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
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...
On January 28, 1986, a day that was supposed to be filled with excitement and exploration, suddenly turned into a day filled with tragedy and sadness. The space shuttle Challenger was supposed to carry a seven member crew into orbit with one unique member along for this particular mission. Christa McAuliffe was supposed to be the first teacher to go into space as a member of the Teacher in Space Project. Due to this occasion, the media coverage and the number of viewers of this mission was extensive, particularly in schools across the nation. The Challenger lifted off shortly after 11:30 A.M., but tragically only seventy three seconds after takeoff it exploded sending debris and the seven crew members back to earth and into the Atlantic Ocean. All seven crew members aboard were killed in the crash as America helplessly watched. A faulty O-ring in the right solid rocket booster was said to have been the cause of the crash. Ronald Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, was in office at the time of this tragic event. President Reagan was scheduled to deliver his State of the Union Address that same evening. His intentions were to mention the Challenger and the significance of that particular mission during his speech. This would not be the case following the events of that day.
Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the United States of America during the Cold War era. On January 28th, 1986, he gave a speech to discuss the tragedy of the Challenger Space Shuttle, which exploded in atmosphere. The speech was delivered in the Oval Office during his State of the Union Address. He was attempting to inform and comfort America about the disaster. The author uses multiple rhetorical devices in his speech. The importance of these devices is to convey a goal of the author to persuade the reader to a certain perspective. A speaker uses these devices to give the speech more impact. Rhetorical and persuasive devices can make a speech more effective since the devices can use emotional and logical appeal. In this speech, Reagan does not use very many complicated devices, but he does use appeal, anaphora, repetition, and allusion.
In a person’s lifetime, many things can happen including death. In 1986 seven individuals, Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnic, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe, lost their lives doing what they loved most. The tragedy of the shuttle challenger brought much pain to the nation that day. Along with the pain comes grieving. The nation grieved the loss of these seven wonderful individuals and hoped to find peace and comfort for the days to come. As Ronald Reagan prepared to give the state of the union address, things changed for worse, he unexpectedly had to give a speech on a horrific event. Reagan was devastated at the loss of the seven men and women that were on that space shuttle challenger.
On March 15, 1965 in Washington D.C ……..the courageous President Lyndon B. Johnson has delivered a legendary speech. It was called, “We shall overcome.” The speech came into conjunction, after the sad death of a black protester in Selma, Alabama. The protest was over black voting rights. Blacks were simply discriminated against voting rights on the basis of their skin color. Johnson’s aspiration for the “we shall overcome” speech, was to convince the congress, Americans, to pass his bill. This would be beneficial by enabling blacks to vote. Johnson is widely known for his effective use of ethos, logos, and pathos to engage the crowd.
Have you ever listened to a speech after a tragedy that was so good, that it affected you and even though something traumatic happened it helped you feel better? That indeed is a style of speaking called rhetoric. Rhetoric is the study of effective speaking and writing, and the art of persuasion. Many people are not able to speak and convey that art of rhetoric that helps with grief or sentiment. Today, I will show you an example of two different speeches delivered after tragedies, by two of our nation’s presidents. The first, President Obama’s address to the nation after Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting and the other Ronald Reagan’s address after The Space shuttle “Challenger” tragedy.
Contextual analysis is made up of three basic components; intended audience, setting and most importantly purpose. Authors often times consider and work each contextual piece into the construction of their given argument. An argument is not powerful if audience preference is not a main concern, if the setting isn’t taken into consideration, or if the purpose is not relevant to the current situation. On January 28th, 1986 the shuttle challenger exploded 73 seconds into its take off. President Ronald Reagan wrote a critical speech to address the tragedy that had struck our nation that day. It is highly evident in his address that kept audience, setting, and purpose in mind. He comforts a worried public using calm tone and simple yet effective diction to convince the American nation that it’s necessary to go on and continue the space program and ultimately the scientific revolution.
In 1981, former president Ronald Reagan was inaugurated into office and just a couple days ago current president Donald Trump was inaugurated into office. When a president is inaugurated into house, they generally give an inaugural speech about what they will and can do for America. In Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address, he shares his thoughts about America and plans to come. Using different literary devices Ronald Reagan characterizes America as a broken country but, by using hard work and effort, America can truly be great.
In 1987, the President of the United States at the time was Ronald Reagan. Everyone has their differing opinions when it comes to judging the quality of the job a President has done. There are many factors that cause biased opinions. Some of these include your political party affiliation, your viewpoint on the social matters that were going on at the time, and your economic standing. Despite all these varying viewpoints, people can agree upon one thing when it comes to Ronald Reagan. That one thing is that in 1987, when turmoil due to post-war political issues split Germany into two sides, Reagan made a speech that is known as “The Speech at Brandenburg Gate” that altered the course of history. His exalted rhetoric was highly touted at the
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...
What if there was a cure for cancer or a treatment for spinal injuries? Would you support the research? What if there was a way that you could repair damaged nerves. Some believe that stem cells may hold the answers to some of these questions. What are stem cells and why should you or I even care about them? Some believe that they are a miracle treatment waiting to happen while others believe that stem cells are highly immoral. Why does so much controversy surround the issue? Why is the conversation of stem cells feared by some and praised by others? To some stem cells are the medical hopes for the future, something for us to hang on to as we do battle with major diseases that include cancer, Parkston’s disease and spinal injuries. To others stem cell researchers are murderers who are trying to play God’s hand. A many have pledged their support to stem cell research including a few well known celebrities. Reeves’, who was best known for his role in the early Superman movies, and J. Fox two well-known celebrities, have pledged to stem cell research, both have created a private fund for the research of stem cells. This celebrity however has not swayed everyone to support stem cell researches cause. Just as there are supporters of stem cells there are those who believe that the use of stem cells is immoral. Since the first stem cells were separated there have been doctors, religious groups and even some political figure head have shown their opposition for stem cell research. Even with the knowledge and promise that stem cells show many of those who truly oppose stem cells have not changed their mind. The question is are their reasons good enough to halt the research of stem cell or are they just holding back what will soon be inevi...
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...
Are embryonic stem cells the cure to many of the human body’s ailments, including defective organs and crippling diseases, or is their use a blatant disregard of human rights and the value of life? Thanks to the rapid advancements in this field, the potential benefits of stem cells are slowly becoming a reality. However, embryonic stem cell research is an extremely divisive topic in the United States thanks to the ethical issues surrounding terminating embryos to harvest the stem cells. In response to this debate, Congress passed the Dickey-Wicker amendment in 1995 to prohibit federal funding of research that involved the destruction of embryos. President Bush affirmed this decision, but more recently, President Obama lifted many of these restrictions.
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.
Anderson, Ryan. "Stem Cells: A Political History." First Things. First Things, November, 2008. Web. 10 Feb 2012.