Stem Cell Research Pros And Cons

Stem cell research has been a huge controversial topic for many years and will most likely remain controversial for many more. There are two main sides of this argument; one group believes that the medical benefits of stem cell research outweigh the moral cost and the other group believes that any and all forms of life are invaluable. My personal belief lies somewhere in between the two. I was raised in a Catholic family, so a part of me sides with the religious group that values all forms of life. But on the other hand, I also see how many lives could be saved or improved from embryonic research. It is because of my varying beliefs on this issue that I researched the question: Do the medical advantages of stem cell research exceed the moral

It does, however, contain the bias of the author. Holt gives her opinion on abortion and Planned Parenthood. “Perhaps this is why it was difficult to hear Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood's senior director of medical services, discuss the organs of aborted fetuses so casually…” (emphasis added). Holt uses words like “casually” and “her callous tone” to portray her dislike for Planned Parenthood. “Still, even with our preparations, justifications and the sheer excitement that accompanied our research, the fetal cells brought sadness. We wished we didn't have them, despite the breakthroughs.” This shows Holt’s strong opinion against abortions no matter what the scientific gain is. The article concluded with the statement, “Researchers have no say in whether a fetus is aborted or develops into a human baby; those decisions are made by women and shaped by politicians. Yet their science, performed on discarded tissue, has the ability to save lives.” This removes some of the author’s bias and returns the attention to stem cell research as a

It was about a document created by Catholic bishops and was found on a Catholic news website, so it contained very biased views. It portrayed the views of the opposing argument in a condescending way and made little effort to show the reader the full views of the opposition. The opposition was presented as, “a week-old embryo is ‘too small, immature or undeveloped to be considered a human life.’” (emphasis added). By doing this, the article created a very strong persuasive argument with a right versus wrong structure. The article also used the comparison of one worldly wrong to the acceptance of stem cell research. For example, “Our society does not permit lethal experiments on terminally ill patients or condemned prisoners on the pretext that they will soon die anyway.” The source used many different persuasive techniques to create a strong argument which explained the topic well, but it lacked an unbiased perspective.

I found this source to be very eye opening because it put a completely different light on stem cell research. The article brought up several points that I hadn’t considered before and it definitely influenced my view on the use of embryos for research. When reading the article, I was persuaded by the logic found in the supporting points of the argument. I had previously approved of stem cell research because of the obvious, logical medical benefits, but I have