The selected article is “Future Harms of Reproductive Technologies Are Worth Opposing Now,” written by Sujatha Jesudason, who is a scholar, organizer, and activist with a specialization in social justice movements regarding violence against women. It is important to know the author of the writing to understand the main message and the underlying idea of the essay. The given rhetorical analysis will primarily focus on the author’s claim, supporting evidence, and the reason for writing the essay.
The essay by Sujatha Jesudason was written in 2007, which is almost 14 years ago. The date of publication is critical to consider since the majority of the information provided in the paper, especially examples, is outdated because the current technological advancements in biotechnology and reproductive science progressed even more. In other words, the author’s claims may be more relevant today than it was in the past since many such technologies became more advanced.
Moreover, the central claim of the author is that advancements in reproductive technologies, such as MicroSort, are potential causes of violence against women. Such technologies allow people to sort through sperm and egg cells before the conception process takes place, which means that the randomness of an offspring is no longer random but rather controllable and measurable (Jesudason 2). These technologies have potential benefits in terms of preventing many genetic disorders through early prevention and detection, but they can also be used to enhance offspring, which raises major concerns regarding equality and gender oppression. The technology enables market-driven eugenics and poses a threat to equality because, for example, in India, male offspring are more preferred than female ones (Jesudason 1). In other words, certain traits of human beings will become considered undesirable, whereas certain qualities will become a golden standard. In addition, women will most likely become raw materials for these procedures as egg sources, which will undermine their rights and dignity. Therefore, the author’s claim revolves around imposing boundaries and control over reproductive technologies to avoid their potential harm in propagating violence against women and inequality among various groups.
Subsequently, it is important to note that the type of claim made by the author is both factual and policy-driven. Based on ethical considerations, the author raises awareness and concerns about the potential harms of reproductive technologies, where she states that “without regulation or oversight, these technologies, will violate our fundamental human rights and the very foundation of human equality that makes possible the functioning of any democracy” (Jesudason 3). The claims are supported by factual evidence from a wide range of sources, such as books and periodicals. The warrant that connects the claim and the support is manifested in the overall logicality of the argumentation through real-world examples based on facts.
In conclusion, the essay can be considered an effective argument since it has a strong stance on the issue with a clear claim of strict regulation of reproductive technologies, which is backed and supported with factual evidence from a wide range of sources. In addition, at the beginning of the essay, the author also utilizes anecdotal evidence from her own life experience, which makes the overall writing both personal and evidential. She reveals that human beings can be inherently ignorant and unethical, and thus, technology will be able to proliferate these undesirable attitudes, which will result in new forms of inequalities and violence against women.
Work Cited
Jesudason, Sujatha. ” Future Harms of Reproductive Technologies Are Worth Opposing Now.” Gale, Web.