Taking Sides: Clashing views in health and society, 9th edition
Issue #8
Should Embryonic Stem Cell Research be Permitted?
1. Professor Jeffrey Hart says Yes to the magazine and issue at hand, contending there are many benefits to stem cell research. He states that a ban on funded cloning research is unjustified.
2. Writer, Ramesh Ponnuru says No by arguing that a single-celled human embryo is a living organism that directs it's own development and should not be used for experimentation.
3. Each of their opinions in the text are based purely on theory IF embryonic stem cell research SHOULD be permitted; Not what will happen, or what the results will be.
4. Yes: Jeffrey Hart states that humans are destroyed all the time and such '"mass homicide"' arouses no public outcry. He also brings up the fact that about 100,000 fertilized cells are frozen in maternity clinics. These cells are zygotes, not human beings.
No: Ramesh Ponnuru states that it is impossible to identify a non-arbitrary point in which there is "enough" sentience or meaningful interaction to confer a right to life. Embryonic cells look exactly like human beings when viewed under a microscope.
5. Yes: Hart believes Ponnuru's opinion of a single-fertilized cell being a human being and that destroying one's homicide is not sustainable. "A potential child is not yet a human being," he states.
No: Ponnuru believes that single-celled human embryos are human beings and thinks the humanitarian goal of the research justifies the means altogether. "Apple seeds are not a grove of trees. An infant is not an adult, either, just a potential adult; but that doesn't mean you can just kill it." -Ponnuru
6. Hart only wants you to see the pro's off all the 'yes' editorial he states. He also relates the research to theoretical perfect catholic mortality (as Bozell demanded). He makes a very close-minded statement saying, "I have never heard a single cytologist affirming the proposition that a single-cell is a 'human being'; actuality will prevail, as usual." How short can you be?
7. Ponnuru builds his argument and response off Hart's article. He simply provides us with facts explaining why Hart is wrong with some theories and where he is right also. He needs his own ideas and to build off of them to form his own theories. He brings up a lot of bias subjects including religion, personal beliefs and views.
8. I enjoyed reading Ramesh Ponnuru's argument on the 'NO' side because of his attention to such detail with his research. He expresses agreement with some of Hart's opinions and facts, yet explains where is is wrong, also. There is nothing more that I respect than people who admit when they are wrong and encourage those they know are right.
9. The main bias that I am worried could be involved is personal bias. Whether it be personal experience, past knowledge, friend/family related, it doesn't matter. Also, work-related bias could fit in from opposing/rival theories. People build their personal opinions off of facts and other opinions/experiences. Each writer could be bias about their text in all actuality. Hart follows politics and logistics while Ponnuru is a feelings-based writer. He likes to focus on emotion rather than politics.
10. Yes: I really believe that human beings are not truly coherent enough to be offended at such premature stages of embryonic stem cells. If the "being" is ready to be born with all developed organs, then that is a whole different story. I feel that if this research and testing will help advance our medicine and expand our knowledge to help others, then I am all for it. But then again, at the same time, maybe we shouldn't and help overpopulation issues?
