Embryonic Stem Cell Critical Analysis Forms
Critical Analysis Forms
Fill out one form for each source.
SEARCH TOPIC: stem cell research
Source 1 Title and Citation: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Not Ethical
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Not Ethical. Dennis P. Hollinger. At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Ed. Maurya Siedler. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: utilitarianism and appeals to compassion on the issue of embryonic stem cell research are dangerous and problematic. The author is suggesting that utilitarianism and appeals to compassion should be avoided.
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. …show more content…
The author is bias. For example, the author stated, "Utilitarianism and appeals to compassion, so prominent in contemporary American culture, are dangerous. Instead of following God's directives, humans are relying on their subjective and emotional responses to make important decisions about stem cell research."
The author is against stem cell research.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous.
If none exist, explain how you determined this.
In the author's bias remark I pointed out in comment #2 (previous to this comment), the author makes a vague statement, " Instead of following God's directives," the author did not elaborate on what God's directives are in the entire publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
I fine the source credible because he is defining utilitarianism & virtue of compassion from a Christian perspective. Also, his definition of utilitarianism & virtue of compassion are similar to other sources. In addition, the author is a professor of Christian Ethics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, and serves as an adjunct professor in the bioethics program at Trinity International University.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. The author make's a statement which is a bit too extravagant, " compassion will lead us to the abyss of moral nihilism." Hyperbole.
Another example the author stated, "..spiritualistic naturalism functions without recourse to moral and worldview givens, seeking instead experiences that engender a sense of spirituality with minimal content, essence, and direction." Here, the author is downplaying spiritualistic …show more content…
naturalism.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do admit that fallacies' were hard to pick up in the publication. However, I notice that the author's primary concern about his oppositions only used a utilitarian theory. I noticed that his arguments on utilitarianism and virtue of companion where very similar. In other words, I can argue that a major point can be that an embryo is not a person which I know is a popular argument. I think the author may have narrowed his major points to much. Thus, committing a False dilemma.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, " regarding compassion as the moral trump card is problematic."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: "when set apart from the moral givens of a loving, gracious Creator", Conclusion: "compassion will lead us to the abyss of moral nihilism." Premise: "
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I think that the argument is invalid because its claim is vague, and lacks evidence because the argument of God, or Gods are controversial and unproven.
In regard to its conclusion, it implies that compassion will lead us to loose all our moral values if we do not include a "gracious Creator" in the equation. This aspect is controversial and unproven.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
The author employs Devine Command Theory which defined by Wikipedia (2007), "is the meta ethical theory that moral values are whatever is commanded by God or the gods." I know this because the author stated, "Instead of following God's directives," which suggests the theory. Thus, the author uses moral reasoning.
SEARCH TOPIC: stem cell research
Source 2 Title and Citation: Tong, Rosemary. "Stem-cell research and the affirmation of life."
Conscience. 28. 3 (Autumn 2007): 19(5). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale.
Apollo Group. 21 Nov. 2007
.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: embryonic gonadal (EG) stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell (ES) research are we handling the issue morally and logically reasonably in respect to the "affirmation of life"?
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "They will claim that to destroy an embryo, even for a good purpose such as curing Alzheimer's disease, is as wrong as killing an adult so that his or her organs can be distributed to six or seven other adults who might otherwise die. But is the wrong done in both these cases really of the same kind and magnitude? I think not." The author clearly demonstrated a bias in the last sentence by disagreeing with the magnitude of wrongs depicted in the example.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " the president will go ballistic before he pulls out his veto pen." I can interpret the statement differently in regard to the president reactions to a new SCNT bill.
Does it imply that the president will go crazy, or shoot bullets at the congress or shoot himself, or get angry?
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I find that the source is credible. The author's findings and explanations are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " the president will go ballistic before he pulls out his veto pen." I believe that the author used a bit of ridicule/sarcasm in the statement. The statement is making some implications about the president which can other wise be omitted from the publication without changing the meaning of the issue at hand. Or, at least because of its ambiguity, that's how it has come across to me.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "But is the wrong done in both these cases really of the same kind and magnitude? I think not." I think that the author is drawing a line on an issue that is clearly problematic. Line-drawing
fallacy.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "But what about EG cells from therapeutic abortions--abortions that must be performed to save the mother's life? Are not these abortions more like spontaneous abortions than elective abortions in intent?" The author is putting fort an argument of similarity between therapeutic abortionsabortions and spontaneous abortions.
