Stem cell arguments essay

These are the main intriguing factors and are the reason for the stalemate between the sides.

The main aspect, that makes this debate so controversial, is the fact that there is very little common knowledge about the potential of this research. This brings us to the main questions asked when one is looking into stem cell research. How can legalizing this research worldwide benefit humans, and is the risk greater than the reward? Since the potential of this study is unknown to most people, there is a great push against the research. To these many who do not know, stem cells are the materials that make all bodies mature, ND give rise to brain cells, nerve cells, heart cells, pancreatic cells.

Which in simpler terms means that stem cells can repair broken or damaged tissue. A misunderstood concept of stem cell research is that embryonic is the only type. Most people around the world do not know that there are actually two types of stem cells. The first, that is common and most controversial today, is Embryonic (also called “ plenteous”). These stem cells are capable of developing into all cell types of the body. The controversial part about this research is that it involves taking cells from an embryo, in which pro life advocates see as detrimental to society.

The second type that has just been recently found is adult stem cells. These cells do not have universal application and more difficult to identify. The thing that is so great about these cells is that they can replace damaged and destroyed tissue. Using these cells, we have the potential to replace diseased cells and cure many illnesses like Alchemist’s.

Even knowing a possible potential of this research there are many who see the risks of it to be to greater. That is why the future of this research is unknown and no one has any idea of which direction it may dead. Sheerer, Rep.

Ben. “ Is stem cell research a good option?. ” Daily Times, The (Prior, K) 8 Gauge. 201 1 , opinion: Newsweek. Web.

4 NOVO. 201 1. This is an article taken from a community newspaper called the Prior Daily Times. The author is State Representative Ben Sheerer, who focuses on the positives of Stem cell research and what the impact it can make on the medical field to benefit all. He first begins on saying that he alone does not make his judgments in office.

Rather he has help from various friends that are experts on the matter he needs knowledge on. In this, he uses the knowledge of his allow legislator Dry. Cox who is an expert and supporter of stem cell research. Dry. Cox exposes stem cell research for what it really is, and not as a bunch of people killing babies for cells.

He points out that most people are not educated on the topic and do not see that most of the embryos used, are not even at the fetus stage. They do not have any nerves or feeling and are only the size off period. He shows all the opposition to the research that there really is no reason to be against it. He does this by saying there are around 400, 000 embryos that are discarded a year. Why can’t these be used to better our understanding of diseases in effort for a cure? Throughout the article Ben Sheerer uses many rhetorical devices to appeal to his audience. In the first paragraph he appeals to ethos right away.

He does this by stating that he interviewed a “ well respected and trusted medical professional” that knows many things of stem cell research. This establishes credibility for the reader. The second student declared, “ The intentional killing of human embryos is indeed the moral equivalent of abortion. ” The main point he tries to get across in this excerpt is that, “ We cannot kill some people for the benefit of others and pep our moral bearings. ” In these two statements the students use emotional and logical appeals to connect to the reader.

One way these two do this is by personifying a zygote. By adding traits, and making a zygote seem almost alive, will transform the readers thought of a zygote into a unique person. This can alter the readers view on the subject and establish a connection between the author and reader. The students are trying to make the reader think that their argument is not an outrageous one.

These students also do a good job in relating to the reader. The first student is raying to relate to the people who support stem cells by saying that she wants to be looked at as reasonable and not as a fanatic. Another way the second student connects to the readers is the way he puts abortion and intentional killing of stem cells together. By putting murder in there he creates an emotional appeal to the audience. The writer is telling the audience that if he supports this he also supports murder. This appeal is very dangerous because it can scare away some readers, but it can also enhance the connection for some readers who agree. The audience is mostly the representatives voting on this. They both try to reach out to them with emotional appeals to get them to see the bad of what stem cell research entails.

Both of these appeals connect with the reader and were very effective attention getters. “ Educating legislators on stem cell research. ” Daily Times, The (Prior, K) 21 Feb.. 011, Opinion: Newsweek. Web. 8 Novo. 2011.

