15 April 2006

Upsetting

This is becoming increasingly difficult. I am taking a bio-ethics slant of Frankenstein and finding my subject matter difficult to find in the literary criticisms I am looking at. Maybe I just need to do more looking, but I am running out of time. Procrastination does not pay off. What's more difficult is that we cannot use the internet for this paper. I did not realize how challenging that would be.

Just to get a feel for bio-ethics, though, I did a Google search and discovered The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform. It lobbies mainly for pro-life... and WOW. They don't try to make abortion look pretty (which it isn't). The graphic photography made my stomach churn, but it shows abortion for what it really is -- EVIL. There is no way you can see the greusome pictures of slaughtered babies and tell me abortion is just a choice. It is murder. It is sickening. And all of this is due to people who cannot take some responsibility for their sexuality.

Now I am all upset. Must get back to writing paper.

9 Comments:

At 15 April, 2006 12:11, Blogger Palm boy said...

Whats abortion got to do with Frankenstien?

And Frankenstien was compleatly ethical. The people wern't going to use the parts anymore.

 
At 15 April, 2006 13:04, Blogger Carey said...

Nothing... I get easily distracted.

Have you ever read "Frankenstein" or seen the 1995 film w/Robert Dinero and Kenneth Branaugh? Read the book, watch the movie, and then tell me if what Victor Frankenstein did was ethical.

 
At 15 April, 2006 14:34, Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Carey, a more relevant bioethics approach woudl be to raise the subject of animal experimentation.

I know this cause issue is less dear to your heart than Pro-Life issues, but the subject of animal experiments was a very hot topic in the 19th century. It may be that was an issue that Mary Shelley had thought about.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

 
At 15 April, 2006 15:40, Blogger Carey said...

Hmmm... thanks for the suggestion, Matt, but I'd better stick with the subject matter I have because I already told my prof that's what I'd write about.

 
At 15 April, 2006 17:41, Blogger Palm boy said...

I read Frankenstien in the fall of last year.
Victor Frankenstien was ethical, the creature that he created was not. The 'monster' killed people, Victor Frankenstien did not kill people.
He was just pursuing a scientific goal, without the planning of what he would do later.

 
At 15 April, 2006 18:48, Blogger Carey said...

Using body parts from corpses is ethical??

 
At 16 April, 2006 06:30, Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Well, the creature he created appeared to have sentience and personality.

It appears that Frankenstein created a person.

It is surely not ethical to do such a thing without fully considering the consequences.

Perhaps Frankenstein believed he was creating only a mindless robotic being, in which case his actions may have been ehticlaly justifiable. However, the results raise ethical questions about the nature of his experiment.

A key question would be 'Did he reasonably believe that his creation would be certain to lack sentience?'

If the answer is no, then Frankenstein's behaviour was unethicla and he must take some of the responsiblity for his creation's acts.

Every Blessing in Christ

Matthew

 
At 16 April, 2006 10:03, Blogger Carey said...

Frankenstein did not create anything -- only God can create. Creation is making something out of nothing.

Has anyone seen the 1995 movie? I think Jules did. That was sooooo disturbing. Almost on parr with Saving Private Ryan as far as gore went. I nearly puked.

 
At 16 April, 2006 10:39, Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...

Sounds like a matter of semantics, Carey.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home