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
The author stated, "Chances are that a woman who has to undergo a therapeutic abortion does not want to terminate her pregnancy any more than a woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage." The author is making an argument based on deductive logical reasoning.
The author stated, "Why, then, should it not be morally permissible to use EG cells from the former's aborted fetus?" By making this statement the author suggests her conclusion which is that therapeutic abortions should be treated as or that it is similar to spontaneous miscarriages.
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I think that the argument is strong but inconclusive because the claim is not completely sound. A woman can still be in need of a therapeutic abortion; however, that same woman may still welcome the abortion. In this sense, the argument can seem neutral,
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
Yes, I believe that the author uses moral reasoning. The author is concerned about the affirmation of life. She seems to believe that stem cell research, in general, is problematic, however, that the research should be used for good especially when we have the uncertain futures of frozen embryos that is slowly dying.
SEARCH TOPIC: religion and science
Source 3 Title and Citation: Jeffery L. Sheler, "Heaven in the Age of Reason: New Science Suggests a 'Grand Design' and Ways to Imagine Eternity," U.S. News & World Report, vol. 122, March 31, 1997, p. 65. Copyright © 1997 by U.S. News and World Report, LP. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: "Does science suggests an afterlife?
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
In the publication, the author does not question the claim that science also does not suggest an afterlife which suggests that the author is bias for science suggesting religion.
The author makes example like this, the author stated, "Should believers expect to see alabaster houses and gold-paved streets in heaven? Biblical scholars treat those images as vibrantly metaphorical." I believe that the author is bias for science suggesting an afterlife by ignoring the possibility that some Biblical scholars may not agree with such a claim, or at least they may have a different opinion.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not find instances where the author was ambiguous or vague. He did not leave sentences or phrases unexplained. In other words, I fine that the author was specific in the publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I believe that the source is credible. His understanding of the theories and concepts are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not think that the author used any rhetorical devices in the publication. The author seems to have respect for science and religion. He is not trying to downplay, or undermine each topic in the publication.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, ""Should believers expect to see alabaster houses and gold-paved streets in heaven? Biblical scholars treat those images as vibrantly metaphorical." The author commits a fallacy of Grammatical Analogy by speaking for an entire group of people.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "In a society where science and religion flourish side by side, then, remaining open to the idea of the afterlife seems a reasonable posture."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
The author's premise: "In a society where science and religion flourish side by side."
The author's conclusion: "then, remaining open to the idea of the afterlife seems a reasonable posture."
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
The author's made an in inductive argument. I think that it is safe to say that science and religion are flourishing side by side in the U.S. Therefore, the argument is strong.
However, the author's conclusion is problematic. The author is sort of speaking for an entire group of people again. Scientist and others do not have to remain reasonably open to the idea of the afterlife just because the topics exist in the same society.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
I do not think that the author uses moral reasoning in the publication. The topic at hand, "science suggest an afterlife" is not a moral issue.
SEARCH TOPIC: religion and science
Source 4 Title and Citation:
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue: "Religion should interfere in bioethics."
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, ""[The] blind acceptance of mixing ethics and medical science with religion is unacceptable, and it has got to stop." The author is clearly against religion influencing bioethics. The author makes a statement: "it has got to stop"
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not find instances where the author was ambiguous or vague. He did not leave sentences or phrases unexplained. In other words, I fine that the author was specific in the publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I believe that the source is credible. His understanding of the events are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "thanks to the efforts of President Bush and his fourth-century stance on reproductive rights," - Rhetorical analogies, definitions, and explanations
Another example, "Since God has supposedly endowed us with the ultimate moral rulebook." - Rhetorical analogies, definitions, and explanations
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " Further, says Kass, "I've come to treasure the biblical strand of our Western tradition more than the strand that flows from Athens." So it's no surprise that his particular approach to bioethics betrays an adherence to long-standing Abrahamic [biblical] injunctions " - The author commits an Genetic fallacythinking that the origin or history of a belief refutes it.
