Hammond illustrates the major tenets of the novel especially the amoral science in proportion to the innovations in technology. He also explores Mary Shelly’s ambivalence regarding childbearing. Finally, he focuses on the significance of technology in regards to artificial fertilization and cloning.

Artificial womb development

“For personal reasons, Mary Shelley and her mother might well have approved of artificial childbirth.” The fictional image that Shelly portrayed, which showed man as trying to challenge his creator, became a major area of concern. In fact, Frankenstein story of artificial creation is the first-hand account regarding the traumas of birth, life, and death. It suggests that the reason the book has surpassed other gothic horror novels is the fact that the author somehow identified a common cultural that has grown in direct relation to the development of science in our culture. In other words, how far should human beings go in their efforts to modify nature? As overseers of God’s creation, what are our responsibilities? What are the implications of the theological emphases on human beings as co-creators with God? The current consensus against cloning is based on the fear that there will be a likelihood of physical harms to the cloned child.

“The development of a fully functional artificial womb for humans is, of course, inevitable, if highly complicated.” The basis of this argument is that other non-natural children bearing methods, such as the cesarean section and incubators have also been developed. Hence, according to Frankenstein, there is no sufficient ground for the rejection of cloning. Widely accepted practices such as in-vitro fertilization and the use of surrogate wombs indicate that reproductive technology change is quickening. Owing to this, Frankenstein believes that we have done good progress towards Frankenstein future in which we manipulate our species. The attempt to manipulate the genes is anticipated to eliminate up to 3,000 genetic diseases. The cloning is also thought to significantly increase the human mental capacity.

“Once we do begin to grow human beings outside of the womb many potentially exciting and appalling possibilities open up.” In this regard, we get several questions that remain unanswered. For example, how will be the individual affected by artificial gestation? Once the women are relieved of their natural role as the productive sex what will happen to them? It is interesting to note that many feminists who were once fighting for women freedom from the motherhood slavery are now advocating for the scrapping of reproductive technology research. They see the research as anti-female which is envisaging a future in which women have a limited role. The argument is founded on the fact that the international medical research is directed, carried out and funded by men.However, other women view the reproductive technology as a liberator that will enable them to take their rightful place alongside males. They argue that men are free to pursue to carry on with their lives unaffected by such demanding factors like pregnancy.

Conclusion

We see that the author has a clear thesis that argues that Frankenstein is a commentary on the morality of science and that Shelley is ambivalent about childbirth. We also conclude that the author succeeds in his goal, by providing sufficient evidence that reproductive technology should be embraced by all. This piece of work provides crucial background information by presenting the different point of views regarding reproductive technology, and hence will act as a significant source in complimenting my primary source. Finally, because this source has presented both the advantages and the disadvantages of the reproductive technology, it will act as a source of reference when I am presenting my argument.

Work cited

Hammond, Ray. “The Scientist as God.” The Modern Frankenstein: Fiction Becomes Fact. Poole, England: Blandford Press, 1986. 21-45. Rpt. in Nineteenth-Century Literature Criticism.Ed. Jessica Bomarito and Russel Whitaker.Vol. 170. Detroit: Gale, 2006. Literature Resource Center.Web. 2 June 2015.