diariasmile (diariasmile) wrote in metaphydebate,

So, I went to a bookstore today to just wander around, see if I can find any books that look interesting. I found two that were pretty ridiculous, one that was so much so, I had to buy it.

Living laboratories by Robyn Rowland is on the topic of any kind of artificial fertilization; more specifically she is on the morals against said topic.

In the author's opinion, this is a serious topic, and one that needs to be studied, the knowledge spread, the moralities approached. This book is on the serious crimes being committed by fertilization using any means besides procreation. She provides up-to-date (at the time) knowledge of the means of artificial fertilization of women, and provides you with lists of reasons of why these said methods are immoral. She feels that this exploitation of women's bodies as test sites for medical experimentation is a terrifying direction in which humanity is spinning uncontrollably that will only end in it's doom.

In my opinion, this book is a comedy.

Firstly the woman that wrote this book is a hard-core man-hater. In the index (let alone in the book itself) is the following:
Part 1 Motherhood, Medicine and Men: Who's in Control?
1 In vitro fertilization: man makes the embryo
2 The masculine dream of quality control: genetic engineering
(it does have other sections, but these are the ones dissing men directly)

Quote from page 3: "Subtly, step by step, we are changing the nature of being human and eroding the control which women have had over procreation. In its place, male-controlled technological intervention is beginning to determine how children will be conceived, what kind of children will be born, and who is worthy of receiving these new products of our science." (Rowland 1992).

In other words, women have complete and total control of the birth of children, and men are trying to steal this control from us. I feel that there is no need to debate on the methods for conception. "...determine how children will be conceived"...If the parents want children, then who cares how they get them, be it through acrobatics in the bedroom, or be it with sharp pointy objects in the doctor's office. "What kind of children should be born"....ok, I'll admit that this topic can get touchy, and there may be reason for this one to be discussed. "Who is worthy of receiving these new products of science".....I hate to say it, but there are some people that shouldn't be allowed children (I can point out a few on request if necessary, but face it, some people just don't deserve children (i.e. abusive types, alcoholics, pedophiles, people who only want children for image, Britney Spears)).

She goes on to compare the children resulting from these this kind of technology to Frankenstein's monster, saying that men (and by "men", she does means the male half of society (as opposed to "mankind" which refers to all humanity), because women already have control, men are trying to steal it from us and that is why we have these forms of artificial fertilization in the first place) just want to control the creation of life, and that this life will just rise up and destroy it's creators, after destroying everything the creator loved. She then quotes Frankenstein's monster with "Oh earth! How often did I imprecate curses on the cause of my being! The mildness of my nature had fled, and all within me was turned to gall and bitterness."

What she is trying to show: the creations of technology will rise up to destroy humanity.

What she is proving: the monster's quote.

She wants to tell us of how life created by technology is going to destroy all that is good with the human race.

What the monster is saying is paraphrased into "because of the nature of my creation, everyone has hated me and now wants to destroy me. Because of this, I am no longer the quite mild person that I once was, I now am bitter."

She hates the idea of life being artificially created. That is what caused the mob to hate Frankenstein's monster. She has bitterness with the idea of artificially created life. That is what happened with the mob towards the monster. She wants to prove to us (the readers) that any life that we create will rise up and destroy us. That is the same beliefs of the people of the mob had for the monster. That belief is what caused the monster to become a bitter evil creature. It is that kind of isolation and blind hatred that caused the monster to do as he did. She is being the mob, she is leading the crowd to hating this life, this form of creation of life, she is the one that would lead to the bitterness, the anger on the part of these "creations" as she calls them. Is she so blind? Can she not see what she is saying?

I'm only on page 6 of the introduction of this book. Methinks that this is going to be an interesting book, it will bring out the philosopher in me….
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.