<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <title>DSpace Collection:</title>
  <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26011" />
  <subtitle />
  <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26011</id>
  <updated>2013-06-19T13:28:34Z</updated>
  <dc:date>2013-06-19T13:28:34Z</dc:date>
  <entry>
    <title>Families on the frontier</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26041" />
    <author>
      <name>Kevin, Catherine Elizabeth</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26041</id>
    <updated>2013-05-13T02:07:48Z</updated>
    <published>2005-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Families on the frontier
Authors: Kevin, Catherine Elizabeth
Abstract: When considering questions of access, an argument for procreative autonomy is an&#xD;
interesting starting point. Its compelling logic, when applied to abortion debates, posits that&#xD;
women should be trusted to make abortion decisions outside of the scrutiny of criminal&#xD;
law. In the face of the term "autonomy", it has been noted that women's abortion decisions&#xD;
are frequently made in consultation and with a view to how their decisions will affect&#xD;
others, including the child they could bear. The same can be said of women who travel to&#xD;
the reproductive technological frontier. Their individual and complex embodied&#xD;
experiences and their decision-making processes need to be fully considered in future&#xD;
debates about regulation so that the meanings of these technologies are articulated by those&#xD;
whose lives bear their most profound marks. And in the speculation that these debates&#xD;
entail about ways in which current and future uses of reproductive technologies could&#xD;
change the constitution of populations and future social relations, mothers and their&#xD;
families - whichever form they take - must be given room to tell their stories.</summary>
    <dc:date>2005-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Carneades and the conceit of Rome: transhistorical approaches to imperialism</title>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26020" />
    <author>
      <name>Fitzpatrick, Matthew Peter</name>
    </author>
    <id>http://hdl.handle.net/2328/26020</id>
    <updated>2013-05-13T02:07:51Z</updated>
    <published>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</published>
    <summary type="text">Title: Carneades and the conceit of Rome: transhistorical approaches to imperialism
Authors: Fitzpatrick, Matthew Peter
Abstract: While the manner in which empires have been discussed in the Western tradition has been largely conditioned by a two-millennia-old dialectic that Carneades presented neatly to the Romans in the mid-second century B.C., empires themselves have not enjoyed the same uniformity. Empires might be compared for fun, but are best contrasted for profit. By pointing to the dialectical impasse created by a generic approach to empires, Carneades helps us realize that the United States is not like Rome simply because both are 'empires'.</summary>
    <dc:date>2010-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
  </entry>
</feed>

