Lesbian and gay parents and reproductive technologies: The 2008 Australian and UK reforms

This article analyses the laws that govern the allocation of parental responsibility for children conceived through non-coital reproduction by lesbians and gay men in England/Wales and Australia. In 2008 both jurisdictions introduced important reforms affecting this area of law, providing new options for the legal recognition of parent–child relationships in lesbian and gay households. However, the practical usefulness or effectiveness of the reforms may be limited by the excessive complexity or obscurity of the system of parental responsibility thus introduced. Furthermore, the reform Acts encourage the formation of some family structures—especially homonuclear families—while discouraging the emergence of more imaginative and cooperative parenting configurations at odds with heteronormative parenting scripts. Only through a clearer commitment to intentionality as a ground for the allocation of parental responsibility will future reform be likely to adequately protect the interests of lesbian and gay parents and their children.

Reproductive technologies: the owned child and commodification

This article analyses some complexities in and around the idea that the child, in several recent discussions on reproductive technologies, is constantly brought in relation to the market and commodity, and yet is not simply equated with commodity. When and how is the child a commodity and not a commodity?

The case of pre-natal diagnosis

This chapter reconsiders critiques of pre-natal diagnosis in Disability Studies. Underlying assumptions about reproductive technologies are analysed to demonstrate that while many critiques of pre-natal diagnosis by Disability activists and theorists are concerned about children being the product of 'choice' through the selective effects of pre-natal diagnosis, the issue that reproductive technologies (such as IVF) themselves necessarily always already rely on 'choice' -- namely the choice for a 'biological' or 'own' child (different terms are used) -- is nowhere considered. The chapter considers several consequences of thinking through this issue and its implications.