Article Critique ‘A New Look, An Old Battle’ Essay

While the article recognizes the usefulness of stem-cell look into in medicine, it as well as denounces the anti-abortion movement. According to the compose, anti-abortion proponents are on the losing side because they failed to scientifically substantiate their claims. Their guide word abortion stops a beating heart, according to the author, is a mixture of fallacy and deceit. It is usually a mis booster cable slogan. The embryo has no heart it is a conjugation of biological characteristics which can non be explained by all a priori incorruptistic assumption.According to the author, the utility of each biological search on stem cell has nonhing to do with morality. Luring the public into believe that stem cell research is an immoral act is itself a curdling of irrationality. Unconsciously or consciously, the author argues that the moral implications of abortion are not related to stem cell research. This should not be the case. A general reflection on the moral implicatio ns of stem cell research is, at many times, congruent with the issue of abortion.To argue that it is about science, not abortion, is grossly misleading. Not because science is an independent field suggests that it does not have moral implications related to the issue of abortion. The means by which science is applied waterfall under the rubric of morality. Science as a concept is morally neutral, but its application is not. It must be examined under the microscope of moral precepts. Hence, it is recognise that the moral implications of stem-cell research are similar to the moral effects of abortion.The author argues that proponents of anti-abortion are on the losing side because they lack the political subscribe to of leading politicians and personalities. According to the author, this attests to the general weakness of the anti-abortion slogan. Again, the author commits a fallacy. Yes, political support suggests the strength of any movement, but never the content of its standing beliefs. contentedness (meaning) cannot be equated with numbers.Supposing that the author continues to believe that support is tantamount to the rationality of any slogan then such author falls into Bandwagon fallacy. The author argues that politicians back up stem cell research because they had fathers with heart diseases, mothers with arthritis, and whose hearts resonated with the possibilities of alleviating pain and prolonging life. This confidence is not only misleading but empirically unverifiable. Without reference to authentic evidence, it is hard to try this assertion.This arguing may be also regarded as fallacious, clinging generally to the fallacy of ad misericordiam. The author convinces the reader that the strength of an argument can be established by referencing with other peoples emotional state of affairs. Here, the miseries of individuals cannot be used as an excuse for the rationalization of an action (in this case, support for stem-cell research). Again, t his is not to say that stem cell research is bad. This is to argue that the authors argumentative structure is improper and illogical. around of the authors arguments can be characterized as fallacious and overtly ambiguous. They are fallacious because it exaggerate, lack coherent premises, and dissect seemingly unrelated statements. Instead of looking for the moral implications of stem-research why it should be morally accepted, and not to be confused with abortion the author ponders on the possibilities of stem-cell research (an desertion of her own thesis). In addition, empirical evidences are not used to prove some of her important points.