A Rhetorical Analysis of the Stem Cell Research Debate

1511 Words7 Pages
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.

    More about A Rhetorical Analysis of the Stem Cell Research Debate

      Open Document