The author stated, " it is most certainly in the best interest of religious conservatives to interfere with scientific advancement to keep the veils of ignorance high and the taboos firmly rooted." - The author commits a fallacy of Grammatical Analogy by speaking for an entire group of people. In addition, in terms of the statements argument, the author commits the Begging the question fallacyassuming as true the claim that is at issue and doing this as if you were giving an argument
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "Uninterested in reevaluating ethics and morality in the face of scientific progress, religious conservatives tend to defer to scripture for moral and existential authority. The Bible is treated as a portal into everything we need to know about anythingend of discussion. Thus, ethical guidelines that arise from scripture tend to take on the form of absolutism."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: "religious conservatives tend to defer to scripture for moral and existential authority. The Bible is treated as a portal into everything we need to know about anything "
Conclusion: "Thus, ethical guidelines that arise from scripture tend to take on the form of absolutism."
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I believe that the author could be exaggerating religious conservatives. The author is also claiming that the entire group of religious conservatives reacts this way. I believe that if the author quoted scripture from the Bible, it would have made the argument stronger. Christians do claim that the Bible is the word of God and they believe every word. I believe that this argument is strong but may not be sound or valid.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
The author is not relying on morals in the publication. He is addressing some religious issues that are affecting bioethics. His reasoning is more of a logical liberal approach. He did mention that conservatives are opposed to some life prolonging technology which he didn't elaborate on. More over the publication was concerned about "wisdom of repugnance", "moral absolutism", and "rights to embryos may lead to every human cell having full rights."
Fill out one form for each source.
SEARCH TOPIC: stem cell research
Source 1 Title and Citation: Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Not Ethical
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Is Not Ethical. Dennis P. Hollinger. At Issue: The Ethics of Genetic Engineering. Ed. Maurya Siedler. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: utilitarianism and appeals to compassion on the issue of embryonic stem cell research are dangerous and problematic. The author is suggesting that utilitarianism and appeals to compassion should be avoided.
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. …show more content…
The author is bias. For example, the author stated, "Utilitarianism and appeals to compassion, so prominent in contemporary American culture, are dangerous. Instead of following God's directives, humans are relying on their subjective and emotional responses to make important decisions about stem cell research."
The author is against stem cell research.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous.
If none exist, explain how you determined this.
In the author's bias remark I pointed out in comment #2 (previous to this comment), the author makes a vague statement, " Instead of following God's directives," the author did not elaborate on what God's directives are in the entire publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
I fine the source credible because he is defining utilitarianism & virtue of compassion from a Christian perspective. Also, his definition of utilitarianism & virtue of compassion are similar to other sources. In addition, the author is a professor of Christian Ethics at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, and serves as an adjunct professor in the bioethics program at Trinity International University.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this. The author make's a statement which is a bit too extravagant, " compassion will lead us to the abyss of moral nihilism." Hyperbole.
Another example the author stated, "..spiritualistic naturalism functions without recourse to moral and worldview givens, seeking instead experiences that engender a sense of spirituality with minimal content, essence, and direction." Here, the author is downplaying spiritualistic …show more content…
naturalism.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do admit that fallacies' were hard to pick up in the publication. However, I notice that the author's primary concern about his oppositions only used a utilitarian theory. I noticed that his arguments on utilitarianism and virtue of companion where very similar. In other words, I can argue that a major point can be that an embryo is not a person which I know is a popular argument. I think the author may have narrowed his major points to much. Thus, committing a False dilemma.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, " regarding compassion as the moral trump card is problematic."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: "when set apart from the moral givens of a loving, gracious Creator", Conclusion: "compassion will lead us to the abyss of moral nihilism." Premise: "
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I think that the argument is invalid because its claim is vague, and lacks evidence because the argument of God, or Gods are controversial and unproven.
