Stem cell research has been a heated and highly controversial debate for over a decade, which explains why there have been so many articles on the issue. Like all debates, the issue is based on two different arguments: the scientific evolution and the political war against that evolution. The debate proves itself to be so controversial that is both supported and opposed by many different people, organizations, and religions. There are many “emotional images [that] have been wielded” in an attempt to persuade one side to convert to the other (Hirsen). The stem cell research debate, accompanied by different rhetoric used to argue dissimilar points, comes to life in two articles and a speech: “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress” by Virginia Postrel; “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? No, It’s a Moral Monstrosity” by Eric Cohen and William Kristol; and “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention” by Ron Reagan, Jr. Ethos, pathos, and logos are the main categories differentiating the two arguments. The audience for whom those works were written for explains a great deal about the syntax and the diction, and as stated in Dynamic Argument, provides “different strokes for different folks” (Lamm and Everett 11). When Ron Reagan was delivering his remarks to the Democratic National Convention, he took into account that he needed to paint a picture for his audience “while still doing justice to the incredible science involve [involved]” (qtd in Lamm and Everett 428). The fact that he was trying to convince his audience to vote for embryonic stem-cell research showed that he needed to explain exactly how the procedure worked. His story about the thirteen-year-old young woma... ... middle of paper ... ... a Moral Monstrosity.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 425-26. Hirsen, James L. “Who’s the Victor on the Stem Cell Debate?” 7 Aug. 2001. 24 Sept. 2007 < http://www.firstliberties.com/stem_cell_debate.html>. “How to Write a Rhetorical Analysis.” 5 Aug. 2005. 23 Sept. 2007 . Lamm, Robert, and Justin Everett. Dynamic Argument. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. Postrel, Virginia. “Should Human Cloning Be Allowed? Yes, Don’t Impede Medical Progress.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed. Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 420-23. Reagan, Ron Jr. “Remarks by Ron Reagan, Jr., to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.” In Dynamic Argument. Ed Robert Lamm and Justin Everett. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 428-30.
The editorial, ?Stem Cells and the Logic of the Nazis,? appeared in the September 3, 2000 issue of the Los Angeles Times. Even though the Los Angeles Times, a widely distributed newspaper, has a slightly liberal slant, this editorial displays a strongly conservative view on stem cell research. Thus, the author of the editorial has to be very cautious in the tone that he uses in order not to offend liberal readers. George Weigel, the author of this editorial, picks apart what he sees as the fallacious argument of Michael Kinsley, a well-known libe...
...imes when we are faced with national tragedies we are left at a loss for words. We look upon our leaders to help us through these difficult times, to have all the answers. We listen to what they have to say with vulnerability and uncertainty of what’s to come next for our country. Reagan was aware of all these factors when he gave his famous address. He was aware that in order for any argument to be considered a powerful and successful one it needs to be thought through and take into consideration the outside factors that are affecting it. Reagan’s challenger argument was one that had a clear audience, distinct setting, and finally the argument had a definite and in this case necessary purpose. By Reagan utilizing these three elements and effectively combining them he created a memorable speech that is now widely considered a masterpiece of public communication.
The Nobel laureates' inaccurate letter to President Bush urging him to feed federal funds to human-embryo stem-cell research has had PR value in the media. It perpetuates a number of misconceptions and misleading statements regarding stem-cell research, particularly embryonic as opposed to adult stem-cell research, and will serve to continue to cloud the issue. Some of these deceptive statements are the subject of this essay.
"American Rhetoric: Ronald Reagan -- A Time for Choosing." American Rhetoric: The Power of Oratory in the United States. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Oct. 2013.
Stem cell therapy is a controversial topic that falls on the list of things not to discuss over thanksgiving dinner, very much like religion and politics. While the potential of stem cell research and therapy stand to make leaps of progression in cures for disease like Cancer and Alzheimer’s; Pros, Cons and morality still surround the issue.
Stem cell research is a heavily debated topic that can stir trouble in even the tightest of Thanksgiving tables. The use cells found in the cells of embryos to replicate dead or dying cells is a truly baffling thought. To many, stem cell research has the potential to be Holy Grail of modern medicine. To many others, it is ultimately an unethical concept regardless of its capabilities. Due to how divided people are on the topic of stem cell research, its legality and acceptance are different everywhere. According to Utilitarianism, stem cell research should be permitted due to the amount of people it can save, however according to the Divine Command of Christianity, the means of collecting said stem cells are immoral and forbidden.
Every year countless people are diagnosed with cell based diseases, 7.6 million a year alone receive the petrifying news that they have cancer. But what if we could eliminate the idea that a cancerous diagnosis is the equivalent of a death sentence? The use of embryonic stem cells could, for the first time, make diseases like cancer or parkinson a non-issue. This is why the use of embryonic stem cells should not be viewed as unethical but rather a huge step towards unthinkable medical breakthroughs and the eradication of life threatening diseases.
Have you ever seen a movie or read a book where they can tell what your child will look like or if they have a disease or birth defect. Or have you ever wondered how the world would be shaped if we could have clones or even erase genetic diseases. All of these things are theoretically possible with stem cell research. If we are able to reach this point what would we have to sacrifice in the process. To understand humanity would we have to sacrifice the values that truly make us human? What would the fail rate be if we are able to genetically enhance the human body?
In the 2004 presidential election, one of the most controversial issues facing voters was the battle over embryonic stem cell research. In the weeks leading up to the election, polls were indicating that 47 percent of Bush supporters agreed that the destruction of embryo cells is unethical; however, 53 percent of Bush voters supported stem cell research. The overwhelming majority of Kerry backers also supported stem cell research, indicating that the majority of American voters support stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research, while still in its infancy, has the potential to treat or perhaps even cure more than 100 million people suffering from a variety of illnesses and conditions. Scientists agree that stem cells could be one of the greatest revolutions in modern medicine. On the opposing side of the issue, many citizens believe that destroying an embryo is the equivalent to killing an unborn child. While many people assume the battle is about the use of stem cells for research purposes, it now seems that the major political controversy is the role of the federal government in funding human embryo research. Many scientists contend that the furor began with President Bush's August 2001 decision to limit government funding to embryonic stem cell lines that had already been created. Since then, scientists have been scrambling to expand funding for stem cell research with few alternatives. The central question is, "Should private funding from companies, individuals, and foundations control the future economic, public health, and social benefits of stem cell research or should the federal government?" Allowing the federal government to fund and, thereby, control stem cell research ensures appropriate regulation and ...
Monroe, Kristen, et al., eds. Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical and Political Issues. Los Angeles/Berkley: University of California Press, 2008. Print
Due to public awareness of science, people started realise that the stem cells have the potential in developing cell-based therapies for many uncured diseases. Objectors claimed that it is morally wrong for the government to advocate stem cell research because the research demands embryos’ destruction (National Bioethics Advisory Committee [NBAC], 1999, as cited in Nisbet, 2004).’’It’s immoral that hundreds of thousands of embryos are discarded yearly instead of used to research cures for human suffering.” (Gilbert, 2008).In 2001, President George W. Bush made his stand to oppose the stem cell research by l...
* The Aims of Argument. 4th ed Ed.Timothy W. Crusius and Carolyn E. Channell. New York:McGraw Hill,2003, 352-355.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.
Murnaghan, Ian. "Stem Cell Controversy." Stem Cell Controversy. BSc (hons), MSc, 23 Apr. 2014. Web. 27 Apr. 2014. .
"Thinking and moral considerations: A lecture. " Social Research (1984): 7-37. Miller, Stephen. " A Note on the Banality of Evil." Wilson Quarterly 22 (1998): 54-59.