Rhetoric 3302 Questions

I found this to be a fascinating article. I also became extremely saddened and empathetic when reading about Bridget’s illness. When I read this, I do not possibly see how people can oppose stem cell research. I found the following quote extremely helpful, “"I just cannot equate a child living in a womb, with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with an embryo about to be taken from the freezer and which will be lawfully discarded if we don't use it." I also do not agree that murdering an unborn child is okay, but this baby has not developed yet, and to know the progress it will make in medical research is unbelievable. Imagine taking one embryo and being able to save your grandpa or grandma from Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, etc. If anyone has ever suffered from a family member with Alzheimer’s, they would know how detrimental this is to that person and their family. I cannot even begin to imagine the change this research could bring.

I do not have much to say about the following quote, I was just stunned by it. What decade/what century are we in!?!? “In December 2002, for example, Bush appointed Dr. W. David Hager to an FDA committee on reproductive drugs. Hager is not only ferociously opposed to therapeutic cloning but has been accused of refusing to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women; to women suffering from premenstrual syndrome, he counsels prayer and Bible reading.” Any woman could tell you that prayer and Bible reading is not gonna help PMSing.

An interesting article, though I thought it was filled with a lot of useless imagery (e.g., “Our Bible-totin' president, however, has stripped my infinitely resourceful cowgirl of her most promising protocols and forced her to ride sidesaddle on a stubborn Texas mule better equipped for wagon-train duty than galloping into the future”) and way too much babbling about the author’s daughter. As if the fact that the reader becomes emotionally familiar with *her* particular instance of chronic disease should sway the people who were thinking of the issue in general terms? Hearing about her daughter in specific should cause people to re-think fundamental views of the issue? Anyways, I think most opponents of stem cell research know or knew someone close to them who could have ‘benefited’ from such research. Yet they choose to oppose it anyways… it’s not such a simple issue that just being “awakened” to the suffering of one individual will make the choice clear.

Having said that, I think it can be characterized as an issue of two rights, each of which sacrifices the other… On one hand, you are maintaining a certain long-held, deeply rooted moral standard and preventing the ‘slippery slope’ if you oppose stem cell technology, but on the other, you are just using a cluster of cells to improve quality of life for thousands of people, many of them children. (Doesn’t it seem nobler if the potential beneficiaries are ‘innocent’ children rather than just adults?) Orrin Hatch takes a reasonable stance on the issue when he concludes that he "cannot equate a child living in a womb, with moving toes and fingers and a beating heart, with an embryo about to be taken from the freezer and which will be lawfully discarded if we don't use it." Is ravaging these embryos for our own purposes any morally worse than just tossing them into a dumpster somewhere?

If stem cells are utilized for medical reasons, at least the embryos won’t just “die in vain”… it seems a more noble sacrifice than simply tossing away the unwanted embryos. Who here, even the most stringent opponents to stem cell research, could honestly say with absolute certainty that they would turn down any an all medical procedures involving or even originally derived from the use of embryonic stem cells? Faced with imminent mortality, I think a lot of people *would* adjust their position on the issue, because when it comes down to it, every person has to value themselves over strangers (or embryos). I think a lot of people would pretend, for example, to be willing to leap in front of a bullet to save a child stranger’s life, but if the situation actually came up, I believe most people wouldn’t be willing to make such a sacrifice. Not even to save a dozen children whom they don’t know. Why then, should we believe that you would be willing to die (or live with severe, chronic health problems) to sort of save some embryos that will end up being discarded anyways? Say all you want about it, but if someone’s facing death, most are willing to compromise their moral positions.

I really injoyed reading this article because the illness that Bridgett had was so sadding and empathetic because of all the pain and suffering she had to go through to help her out. When I read this article it changed my mind on how I felt about stem cell research I found out that I really agree with stem cell research. The fact that there is a living thing inside the whom and they prevent people from killing them and using them to help people with disabilities and other disease that affect there health. I believe stem cell research will be good for the people with different diseases that can affect the human body. I just don't like the fact that they are killing an innpcent living creature or human being thats my only concern.

