Stem Cell Research Ibbetson

1005 Words5 Pages
response to EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: THE BLOOD TRAIL OF PROGRESS Paul A. Ibbetson a writer for The Conservative Crusader, defends and also attempts to clarify the typical conservative stance on stem cells in his article “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: the Blood Trail of Progress”. Ibbetson fails to justify his point that non-embryonic stem cell research is viable while embryonic stem cell research is immoral due to a number of errors in his delivery. The foremost among these is the logical fallacy of appeal to consequences; Ibbetson makes a half-hearted attempt to compare Hitler’s policy on genocide akin to Obama’s position on stem cell research, yet never truly explains the explanation. Another logical fallacy presented towards the…show more content…
Ibbetson makes a blatant appeal to authority by saying that lack of god in the debate over stem cell research will lead to “…an ending point worse than past atrocities.” Not only does Ibbetson contradict himself by having earlier criticized Bush for basing his stance on stem cell research on his religious beliefs, he also manages to somehow tie Hitler back into the debate, although far more subtly this time around through the use of the phrase “past atrocities.” When taking an outward perspective at the argument Ibbetson makes one can realize how ridiculous it truly is. Aside from actually providing any legitimate solutions, Ibbetson essentially states that Stem cell research is a godless and vile science and in Obama’s support of it he will only succeed in reenacting actions brought forth by Hitler. Based merely on the first amendment alone Ibbetson’s final statement clearly has no place in the real life debate on stem cell research, however aside from that its only purpose is the same as any of his other arguments, to demonize those that actually support stem cells by essentially stating they are going against
Open Document