After reading Reagan’s speech, the prospect of stem cell therapy sounded promising and I was left wanting to find out more information about the specifics to his broad claims about “the future of medicine.” Following up with Doerflinger’s rebuttal, however, immediately made me much more skeptical and less optimistic about Reagan’s argument. In all, each piece not only offered separate viewpoints but also exemplified alternate methods of presenting a rebuttal argument.
Reagan’s argument is that embryonic stem cells can be used to cure a variety of debilitating illnesses. His purpose in making the argument is to inform audiences about the process and persuade them to vote for candidates which support funding embryonic stem cell research.
Reagan’s
…show more content…
He has first-hand experience of having a loved one affected by a fatal and debilitating disease which gives him more clout regarding the issue. Additionally, his argument is strongly based upon emotional appeals. He begins by defining stem cell research and employs his first use of pathos as he asks his listener to imagine they have been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Next, he provides an example of a young woman with type-1 diabetes. He draws upon this emotional example heavily to support his viewpoint by asking his listeners to “take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity …show more content…
By doing so, he anticipates the pro-life rebuttal to his argument. In short, he acknowledges this opposing view as a means of further gaining support for his own stance. He basically says “I understand the ideological hang-ups of those against stem cell research, but my argument is superior because it promotes the ‘health a wellbeing of many’ and the ‘good of all humanity.”
In his rebuttal, Richard Doeflinger, maintains that Reagan failed to endorse embryonic stem cell research in speech but rather more closely described “human cloning” for the treatment of disease or injury. The purpose of his argument is to highlight the shortcomings of Reagan’s argument and present examples which demonstrate that there are other viable treatments besides stem cell research for debilitating conditions such as Parkinson’s and juvenile
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 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...
In the debate over whether the federal government should fund embryonic stem-cell research (ESCR), our country is being offered a true Faustian bargain. In return for a hoped-for potential - it is no more than that - of deriving desperately desired medical breakthroughs in the treatment of such afflictions as Parkinson's disease, paraplegia, and diabetes, we are being asked to give the nation's imprimatur to reducing human life into a mere natural resource to be exploited and commodified.
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.
In President Barack Obama’s speech of 2009, he issued an executive order which lifted the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, placed by the President George W. Bush. Obama addresses important factors of why he removed the ban such as keeping innovative scientists in the country and the many future promises the research holds. The president is biased towards the future of using embryonic stem cells in his speech― he strongly supports them and strives to improve research opportunities. However, President Obama does acknowledge the downside effects that this research can bring such as the risk of human cloning and addresses how it will be prevented. This speech will support an embryonic stem cell argumentative essay by demonstrating the benefits this research can bring to the country.
Over the past decade scientist and the U.S government have been debating about funds for stem cell research (SCR), the amount spent depends on who is in office. The Democratic Party fully supports SCR, but the Republican Party somewhat opposes the concept of SCR, arfuing it violates the Christian principle of life. As a result, this topic is considered controversial, but also beneficial if allowed. Despite the controversy, SCR should be well funded for medicinal use, because blank stem cells (SC) can be used to regenerate bones and muscle tissue, they can be used to control or even reverse neurodegenerative disease, and because they can be used for therapeutic cloning.
Francis (Ed.), At Issue. Should the Government Fund Embryonic Stem Cell Research?. Detroit: Greenhaven Press. (2009). (Reprinted from, n.d.) (Reprinted from Science Magazine, 22 September 2006) Retrieved from http://padme.cochise.edu:2067/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDetailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints&prodId=OVIC&action=2&catId=&documentId=GALE%7CEJ3010587207&userGroupName=sier28590&jsid=67271fc8c381f89007dff41cfd3813e6
Reaves, J. (2001, July 11). The great debate over stem cell research. Time, Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,167245,00.html
The President’s Council on Bioethics published “Monitoring Stem Cell Research” in 2004. This report was written in response to President Bush’s comments regarding research of human stem cells on August 9, 2001. President Bush announced that he was going to make federal funding available for research that involved existing lines of stem cells that came from embryos. He is the first president to provide any type of financial support for the research of human stem cells. A Council was created with people who are educated in the field of stem cells to help monitor the research and to recommend guidelines and consider the ethical consequences that this research could create. This report is an “update” given by the President’s Council in January of 2004 to make the public aware of the significant developments in the science and medical aspects of stem cell research. It also describes the ethical, legal and political implications that stem cell research may create. However, since the research is still in its beginning stages, this “update” does not describe a complete or definitive study of stem cells nor does it provide specific guidelines or regulations. This is a report that is suppose to help the President, Congress and general public make better-informed decisions as to the direction that we should go with stem cells.
Imagine that there is a cure for nearly every ailment that affects the human race. Imagine that you could help the terminally ill, put those you love out of pain, and cut the healing time of an enormous number of serious illnesses in half. Imagine a world in which pain and suffering would be nearly nonexistent, and the people you love can live safe from the fear of crippling injury. Now what if I told you that this utopia was a fast approaching reality? Everything from serious life threatening burns to lymphoma, AIDS, Alzheimer’s, Muscular Dystrophy, Parkinson’s Disease, Spinal Cord Injury, and Strokes could, in the very near future, be eliminated through the simple culturing and implementation of stem cell therapy . These diseases are no small component of the myriad of conditions that plagues the human race, and yet, the end for these horrible maladies could very well be in sight. Man has always sought to end suffering, largely without success, until now. the promise that stem cell therapy holds could completely change our world for the better. Already, stem cell therapy is being used to treat leukemia, immune disorders, hodgkins and non-hodgkins lymphoma, anemia and a profusion of other ailments. As you all know, this is no small accomplishment. One day i believe that we may look at alzheimer's and diabetes and other major illnesses much like we look at polio today, as a treatable illness. Right now, our research with stem cells is providing us with new light into how we look at and model disease, our ability to understand why we get sick and even to develop new drugs. In 2008, a researcher from the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laborato...
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...
"Stem cell research is the key to developing cures for degenerative conditions like Parkinson's and motor neuron disease from which I and many others suffer." -- Stephen Hawking
On April 28, 2011 - the United States Appeals Court overturned the rule of a federal judge because of several issues that emerged with stem cell research being funded by the government. Although, the science of human embryonic stem cell is in its initial stages - there is much hope for scientific advancement due to the ability for human embryonic stem cells to grow into virtually various kinds of cells Favorably, advocates for stem cell research and pharmaceutical companies strongly believe that stem cells may pave a way to discover new methods of treatment for devastating ailments; such as, Leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease, Heart disease, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes- a prospect that is inspiring to both scientists and those who are seeking cures for themselves and family members. In contrast, numerous pro-life advocates are against federal funding for stem cell research because of the method in which these stem cells are extracted. In addition, several other groups argue that the federal government has abandoned more substantial as well as promising and less controversial adult and cord stem cell research. Instead, the government has dedicated a majority of their funding in favor of the more popular and controversial stem research. Ultimately, as long as humans exist - the need for a more extensive and technological progress will be abundant and crucial to humanity's survival. However, does the needs of the human species outweigh the potential lives embryos represent? With so much on the line, let us explore exactly what human embryonic stem cell (HESC) research is and what may be potentially weighing in the balance for the human race if we proceed down this road.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.
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