This recent article was taken from an Oklahoma newspaper with no name for an author. The authors main purpose throughout this article is to make people see the differentiation of abortion and stem cell research. Many people who are uneducated on this subject believe that abortion and stem ells go hand in hand. This author makes the argument that abortion occurs in a human body, while the embryos for Stem cells are created in a Petri dish. The author says that over half of the embryos are donated for research purposes and will be discarded otherwise.

Why let an embryo go to waste when it could benefit humans? The authors’ main claim is that stem cell research is really a big misunderstanding. Many people who take a side on this really do not understand that the lesser part of this research is producing an embryo for research. The embryos that are used are for the most part, notated to the research. The way the author connects to the reader in this article is by ethos. The author does this by stating facts and giving the reader percentages and numbers. He makes himself as a credible source, which is sometimes hard to do. An example of how he relates to the reader is in his conclusion, where he says, “ l respect the values of those that oppose embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds, but many see it as a pro-life position because this research has the potential to alleviate the suffering of thousands of people.

” The author relates to both sides by saying this, and he test his argument across effectively without scaring the opposing side away. “ Stem cell research ban advances; hollow rhetoric wins out. ” Daily Redecorate, The (Aerodrome, K) AD Mar. 2011, opinions: AAA. Newsman. Web.

8 Novo. 2011. In this article from a newspaper from Tulsa, Oklahoma, the title explains it all. The author, whom is unnamed, is expressing his feelings about the latest bill that inevitably passed in a chiefly pro life Oklahoma.

This bill literally had no opposition as it passed with an 86-8 margin. The author expresses his disdain for the representatives of Oklahoma and their inability to come up tit a valid reason of why Stem cell research should be banned. He continuously rips the representatives for the reasons they state. The embryos used for stem cell research are usually already going to be discarded, so why not use them to better our understanding to eventually get cures for disease. The representatives think that by permitting it that they are going to harm an innocent life.

On the contrary, these embryos are pretty much worthless and are discarded because they cannot hold life. The authors main point is what life are they trying to preserve? There are many efferent rhetorical strategies used in this article to get that point across. The author is mainly appealing to the reader’s logos. One point where he appeals to his readers’ logic by saying, “ They also failed to point out that before they’re ultimately destroyed, these embryos could play a valuable role in alleviating the suffering of an untold number of human beings. ” This makes that representatives argument look very foolish as if there is no point to it. Using this device, he will make the reader feel like there is no support to their argument, in which it would make no sense to ban stem cells.

He uses egos frequently throughout the article taking jabs at the representative’s views. He questions them on how it makes sense to preserve a life that will not live anyway. He knows by doing this that even uneducated people will draw the conclusion that, These discarded embryos could be doing so much better finding cures than just being flat out destroyed. The authors’ use of logos makes the connection between the reader and author strong. In the topic of stem cell research it is very easy to have opposing views.

They’re many different reasons on why one can be for or against. Whether it is morals or a religious view. These articles arguments were all very effective to the reader. Just like the debates going on, these articles have very opposing views and they both made different appeals to the reader. The most commonly used rhetoric devices were pathos and logos. In the pro stem cell argument, many logos appeals were used to try and defeat the other side. The logic appeals were the most effective in the articles.

The reason for that is logic is the best way to relate to the reader. The way the authors used logos in the articles were to make the opposition seem as if they had support for their argument. By jabbing at the other side with logos it made the reader think that there is no reason to be against. In the pro-life argument, the most frequent rhetorical device used was pathos.

Their argument got across by using emotional appeals to the reader. They connected with the reader by using strong phrases and stories that would make them question their own beliefs. One of the most powerful pathos statements was in the third article. The author brought up the topic of murder, which could make the reader think twice about their stance.

All in all, these authors used very effective rhetorical devices to connect to the reader.