Should the Federal Government Fund the Research of Embryonic Stem Cells
Every day, people are diagnosed with life-threatening diseases like Alzheimer 's, Parkinson 's, and cancer, their cells are literally fighting against themselves. One way this can be corrected is with the use of stem cells. Stem cells are an undifferentiated cell of a multicellular organism that is capable of developing into an indefinite amount of cells of the same type. There are two prominent types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in adults, children, babies, placentas, cadavers, and umbilical cords and can be extracted without any harm to the individual. But, the uses are far more limited compared to embryonic stem cells. …show more content…
We used the fallacy of false equivalence by comparing embryonic stem cell research to abortion. We hoped this false analogy would result in people who think abortion is immoral to have the same opinion pertaining embryonic stem cell research. Although these two things are similar, they are not exactly similar. Embryonic stem cells are stem cells from human embryo’s usually obtained within 16 days of the first conception, unlike abortion which can take place from week 5 to week 18 of pregnancy. This difference lies in the fact that within the first 16 days the pregnancy is carrying an embryo that has not developed into a fetus. After the 16th day, the embryo starts to develop into a fetus and the decision to abort cannot be carried out until week 5. We also used the fallacy of suppressed evidence. We included this in our debate to lengthen our debate. We also hoped that by suppressing the con side’s evidence, the people would think the pro side had a stronger argument. Evidently, this did not work because the side against government funding swayed more voters’ opinion. Another fallacy our group used was the naturalistic fallacy. Putting this fallacy into our debate seemed appropriate because in almost every article we looked into used this fallacy as an argument against embryonic stem cell research. Both sides did use the fallacy of appeal to pity. This is common for anything that can be used to help sicknesses. We used sad depictions of killings (against) and sick people (favoring) to draw people to our side of the debate. The use of all these fallacious arguments really helped inclined people to sway one side and when the person has no background knowledge of the topic it is easy to use a fallacy and draw people to a claim they do not know is
Every day, people are diagnosed with life-threatening diseases like Alzheimer 's, Parkinson 's, and cancer, their cells are literally fighting against themselves. One way this can be corrected is with the use of stem cells. Stem cells are an undifferentiated cell of a multicellular organism that is capable of developing into an indefinite amount of cells of the same type. There are two prominent types of stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells. Adult stem cells are found in adults, children, babies, placentas, cadavers, and umbilical cords and can be extracted without any harm to the individual. But, the uses are far more limited compared to embryonic stem cells. …show more content…
We used the fallacy of false equivalence by comparing embryonic stem cell research to abortion. We hoped this false analogy would result in people who think abortion is immoral to have the same opinion pertaining embryonic stem cell research. Although these two things are similar, they are not exactly similar. Embryonic stem cells are stem cells from human embryo’s usually obtained within 16 days of the first conception, unlike abortion which can take place from week 5 to week 18 of pregnancy. This difference lies in the fact that within the first 16 days the pregnancy is carrying an embryo that has not developed into a fetus. After the 16th day, the embryo starts to develop into a fetus and the decision to abort cannot be carried out until week 5. We also used the fallacy of suppressed evidence. We included this in our debate to lengthen our debate. We also hoped that by suppressing the con side’s evidence, the people would think the pro side had a stronger argument. Evidently, this did not work because the side against government funding swayed more voters’ opinion. Another fallacy our group used was the naturalistic fallacy. Putting this fallacy into our debate seemed appropriate because in almost every article we looked into used this fallacy as an argument against embryonic stem cell research. Both sides did use the fallacy of appeal to pity. This is common for anything that can be used to help sicknesses. We used sad depictions of killings (against) and sick people (favoring) to draw people to our side of the debate. The use of all these fallacious arguments really helped inclined people to sway one side and when the person has no background knowledge of the topic it is easy to use a fallacy and draw people to a claim they do not know is