my philosophical cycle of "was victor's creation of the monster an act of hubris?" over the years
yes: he's interfering in the cycle of life and death (my immediate take as a child)
no: everyone has the right to have children. even men.
yes: it is wrong to dig up dead bodies and sew them together
maybe: to deny resurrection-men their due respect, and furthermore to put down the medical use of corpses in this historical context, isn't a productive take. i disagree with shelley's opinion, although i acknowledge that that is what she meant.
yes: victor's creation is an allegory for males interfering in female reproductive rights
no: i suppose victor could be envious of female reproduction because gender envy (transgender)
yes: the transgender take is, in this way, quite a ridiculous reach. the other evidence lies in how victor's illness is described in the larger context of Romantic views of disease; i don't agree with the interpretation thusly.
no: everyone has the right to have children
yes: everyone has the right to have children, but that doesn't make it right.
yes: the creation of more sentient beings (via reproduction or reconstruction) is highly unethical. via uterus or needle-and-thread.
i'm sure my opinion will change again and again, but for now i believe (as described) that the horror of frankenstein lies in the horror of reproduction. as such, it is also a story of cycles of violence: the inaugural act of any parent-child relationship is the abuse that is creating the child in the first place. any generational cycle of violence can therefore only be truly ended by the end of the bloodline (which we see at the end of the novel).