I relly don't have much to say about this reading I just thought that it was very interesting and very informative for people who don't know a lot about stem cell reaserch and were it is going in this world. I don't think that cloning should take place anywere if God intended us to have clones he would have made it possible years ago. I just don't think it is right to try to clone someone because there dead or there going to die it is like playing God in a sense to try to keep someone alive.

I don’t know about anyone else (but it seems some people generally agree), but I find it hard to care about a little ball of cells. As the article brought up, why should an embryo have special moral status? It doesn’t have any consciousness of its environment at all, as the article said, “the potential to become something (or someone) is hardly the same as being something (or someone). While it’s really hard to drawn the line at which this little ball of cells becomes a baby, it is what it is and for me, it’s a blob of cells that has potential, medical potential, that you can’t get anywhere else. How else are we supposed to replace neurons and repair tissue and nerves? While organ transplants work, they do kind of suck in the immune system sense, but if your new liver is made up of your “own” cells, your body won’t reject it. Stem cells are practically better than prayer, they can fix anything. My second point is that if the U.S. doesn’t let research continue on stem cells, someone else will. The article brought up the lab in Seoul, South Korea, overlooking the fact that those scientists lied about it all, it brings up another point. Bush can stop the U.S. but he can’t stop other countries. And let’s say the research makes a breakthrough and there are some new treatments. But wait a second, they’re all overseas. What is the U.S. going to do, steal that treatment or deny its citizens? Most people will agree that reproductive cloning is a bad idea. I can see how easy it is to tack on that bad title to therapeutic cloning as well. But to me, they are very different things.

One third of Europeans died because of the Black Death, and up to ninety percent of American Indians were killed by foreign diseases post Columbus. The world’s population has gone from two billion to six point three billion in the baby boomers generation. Half of prescription drugs are not needed in the US. We have altered the natural process of evolution. We already live in such a miraculous time, which defies our natural state. How can we be more excessive and gluttonous? It seems that humans are always left unhappy and unable to accept the current situation. The daughter of McManus was given life in her childhood by science, and now he is demanding that science gives her a full normal life span and lifestyle. Everyone’s life is full of sad stories, because the “bad” is one half of life. We must grow familiar with this side if life to truly be happy. We must accept death, sickness, love lost, hunger, and sorrow. Humans in today’s world have done all they could to eliminate these things from their life, until they just slap them in the face. Why can’t McManus focus on the miracle of his daughter being alive, instead of the scientific cure that does not yet exist? My father past away two years ago because of brain cancer, and I have learned these lessons the hard way but one cannot just focus on and favor the “positive” side of life because there is so much more. Death is beautiful and necessary, a pile of rubbish will soon become a beautiful flower, and a persons matter has existed since the beginning of time and will continue to exist until its end. Although the US could do more for medical research, it will never answer the larger questions of life, and will not create happiness only sort term solutions for probably only the rich in the Western world. The United States is so ignorant of the real world, famine, genocide, pestilence, and war that truly affects the US population is unknown by most of the population. When you live like this you fall extra hard, such as when sept. 11 happened everyone was emotionally messed up for months. We experienced the fear and pain of what most of the rest of the world experiences quite often. We need to accept these harsh facts of life and not continue to reinforce the fabricated safety bubble that surrounds the United States. Reality must be known and accepted, we don’t need our life expectancy to be raised, or more drugs, or advanced scientific technologies these things are just creating weak unnatural humans who focus on such frivolous things.

