Analyzing Context

Tagle, Eduardo. " Debate Anatel 2010." 1/11/2010 via wikipedia. CCO Public Domain. 

In this blog post I will be going into more depth about the topic that I am arguing about. This topic would be stem cell research. I not only have to look at my side of the argument, but the opposing side as well and be able to produce counterarguments.

1) What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?

There are two very clear sides to this argument: those for the evolution of stem cell research and those against stem cell research all together. Those who are against stem cell research are more against the use of stem cells for other purposes. This controversy mostly comes out of the use of embryonic stem cells. By using them stem cells for research, you are essentially eliminating all chances of the embryonic stem cell every producing life.

By taking the stem cells out of the embryo, the researcher would have to break through the outer layer of the embryo, therefore killing the likelihood of it becoming a baby. There are regulations put on how much can be done with embryonic stem cells. There is always controversy about when life starts. Those who believe it starts at conception sees this kind of research is taking away a life that has the right to live. But the opportunities these cells hold is enormous.

Then there is the group that is willing to take these risks in order to save the lives that are already in existence. The benefits of the research into these cells seem to be enormous. There is a lot of potential with cells that can transform into any other kind of cell. The embryonic stem cells are primarily used for research to cure neurological diseases.

Here is a link talking more about stem cells and the controversy.

2) What are the major points of contention or major disagreement among these perspectives?

The major point of controversy in this issue is the potential life these embryonic cells can have if they were not experimented on. There is also the issue that the cells used to create life should not be experimented on. Science should not go that far. Human life is sacred and should not be put in a petri dish and broken apart. People are also against the cloning of embryonic stem cells.

3) What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?

Both sides can see that the research may hold good outcomes, but one side is not willing to let embryonic stem cells be used for such experiments. Human life is sacred and using the thing that creates life to experiment with is out of some people's code of ethics.

4) What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?

People who are for the advancement of stem cell research are able to see the scientific advancements of it over the actual harm of using the stem cells. The embryonic stem cells that are being used for these experiments are either donated when frozen embryonic stem cells are left over from In Vitro Fertilization treatment, or they can be created in a lab. Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they are not religious, it just means that their religious ideologies are different than those who disapprove of the stem cell research. These religious views might be a bit more conservative and that is why they feel so strongly about this issue.

This link tells more about the views of the different sides and the politics behind it as well.

5) What specific actions do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?

Many people's call to action has to do with government involvement. Many people advocate to push the government to approve more on stem cell research. Those who are advocating the saving of lives through the elimination of stem cell research advocate their representatives to not support the expansion of stem cell research. The stem cell still has the potential of being fertilized and creating life. This is not something science should mess with.

Those who are for stem cell research advocate the advancement of medicine and proclaim that advocating for the advancement of stem cell research will help bring cures to some of the world's worse diseases, whether they be genetic or degenerative. These diseases have been puzzling scientists for quite some time. This could lead to a new hope  for those battling life threatening diseases. It leads people to become aware of the struggles that they are going through and the benefits that come out of advocating for stem cell research.

6) What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?

I support the advocation of stem cell research. I feel that this research can lead to new medical breakthroughs that we would not have been able to come up with otherwise. It will lead to help saving lives. Taking the role as a future doctor, it shows that I have the best interests at heart. I want to see us saving as many lives as possible. advocating for stem cell research can help bring life saving opportunity to many Americans, as well as those is other parts of the world. Also as someone coming out of school in 4 to 8 years, breakthroughs in this type of research can lead to new job opportunities and different methods of helping people.

7) What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?

This argument has to be appealed ethically since it is the ethical appeal that people are most concerned about. This involves conveying to the audience that I am ethically stable and that I can relate to both the more conservative audience as well as the science based audience. I am a religious person as I have grown up with a Catholic mother who has taken me to church and has gotten me involved in the church. Even with this tie to faith I still believe that the life saving potential of this research is too important to pass up on the hope that the little embryonic stem cell will have the opportunity to create life.

Reflection:

After reading through Michael's and Alex's blog post, I know that I have to really know what I want to argue, not just a general idea that stem cell research is good, but what part of it is good and even bring up a particular instance that stem cell research can help. The more specific you are about the argument, the ore the reader can hopefully understand your argument and have less opportunity to form a counter argument.