Issue 8- Should Embryonic Stem Cell Research Be Permitted?

Giselle Martinez

Human Biol. 1090

Taking Sides Analysis

Issue 8- Should Embryonic Stem Cell Research Be Permitted?

Should Embryonic Stem Cell research Be Permitted?

Issue 8

“NR on Stem Cells: The Magazine Is Wrong” by Jeffrey Hart, claims that a single fertilized embryonic stem cells are not humans and it should be permitted to do research on. He believes that we need to recognize the benefit it brings to us by learning about stem cells.

Ramesh Ponnuru, the author of “NR on Stem Cell: The Magazine is Right” , claims that he approves of research on stem cells taken from adult somatic cells or from umbilical cords but opposes stem-cell research only when obtaining those cells destroys embryonic human beings, whether those beings are created through cloning, in vitro fertilization, or the old-fashion way.

Although Jeffrey Hart has made very clear points about what he thinks in “NR on Stem Cells: The Magazine is Wrong,” he has made several fallacies of question-framing throughout his text. For example, he mentioned that the researcher’s goal is not to homicide but find the possible cure of a dreadful disease. He’s talking like if nobody thinks it’s a homicide while dealing with stem cells. But some people do believe its killing a “human being” and he should take that in consideration. Author Ramesh Ponnuru in the article “NR on stem cells: The Magazine is Right” has several of fallacies of question-framing as well in his text. For insteance, when he asked the question, “What would American law have had to say about an embryo in 1826, or for that matter, in 1952?” He could have made his question a little more fair by saying, “Maybe in 1826, an embryo wasn’t a concern because stem cell research didn’t take place then, but now, we can learn something about it.”

One of the facts presented by Jeffrey Hart in the article “NR on Stem Cell: The Magazine is Wrong,”was that a zygote grows into hundred-cell organism, about the size of a pinhead, are called “blastocyst.” The second fact that he stated was that former President Bush stated that 60 lines of stem cells that already exist are adequate for current research. This true because the lines of stem cells that were already taken place before the cut happened, are still doing research on stem cells today. It’s approved by the government. Some facts presented in the article, “NR on Stem Cell: The magazine is Right” by Ramesh Ponnuru are 1) that the American law has never treated the single-celled embryo as a human being. It is not written in the American law. 2) The National Review approves of research on stem cells taken from adult somatic cells or from umbilical cords.

Opinions presented by Jeffrey Hart, for stem cell research, 1) that he has never met anyone who bites into an apple, gases upon the seeds, and sees a grave of apple trees. It’s an opinion because I’m sure he hasn’t asked everyone he knows if they have every imaged that. 2) He believes that a stem cell is not potential child or human being. It’s an opinion because some people think differently and might consider a stem cell a human being like Ramesh Ponnuru. The first opinion presented by Ramesh Ponnuru, against stem cell research, is that a single-celled human embryo is neither dead nor inanimate. It’s an opinion because neither of those are proven yet. Ramesh second opinion was that the foundation of human equality is destroyed as soon as we suggest that privet actors may treat some members of the human species as though they were mere things. It’s on opinion because not everyone thinks that way.

Fallacies made by Jeffrey Hart for the yes side on stem cell research, were 1) He mentioned that no wonder there hasn’t been no outcry on vitro fertilization that is accepted by women who can not have children naturally. I know not everyone approves of vitro fertilization and I’m sure there has been many protest against it. And also, he over simplified that statement. 2) In his conclusion, he stated that, “Weak in theory, and irrelevant in practice, opposition to stem-cell research is now an irrelevant across the board; on this matter, even the president has made himself irrelevant. “Just because the president opposed to stem cell research, it doesn’t make him irrelevant. He used name calling. 3) He stated, “Even with the naked eye is aided by a microscope, these cells, zygotes do not look like human beings.” I don’t believe that just because it doesn’t look like a human being that it’s not a human being. Some fallacies made by Ramesh Ponnuru on the no side on stem cell research, were, 1) heresponded to Jeffrey Hart statement about how embryos die naturally, and stated, ”Infant’s mortality rate have been high in some societies; old people die all the time. That doesn’t mean it is permissible to kill infants or old people.” He shouldn’t have used the word infants but instead embryos. Because an embryo is not an infant. His mixing up different developmental levels. It makes one think that a stem cell is really an infants.

All in all, the author that impressed me as being the most empirical in presenting his thesis was Ramesh Ponnuru because he explained exactly what he wanted from the government and what he believed was right and wrong. He gave good examples about what he thought and has gone through. It seems to me that he cared so much about stem cells that he is not going to give up until they stop or find a way to compromise. He believes that stem cells are human beings and should not be used for research. I liked that he acknowledge opposite side point of view.

I believe there are reasons to believe both of the authors might be biased because both of them are either for or against stem cell research. They both want something in return. Jerey wants to find out how to make sick humans get healthy again and Ramesh wants to protect these soon-to-be human beings from getting killed. If neither of the authors had a purpose besides writing their text and just wanted to be informative, then they might have not been biases.

I feel that the no side by Ramesh Ponnuru is most correct now that I have reviewed the material in both articles because I believe that an embryonic stem cells is a stage development of a human being. I believe that it’s a living organism and it doesn’t matter if it looks or doesn’t look like human being. I also believe if there are other ways to get research of stem cells, then why not find them that way. If there are other ways that won’t harm a potential human, then way not do it the save way. If they can get stem cells out of umbilical cords, then everyone will benefit from that. There won’t be any killing potential human beings and there would be research to help the sick people.