1. Freely asserts that the public debates about reproductive situations like that of the Hashmis get
"muddled" because people "are talking about too many things at once." What does she mean by that
statement? How does that point relate to the main argument of her essay?
2. Freely concedes that many of the concerns expressed by people on various sides of the reproductive
controversy involving the Hashmis are valid concerns. She even concedes that people who have
racist ideas are asking important questions about this controversy. Why do you think Freely makes
these concessions? In what ways might these concessions strengthen her main argument?
3. A central point that Freely makes in this essay is that "the regulation of fertility" and reproductive issues
in general are increasingly public, rather than private, issues. What counterarguments could you offer to
that point?
4. A British writer, Freely writes, "You have only to look at the chaotic, under-regulated United States to
see how lucky we are. In Britain, at least, we have rules and principles. We can harness change, make
sure it is not open to abuse, or slow it down so that we have time to think about it." She favors deliber-
ate regulation of the technology based on "rules and principles." What purpose does this comparison to
the United States serve? Do you think such a comparison is effective, given her audience? (Remember
that Freely was writing this essay for a British magazine.) How did you react to this comparison?
5. Freely ends her essay by stating that "we need a more rational debate" about reproductive issues. On
the basis of her essay, what do you think she means by a "rational debate"? Do you think her essay is an
example of an argument that would be part of such a debate? Explain, citing specific examples from her
essay to support your answer.