the Female Body GOVERNING

Beyond Pill Scares? 51
the message that genetics could have “saved” him. Twentieth-century
genetics had been harnessed to execute large-scale prenatal screening
programs, such as Down’s syndrome screening, which sought to detect
chromosomal or genetic defects in the fetus, typically to eliminate the
fetus’s falling short of “normal.” This idea is still very much alive and well
today, as witnessed by extensive prenatal screening programs, and the
aberrant post on the list, querying about terminating a fetus homozygous
for FVL. The exchanges on the list, on the contrary, do not see genes
as destiny but, as Rabinow (1996) discussed, biological nature is seen
as malleable, to be modifi ed with taking care of one’s self with drugs,
information, behavior, and so on. While this “biomedicalization” has
been criticized (e.g., Clarke et al., 2003), it is benevolent in comparison
with eugenistic stances. This became into particularly sharp relief in
relation to a query on the list, which asked whether fetuses, who were
homozygous for FVL, 1 should be terminated (see Saukko, 2004). All
who responded to this query—many were homozygous themselves—were
strongly against and appalled by the suggestion, noting they had lived
a fulfi lling life and were now age 63.
However, Thomas’s pictures can also be interpreted differently. Feminists
have written extensively on the use of fetal imagery in pro-life and
health campaigns, which underline women’s responsibility for the fetus
and obligation not to harm it via smoking, termination, and so on (e.g.
Franklin, 1997; Stabile, 1993). Thomas’s pages also constitute him as an
object of the medical discourse or the baby, who could have been saved
via new technologies with the aid of the mother, who subjects herself
to a regime of daily injections of anticoagulants, close surveillance,
induction, and so on. This discourse frames the woman as responsible
for doing everything within her means to guarantee the health and
well-being of the unborn child. In the case of genetic thrombophilia
this means presenting the woman with a “choice” to make in the face
of complicated and uncertain knowledge about risks and benefi ts of
tests and medications in a situation where women often feel particularly
vulnerable.
The diffi culty and sensitivity of the situation explains the aggressively
interventionist stance on the list, which advocates doing everything
possible to “save” the baby and the mother. Because many of the most
active participants in these discussions had experienced a miscarriage,
their stance is understandable from a personal perspective, but it
neglects that saving babies with potent and expensive medications also
has its side effects and cost. Just like in the case of the Pill, the online
discussion on pregnancy, thrombophilia, and anticoagulants can be
interpreted as either women’s empowerment through new technologies