Stem Cell Research Rhetoric

Rhetorical Analysis on “The science, policy and ethics of stem cell research”
Doctors, researchers, patients and virtually anyone interested in the future of medicine are intrigued by the key role human embryonic stem cell research could have in curing well-known diseases such as cancer. As much as people are curious about how it could advance medicine in incredible ways, there remains the issue of whether finding a cure using human embryos is ethically sound. The answer to this question is heavily dependent on what status society should accord to the human embryo. Bonnie Steinbock’s “The science, policy, and ethics of stem cell research” is an article published on Reproductive BioMedicine Online that digs deep into this ongoing ethical conflict.
This shows that she has superior knowledge on the topic and is in the position to appropriately make conclusions and assessments. First, she looks into the ways in which scientists have attempted to obtain stem cells for research without destroying human embryos. This includes, but isn’t limited to, the use of fibroblasts to make stem cells, parthenogenesis and a cloning technique known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The point she is trying to make in evoking this research is that they have tried these methods, but have not developed them to the point of being able to use them without harming embryos. Due to her view on the status of the embryo, it is evident that Steinbock thinks embryos can be used for research. However, she did consider doing the research without destroying human embryos, but clearly it is not possible. Steinbock also examines the main reasons certain individuals are against this research. This shows she is not oblivious and unaware of the opposition’s opinion, but rather that she is so confident in her own arguments that she chooses to present them and refute them shortly after. She notes that the major controversial points others invoke are that it encourages the exploitation of women, it is full of empty promises concerning the medical development it offers and that it involves destroying “human” embryos. To
The sufficiency of her evidence cannot be doubted when bombarded with example after example. One of her key arguments is that although human embryos have moral value, they cannot be granted full moral status like humans. This is due to the fact that they do not have “beliefs, desires, goals and projects” (Steinbock 130). In an example, she compares embryos to comatose patients. She argues that embryos have no nervous system, thus they can’t desire anything nor experience anything, including death. Meanwhile, comatose patients have goals and desires present inside them, including their desire to live. This makes perfect sense. She uses an accurate, relevant and easily understood example to distinguish embryos from humans which shows why it isn’t morally wrong to kill an embryo for research although it is wrong to kill a human. What the author implies is also relevant to all embryos. Furthermore, Steinbock emphasizes that due to this absence of “interests”, embryos merit respect, but not Kantian respect like humans do because it should only be applied to people with interests. In another example, she establishes what kind of respect they deserve by comparing the use of human embryos for research to the use of corpses in medical school for learning. Just like cadavers are respected for