In module four, we continue to expand our analysis of reproductive technologies in different society\u2019s and religious cultures. The first piece we read in module four was Magical Progeny, Modern Technology by Swasti Bhattacharyya. Bhattacharyya sets out to analyze how reproductive technology fits within Hindu ethics by analyzing the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. Bhattacharyya discusses six things that provide the basis for Hindu society and bioethics: the centrality of society, belief in the underlying unity of all life, the responsibilities and flexibility of dharma, the diversity within Hinduism, the theory of karma, and the teachings of ahimsa. These ideas are then expanded on within the text and Bhattacharyya discusses how they are applied when dealing with reproductive technologies.<\/p>\n
After reading this text I immediately noted a historical element to Bhattacharyya\u2019s writing. Although she does use her experiences as a nurse to examine the six ideas of Hindu ethics, her analysis is very much rooted in a literal interpretation of the past. She examines experiences in regards to how they fit into the Mahabharata, rather than how they possibly alter or interpret those ideas differently.<\/p>\n
The second piece we read was \u201cModern Technologies and Jewish Law\u201d by Michael Broyde. Throughout his piece, Broyde discusses the technology of cloning in regards to the perspective of Jewish law. Specifically, Broyde aims to determine whether Jewish law views the practice of cloning as a good deed, a bad deed or simply a permissible activity. He comes to the conclusion, that while Jewish law does not explicitly state the practice of cloning as prohibited, it is not necessarily looked upon as the most ideal reproductive technology available. Broyde also analyzes the relationship between the cloner and their clone. I found this part of Broyde\u2019s analysis the most interesting because of the distinction he makes between father and clone and mother and clone. The relationship between male cloner and clone is father and child, but female cloner and clone leaves the possibility open of having two respective mothers, gestational mother and genetic mother. In my opinion, although the clone and gestational mother are not genetically related, I would lean towards a mother-child relationship anyways as that is the female willing to take on the responsibility of nurture and love for the child. Would you argue that a mother-child relationship constitutes genetic similarity or love and care? I don\u2019t think this is a question that will ever have a definite answer, but it is one that will continue to be argued in the realm of reproductive technologies as the capability to alter genes and reproduce increases.<\/p>\n
The third and last piece we read in this module was Dr. Seeman\u2019s chapter titled \u201cEthnography, Exegesis and Jewish Ethical Reflection: The New Reproductive Technologies in Israel.\u201d\u00a0 The goal of Dr. Seeman\u2019s analysis is to differentiate Jewish and Israeli approaches to reproductive technology from Christian and Western approaches. What I found to be the most important and most interesting point of this analysis was that Dr. Seeman puts into perspective the fact that we can\u2019t just read and interpret religious or sacred texts to their literal meaning. While yes we can determine what the religion or culture\u2019s stance is on reproductive technology by reading these texts, we will never be able to fully determine how those interpretations are put into practice if we don\u2019t look at the whole picture. Aside from an interpretive perspective, we must also look at ethnographic accounts in the real world. What Dr. Seeman calls the \u201ctwo-pronged approach\u201d is beneficial because it allows us to measure interpretations against real moral dilemmas. Personally, the idea of this approach made me begin to doubt the importance of the \u201crules\u201d or \u201ccodes\u201d defined in religious texts regarding reproductive technologies. While yes these rules serve as the basis for what is permitted and prohibited, if society doesn\u2019t interpret them the way the creators or writers meant them to be interpreted, then what value do they really bring? Dr. Seeman\u2019s approach really made me value the importance of ethnography and how the interpretations of society can really dictate how those rules are followed. If I were to visualize a balance with ethnographic accounts on one side and literal interpretations on the other, I would lean the scale in favor of ethnography, providing it with a little more emphasis.<\/p>\n
After reading these texts, some glaring differences stuck out to me. First of all, Bhattacharyya\u2019s book is rooted in ideas of the Mahabharata and the past. Her analysis of the six ideas of Hindu ethics are literal and her ethnographic accounts attempt to fit those ideas. In contrast, Dr. Seeman\u2019s chapter warns against this approach of literal interpretation in favor of a two sided approach that looks at literal interpretations as well as ethnographic accounts. This approach provides for a more rounded analysis of how reproductive technologies are regarded in society and how they contribute to real moral dilemmas, rather than just analyzing how these technologies were meant to be put into practice. Broyde\u2019s writing also contrasts that of Bhattacharyya\u2019s because it examines reproductive technology, cloning in particular, in regards to the future. He uses Jewish law to determine a stance on cloning, while Bhattacharyya does the opposite in that she approaches ethnographic accounts in terms of the law.<\/p>\n
While reading these three pieces, I was really forced to think of reproductive technologies in terms of the law versus in terms of society and how they interpret the laws. I think these two ideas are different and both need to be considered when analyzing reproductive technologies. I want to ask the class, would you regard the literal interpretations of the law as more important when regarding these technologies, or would you place more emphasis on how society interprets them? In my opinion, I think both drastically effect how reproductive technologies are regarded within society, and the greater the disconnect between the two, literal interpretation and society\u2019s interpretation, the greater controversy that arises. All three of these texts added to my understanding of reproductive technologies within different religious cultures, and I hope in following classes we can continue to expand upon these differences.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In module four, we continue to expand our analysis of reproductive technologies in different society\u2019s and religious cultures. The first piece we read in module four was Magical Progeny, Modern Technology by Swasti Bhattacharyya. Bhattacharyya sets out to analyze how reproductive technology fits within Hindu ethics by analyzing the Hindu epic, the Mahabharata. Bhattacharyya discusses … <\/p>\n