“Please Stand By While the Age of Miracles is Briefly Suspended”

Embryonic stem cell research is very controversial in the world today. Early stage embryos are used either for reproductive cloning or therapeutic cloning to advance the field of regenerative medicine. I think it is a positive for us to advance the field of regenerative medicine, but I’m not sure if harvesting stem cells is the right way to go. If we did, we can certainly cure many diseases, which is definitely good. Is using stem cells like taking a life? Are we killing “a living soon to be human being” for the sake of saving many other people from diseases? I don’t if we are necessarily taking a life, but I think stem cell research can save many people from such diseases out there. Does religion and politics play a role with stem cell research? People who are either pro-life or choice take on a major factor with this. Even though the president has denied any more research with stem cells, he hasn’t completely gotten rid of the rest of the line of stem cells. So, I think he is sending a message that we should control and work with what we have. If he didn’t want it at all, he could of denied everything including those other stem cell lines. Where do we draw the line between science and creation of life, or creation in general? Or even, who gets to draw that line? It mentioned that President Bush got to, but can he really? Who gave him the authority? Also, it mentioned that if they get stem cell research up and running to help cure diseases, those people who were opposed of it, will probably be the first in line to receive it. There can be many good outcomes with stem cell research, but it is still very controversial.

"Please Stand By": First and foremost- religion just stay away from our sciences. It is unfair, unjust and ethically WRONG to let a group of Christians dictate how our medical research should be conducted. I object. This country is supposed to be secular, supposed to be fair and just. Yet our President, playing directly into the hands of the conservative Christians, is pretty much halting the spread of research and knowledge into a field that could save millions of born and unborn Americans. Granted, the committee didn't ban stem cell research entirely, just limited the field to a few lines from 2001. It is now 5 years later, and what stem cell lines are left and not too old or brittle aren't helping to advance the research. If even Ronald Reagan (and his family), one of our most conservative presidents in the last century, are supportive, why shouldn't the rest of the GOP catch on too? Maybe we should give everyone opposed to stem cell research the diseases it is likely to cure. I bet 1 million dollars Congree and the President would instantly change their minds. But that would be cruel, and I don't want to sink to *their level*.
I will admit I am VERY passionate on this issue, and definately have an agenda, but who isn't. This is the new fad topic, because the conservative Christians in control of the GOP are pissed that abortion is still legal. I saw a great bumper sticker once: "If you aren't pro-choice, get a vasectomy!" These issues are about control. Men, and the patriarchal society, cannot STAND to be overruled or sidelined. The truth is... these issues should be decided by those to whom it will truly make a difference. People with diabetes, altzheimer's heart disease, etc. should be the ones to make the call. Not fat white men in Washington who care more about money or getting the conservative vote than they do about alreadly living human beings who are suffering. Where is the compassion?
And this: 'Nobel laureates—issued a statement that this administration repeatedly censors reports written by its own scientists, stacks its advisory councils, and disbands those offering unwanted advice. "Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices," the scientists wrote, "but not so systematically nor on so wide a front."' Wow, I'm sorry. I didn't realize we were in 1950s Soviet Union! I was pretty sure the USA allowed free exchange of information, especially where it concerns medical health and human life. My bad.

New Laws: I applaud the advancement of medicine. And to think, California has the governator! Important to note that this also bans cloning (which scares a lot of people), but allows for stem cell research. Yes, it is possible.

Please stand by: I think with any argumentative issue – you cannot accurately take a stand until you put yourself in the shoes of the other side. Therefore, it is hard for me decide because I dramatically sympathize with the author and the situation his daughter is in (diabetes runs in my family as well). And the use of stem cell research would dramatically help find a cure. I don’t understand why embryonic cells that are “pre-destined for disposal” would not be ‘eligible’ for scientific research. If it is between research and the dumpster – why not make use of them?

Religious Tolerance: Reading the overview section of this website really stunned me. “One source estimated that there were 400,000 stored embryos by mid-2003.” You’ve got to be kidding me! Also, I don’t understand how couples claim that “donating” their eggs using to another couple would be ‘too emotional’ for them –“so most ask that they be discarded.” Huh? How does that work? Wouldn’t seeing your potential offspring actually living be less emotionally straining than having them thrown away like garbage?