In regard to its conclusion, it implies that compassion will lead us to loose all our moral values if we do not include a "gracious Creator" in the equation. This aspect is controversial and unproven.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
The author employs Devine Command Theory which defined by Wikipedia (2007), "is the meta ethical theory that moral values are whatever is commanded by God or the gods." I know this because the author stated, "Instead of following God's directives," which suggests the theory. Thus, the author uses moral reasoning.
SEARCH TOPIC: stem cell research
Source 2 Title and Citation: Tong, Rosemary. "Stem-cell research and the affirmation of life."
Conscience. 28. 3 (Autumn 2007): 19(5). Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale.
Apollo Group. 21 Nov. 2007
.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: embryonic gonadal (EG) stem-cell research and embryonic stem-cell (ES) research are we handling the issue morally and logically reasonably in respect to the "affirmation of life"?
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "They will claim that to destroy an embryo, even for a good purpose such as curing Alzheimer's disease, is as wrong as killing an adult so that his or her organs can be distributed to six or seven other adults who might otherwise die. But is the wrong done in both these cases really of the same kind and magnitude? I think not." The author clearly demonstrated a bias in the last sentence by disagreeing with the magnitude of wrongs depicted in the example.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " the president will go ballistic before he pulls out his veto pen." I can interpret the statement differently in regard to the president reactions to a new SCNT bill.
Does it imply that the president will go crazy, or shoot bullets at the congress or shoot himself, or get angry?
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I find that the source is credible. The author's findings and explanations are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " the president will go ballistic before he pulls out his veto pen." I believe that the author used a bit of ridicule/sarcasm in the statement. The statement is making some implications about the president which can other wise be omitted from the publication without changing the meaning of the issue at hand. Or, at least because of its ambiguity, that's how it has come across to me.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "But is the wrong done in both these cases really of the same kind and magnitude? I think not." I think that the author is drawing a line on an issue that is clearly problematic. Line-drawing
fallacy.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "But what about EG cells from therapeutic abortions--abortions that must be performed to save the mother's life? Are not these abortions more like spontaneous abortions than elective abortions in intent?" The author is putting fort an argument of similarity between therapeutic abortionsabortions and spontaneous abortions.
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
The author stated, "Chances are that a woman who has to undergo a therapeutic abortion does not want to terminate her pregnancy any more than a woman who has a spontaneous miscarriage." The author is making an argument based on deductive logical reasoning.
The author stated, "Why, then, should it not be morally permissible to use EG cells from the former's aborted fetus?" By making this statement the author suggests her conclusion which is that therapeutic abortions should be treated as or that it is similar to spontaneous miscarriages.
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I think that the argument is strong but inconclusive because the claim is not completely sound. A woman can still be in need of a therapeutic abortion; however, that same woman may still welcome the abortion. In this sense, the argument can seem neutral,
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
Yes, I believe that the author uses moral reasoning. The author is concerned about the affirmation of life. She seems to believe that stem cell research, in general, is problematic, however, that the research should be used for good especially when we have the uncertain futures of frozen embryos that is slowly dying.
SEARCH TOPIC: religion and science
Source 3 Title and Citation: Jeffery L. Sheler, "Heaven in the Age of Reason: New Science Suggests a 'Grand Design' and Ways to Imagine Eternity," U.S. News & World Report, vol. 122, March 31, 1997, p. 65. Copyright © 1997 by U.S. News and World Report, LP. All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission.
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue is: "Does science suggests an afterlife?
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
In the publication, the author does not question the claim that science also does not suggest an afterlife which suggests that the author is bias for science suggesting religion.
The author makes example like this, the author stated, "Should believers expect to see alabaster houses and gold-paved streets in heaven? Biblical scholars treat those images as vibrantly metaphorical." I believe that the author is bias for science suggesting an afterlife by ignoring the possibility that some Biblical scholars may not agree with such a claim, or at least they may have a different opinion.
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not find instances where the author was ambiguous or vague. He did not leave sentences or phrases unexplained. In other words, I fine that the author was specific in the publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I believe that the source is credible. His understanding of the theories and concepts are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not think that the author used any rhetorical devices in the publication. The author seems to have respect for science and religion. He is not trying to downplay, or undermine each topic in the publication.
