The Misleading Debate On Stem-cell Research

The Misleading Debate On Stem-cell Research

Mona Charen’s essay is based on values and is a deductive argument. She infers that any stem cell research is wrong because it crosses the moral line of killing human embryos for research. Her argument is emotional and based on her own personal values. As a reader I am not swayed by her opinion because of the words she has decided to use, which make her seem untrustworthy as a source for real information. At least five times in her short essay she refers to “morals” and uses words like “kill” words that make me feel like she is attacking a person’s moral beliefs if they differ from hers.

A fallacy – In a society that truly honored each human life, that Fertility clinics and couples who use them would understand the moral obligation not to create more embryos than they can reasonably expect to transfer to the mother’s uterus. This statement is an assumption, there is not hard fact to back it up and is based on her personal viewpoint. There is no way of knowing whether couples would feel morally obligated to produce only a certain amount of embryos. She talks about how adoption of embryos with infertile couples is already a widespread practice but doesn’t give any specifics on how that’s worked out. What percentages are successful? She doesn’t provide any support for this piece of information.

Another statement that seemed misleading is when she says that spinal nerves for a paraplegic many not be possible to do from embryonic stem cells because scientist or unable to grow stem cells into endoderm (cells that make up the liver, stomach and pancreas) with this statement she seems to invalidate the whole process of stem cell research completely. Implying that if scientist can’t do that then maybe it’ just not worth it.

I would find her argument more compelling if she’d presented more specific data that really challenged my opinion instead of presenting an argument based on so much emotion.