Please Stand Up...
I found this first article very interesting. However, I feel that the auther turned this article into a pity party for his daughter. Granted, I might feel different if myself or one of my family members was in this situation, but for tht time being, I don't. First of all, it is not like Bush completely banned this whole program. Instead, it will not be federally funded. Second of all, there is research showing that regular stem cells could be a cure for some things, but there is no substantial evidence that embrionic stell cells will hold a cure. McManus also talked about how Kass changed his mind about test tube babies after they turned out normal, and is likely to do the same with embrionic cell. But it is easy to look back and say "duh". I don't think McManus has the right to judge anyone making important decisions like Kass. And finaly, we might not be able to see a baby in these embryos, but it is definately a life. One of the Jewish leaders said that until the embryo was 40 days old it was not considered alive. Well then why shouldn't mothers be able to dispose of their babies up to 40 days after birth? The embryo is a baby, in a sence, and we should not be going around experimenting on them and killing them.
However, I do have one exception to this. As the Religious Tolerance web sight says, there are thousand of extra embryos in storage from couples undergoin invitro-fertilization. I think using these embryos would be better than just tossing them. However, I think cloning embryos for the purpose of studying should be illegal.

please stand by-
this was a really depressing story to read about, although i suppose the author's humor/sarcasm about the whole thing lightened it up a bit. i definately agreed with the author's argument though. again, its similar to the article from tuesday. i think that saving someone's life is a legitimate enough reason to clone an embryo. its bizarre to me that some scientific endeavors, such as the atomic bomb for instance, can seem so unethical and wrong, yet are embraced and utilized by the government, yet something which could potentially save millions of lives is panned. i guess i don't really buy into the array of conspiracy theories floating around about generations of clones rising up and taking over the world. it seems to me that that stance on the issue is a really unintelligently derived scare tactic. but anyways, i believe that as long as it is being used to help people survive who otherwise couldn't, it seems like a good option.

Please Stand By: I thought this article was really interesting. I think that it is alright that stem cell research is conducted. I think that there is a real problem with overpopulation, and that there shouldn't be the argument that those cells would be children. There is many cases when babies miscarry or when insemination doesn't work. I am not saying that there should be all embryos should be used in research. I think that all the extra embryos that are in fertility clinics should be used as stem cell research instead of throwing them away. I don't agree with the idea of cloning for research. I think that the clone will still be a person and shouldn't be tested on.

Please Stand By -
This article was insightful as to the debates and actions that have taken place over stem cell research, but I found it rather biased and lacking some information regarding stem cell research itself. However, I definitely argree with the author's arguments that it is foolish for the government to deny that this research is the next stepping stone in human evolution and human nature. I thought the final paragraph, which spoke of President Lincoln making a decision based on what he thought would be the wise and correct decision, was an excellent way to illustrate the way the government of America should be headed. Not by a man who is bringing his own religious agenda into the picture, and hiring men for his council that share his beliefs, to assure that no other course of action is taken. With all the postitive potential that stem cell research has to offer, it's hard to believe that someone can reject it, especially a man making a biased decision for a whole nation, and potentially, the entire world.

Intuitively, I feel that a blastocyst is not human being. Maybe it could become one, but at this astonishingly early stage in development, it’s hard to argue that it has anything more than potential. And it definitely does have the potential to develop into a human being. . . but what does that really mean? Do we treat a two year old as a virtuoso violinist because he may have the potential to become one? (No, he’s a two year old.) Isn’t the quality that makes us human something more than mere potential and DNA? More importantly, why should we put the “rights” of a 100 cell, “potential” human over the existing suffering of a indisputably alive, thinking, indisputably human person who could be cured by the knowledge stem cell research could provide?

Side note: the “Wisdom of Repugnance” idea seems to me to be an exceptionally poor method of forming ethical judgments in this context, and I’m astonished that it has any place whatsoever in a decision making panel like this. Sure, rape, murder and incest all feel instinctively bad to us. But how much of that is culturally engrained? In past times, one might have felt this same deep, instinctive disgust at, say, the prospect of inter-racial marriage. The “wisdom of repugnance” test isn’t an indicator of deep ethical insight, it’s a reflection of your current cultural conditioning.