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, ""Should believers expect to see alabaster houses and gold-paved streets in heaven? Biblical scholars treat those images as vibrantly metaphorical." The author commits a fallacy of Grammatical Analogy by speaking for an entire group of people.
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "In a society where science and religion flourish side by side, then, remaining open to the idea of the afterlife seems a reasonable posture."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
The author's premise: "In a society where science and religion flourish side by side."
The author's conclusion: "then, remaining open to the idea of the afterlife seems a reasonable posture."
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
The author's made an in inductive argument. I think that it is safe to say that science and religion are flourishing side by side in the U.S. Therefore, the argument is strong.
However, the author's conclusion is problematic. The author is sort of speaking for an entire group of people again. Scientist and others do not have to remain reasonably open to the idea of the afterlife just because the topics exist in the same society.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
I do not think that the author uses moral reasoning in the publication. The topic at hand, "science suggest an afterlife" is not a moral issue.
SEARCH TOPIC: religion and science
Source 4 Title and Citation:
1
Identify the principal issue presented by the source.
The principal issue: "Religion should interfere in bioethics."
2
Identify any examples of bias presented by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, ""[The] blind acceptance of mixing ethics and medical science with religion is unacceptable, and it has got to stop." The author is clearly against religion influencing bioethics. The author makes a statement: "it has got to stop"
3
Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
I do not find instances where the author was ambiguous or vague. He did not leave sentences or phrases unexplained. In other words, I fine that the author was specific in the publication.
4
Do you find the source credible? Explain your reasoning.
Yes, I believe that the source is credible. His understanding of the events are similar with other sources.
5
Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, "thanks to the efforts of President Bush and his fourth-century stance on reproductive rights," - Rhetorical analogies, definitions, and explanations
Another example, "Since God has supposedly endowed us with the ultimate moral rulebook." - Rhetorical analogies, definitions, and explanations
6
Identify and name any fallacies used by the author. If none exist, explain how you determined this.
The author stated, " Further, says Kass, "I've come to treasure the biblical strand of our Western tradition more than the strand that flows from Athens." So it's no surprise that his particular approach to bioethics betrays an adherence to long-standing Abrahamic [biblical] injunctions " - The author commits an Genetic fallacythinking that the origin or history of a belief refutes it.
The author stated, " it is most certainly in the best interest of religious conservatives to interfere with scientific advancement to keep the veils of ignorance high and the taboos firmly rooted." - The author commits a fallacy of Grammatical Analogy by speaking for an entire group of people. In addition, in terms of the statements argument, the author commits the Begging the question fallacyassuming as true the claim that is at issue and doing this as if you were giving an argument
7
State one argument made by the author.
The author stated, "Uninterested in reevaluating ethics and morality in the face of scientific progress, religious conservatives tend to defer to scripture for moral and existential authority. The Bible is treated as a portal into everything we need to know about anythingend of discussion. Thus, ethical guidelines that arise from scripture tend to take on the form of absolutism."
8
Identify the premises and conclusion of the argument.
Premise: "religious conservatives tend to defer to scripture for moral and existential authority. The Bible is treated as a portal into everything we need to know about anything "
Conclusion: "Thus, ethical guidelines that arise from scripture tend to take on the form of absolutism."
9
Is the author's argument valid or invalid, sound or unsound, strong or weak? Explain how you determined this.
I believe that the author could be exaggerating religious conservatives. The author is also claiming that the entire group of religious conservatives reacts this way. I believe that if the author quoted scripture from the Bible, it would have made the argument stronger. Christians do claim that the Bible is the word of God and they believe every word. I believe that this argument is strong but may not be sound or valid.
10
Does the author use moral reasoning? If not, explain how you determined this.
The author is not relying on morals in the publication. He is addressing some religious issues that are affecting bioethics. His reasoning is more of a logical liberal approach. He did mention that conservatives are opposed to some life prolonging technology which he didn't elaborate on. More over the publication was concerned about "wisdom of repugnance", "moral absolutism", and "rights to embryos may lead to every human cell having full rights."