IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Post-diagnostic abortion in Germany: reproduction gone awry, again?

Listed author(s):
  • Erikson, Susan L.
Registered author(s):

    Routine use of prenatal diagnostic technologies (PDTs) such as ultrasound and amniocentesis result in the detection of a small percentage of fetal anomalies. For those women faced with the diagnosis of fetal disability, a decision must be made to continue or terminate the pregnancy. When the diagnosis is merely hypothetical, the discursive specter of post-diagnostic abortion is shaped by social and historical contexts in which interested discourses (regional, political, ethical, and religious) weigh in with varying degrees of authority and influence. However, when the diagnosis is actual, in this sample population of women, an estimated minimum of 90% opt to terminate their pregnancies. Data collected at two German hospitals--one in former East Germany, one in former West Germany--illuminate rates of PDT use and provide data with which to discuss the specter of post-diagnostic abortion in relation to mainstream medical discourses, Germany's divided history, abortion politics, feminism, disability activism, and religion. These data demonstrate how reproductive discourses are shaped by ideological and historical contingencies, even when women's ultimate reproductive decisions are not.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 9 (May)
    Pages: 1987-2001

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:9:p:1987-2001
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:9:p:1987-2001. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.