So while reading this article (Smith-Windsor) this week I couldnt help to ignore the main arguments mainly in curiosity of what happens in the end to the baby. However my thoughts on that are irrelevant. What is relevant howere is the concept and descriptive nature of the mother when discussing her experience with giving birth to a premature infant.

The article is essentially a summation of her dicscussing the feelings and perceptions she had in the delivery process. While she claims to have a horrible feeling during the procedures to save the life of her child I believe that in that situation I would not be so much concerned about the process (unless it were painful) but moreso about the preservation of life. While discussing the feelings of the mother-child relationship, she claims that technology has severed the symbiosis, however again I would argue this to be essentially a poor argument, mainly due to the fact that just like an older post I wrote, we need technology...and it needs us. By this I mean that technology needs that baby to have a purpose and without technology the infant would cease to exist. Smith-Windsor should be grateful for that technology and realize that the use of the technology to save her childs life does not sever the simbiosis but instead allows for it to exist at all.

Smith-Windsor may have teh upper hand in that she has experienced all of this and I have not (mainly due to my inability to have a child.....yeah). Anyway, I still stand my ground. The technology is not an enemy or something to fear or think of negatively, but it is instead something that we as humans should appreciate so as to enhance (such as in film) or in this case preserve...life.

Finally, I would like to mention her argument that technology is a third party. While technology may be a third party it most definately does not create our identity on its own, in fact technology merely mediates and supervises our creation of our own identity. Facebook mediates how the world sees an individual. In the same sense, prosthetics, pacemakers, ventilators, incubators, wheelchairs, glasses, etc do not contgrol or create our identity but merely mediate how we create it ourselves. If an individual with a prosthetic arm refuses to try to be active anymore, then they have created their own identity as a stubborn, unmotivated, and most likely cold and sad individual. The technology did not create this identity as the individual had free choice. It is with this concept that I argue the logic of Smith-Windsor, not claiming that technology is not a third party, but merely to argue that the third party of technology only mediates, it does not control.