In Vitro Procedure

1195 Words3 Pages

Technology advances all the time, but often we question the necessity of the new inventions. In 1980s, in vitro fertilisation was still a very new body of science. The information was limited to the people who actually could and would participate in the studies, as simulating human pregnancy in animals is difficult. The actual procedure, however, includes a donated egg, sperm, and growing simulating mitosis in a test tube then injecting it into a woman's womb.
Ruth Hubbard is the first female professor of the sciences at Harvard University to get tenure. As “A woman, a feminist, and a biologist”, she negatively views the science behind the in vitro procedure. She proclaims two years after the publication of in vitro, that the development …show more content…

She begins with a potential counterargument, that the procedure had been done before. She provides examples of cases where there were no known harm that occurred. However, the prior knowledge of the procedure was extremely limited to the animals, so while she includes these three testimonies of success, there are so many other factors to take into account. The science is not yet fully understood, and we simply do not know of the side effects. Furthermore, the way the procedure is carried out seems apparently imprecise. Women are in and out of the clinics within the span of a day. There is not a constant monitoring of these women, so it is a question of feeling secure with these scientists. Hubbard considers the women involved to be the “guinea pigs of the research”, as the information already known is limited. Through this suggestion, the scientists seem barbaric, testing on their subjects. She claims that by simply not taking account for the risk factors, these women are being put in harm's …show more content…

Hubbard gives suggestions of other options to become a parent. She addresses the touch topic of homeless parentless children. This in turn makes the readers feel a sense of duty to these suffering children. By examining the social problem, she concludes her statement that the procedures are wrong. There is also a question that comes up, which is, what is the necessity of giving birth? She addresses the societal expectations of women and childbirth. The procedure addresses a problem that is not actually a problem, but rather creates problems with the health risks. She claims that society has ignored other relevant problems yet insist that “We can have babies!” she exclaims, yet is that the only task women are capable of performing? This strongly appeals to women, suggesting that the purpose of a woman living goes beyond the motherly expectations. She expresses that there are other areas that need to be looked into, such as the “social restrictions and physical dangers” that causes women to fear even going outside at night. Clearly, in vitro fertilisation does not solve those problems, and really helps only a limited amount of women. She persuades the reader that there are topics of greater importance that the inability to give birth. She asks the question boldly, is it “A Woman’s Right?”, which truly allows the readers to reflect on the meaning behind

More about In Vitro Procedure

Open Document