I understood Emily Martin's idea about how "endowing egg and sperm with intentional action... lays the foundation for the point of viability being pushed back to the moment of fertilization" (500), but aside from point I fail to see the purpose of the article as a whole. It makes sense that she is angry that scientists continue to use intentional language in describing the reproductive process, because cells are not beings with intent or choice. However, I do not understand why she feels the need to argue so vehemently about one- or two-word choices in specific descriptions by scientists. Her criticisms of, for example, the semantics of how the sperm move along the fallopian tubes (489) seem nitpicky and counterproductive. Her points about intentional action are valid, but because she uses this as only one aspect of the greater critical whole, it is lost in a whiny-sounding discussion of the words "drift" versus "deliver". This is not likely to get the greater (patriarchal?) scientific audience to agree with her ideas, and may only annoy and alienate them.