A. J. and Loomis, B. A. (eds.),Interest Group Politics. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, pp. 31–59.Google Scholar
Kane, E. (1988). Birth Mother. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Overall, C. (1987). Ethics and Human Reproduction: A Feminist Analysis. Boston: Allyn and Unwin.Google Scholar
President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1983). Screening and Counseling for Genetic Conditions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Genetic Screening, Counseling, and Education Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO.Google Scholar
Rothman, B. K. (1984). “The Meanings of Choice in Reproductive Technology.” In Arditti, R. et al., (eds.),Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press, pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
Stone, D. (1988). Policy Paradox and Political Reason. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar