My letter will be to the Star Tribune regarding an article in which Senator Curtis Coleman - Ark (R) likens embryonic stem cell research to the research conducted by Nazi scientists on Jewish holocaust prisoners. The article is really more about how the senator, when asked to recant the statement made over syndicated radio, refused on grounds of ethical and moral obligations of the value of a single life. Here's the link: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/84258352.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Senator Curtis Coleman doesn't need to apologize at all for his statement about how embryonic stem cell research is "what the Nazis did to the Jews"; it won't make much difference - the damage is done. Referencing Nazism in context with anything today creates mindsets that instantaneous sets an audience against the subject you're talking about - in this case Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR), by invoking all the imagery we have come to associate with Nazism: hate, murder, evil, etc. To this extent the senator may be successful; I mean, how many of us would bother to contemplate the significance of his well-placed hate tag? The big arguement for Senator Coleman is that a single life is too valuable to sacrifice for another. The problem with his rationale is that researchers have have been publishing for at least the last four years that they are refining techniques to remove a single cell from a blastocyst without have any negative impacts on embryo development. Tell me, would you donate a single cell if it could mean the possibility of saving another person's life? The new techniques will no doubt raise new ethical issues to debate over but hopefully they won't be supported with outdated ideas driven by polarizing pathos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It may help your argument to expand a bit more on the implications of Coleman's statement. What it seems to do is make believers out of the un(der)educated through common language. It reminds me of the supporters of Intelligent design who really compare the likelihood of evolution to the creation of a 747 airliner as a result of an explosion in a junkyard. The separation of interpretation/understanding is important. Who is Coleman's audience? Why that comparison? Who is buying lunch? Things to think about. I like where you are headed with this one--especially since you use science to back up your claims.
ReplyDelete