After reading The Politics of cloning article by Sarah Parry, I felt very informed about the research and arguments that were constructed because of the subject of human embryo cloning. Also, I have found many rhetorical devices that have been subjected in her writing. As far fear appeals, I feel like this article portrays many. Most of these fear appeals deal with political responses and within the debates that were done because of this issue. She talks about how the introduction of Dolly the sheep was the starting of the debates and opened the floodgates for argumentation about such cloning. I feel that people before this time and before the mid 1990’s from what I have read, have always felt the way they do about what cloning would do to our world. Although they didn’t have much background history on the research or much factual evidence to state a claim they still had room to create thoughts on how it could be a negative or positive effect, speaking politically. One of the parts of the article that caught my eye as far as a fear appeal would be considered is when Sarah Parry describes that, “Therapeutic cloning, however, was not considered to produce the same ethical problems as cloning whole human beings. That therapeutic cloning is the use of cloning techniques for potentially curing a multitude of diseases was an important aspect of the argument for separating the ethical issues of reproductive cloning from this “benevolent technique”. With this being said, I feel that ethical problems would still arise no matter what kind of cloning you are doing. Obviously you classify these problems in different levels of intensity but the main problem and fear links back to cloning itself no matter if it is with whole humans or not.
The ideas of cloning and stem cell research have been thought of as political hot button issues for quite some time now. Those who argue against these types of procedures have embraced such ethical boundaries that involve the commodification of life as well as that they make life meaningless. Those who argued for explained the monumental benefits that could be reached, providing examples of cancer and diseases as reasons of importance. With issues of this magnitude, it is clear to see that there can be the implementation of fear type appeals arguing for either side of these controversial issues. On the pro-cloning and stem cell research side, you could make the argument that without these types of policy, disease and conditions would be left unchecked. That type of fear appeal would be credible because there are currently a plethora of cancers and conditions which are currently incurable and will continue to be so without cloning and stem cell research. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the argument that cloning and stem cell research actually devalue the idea of human life. This fear appeal is executed by saying the tests that you do on stem cells and clones make those lives meaningless. The subject is a life to be tested on which is immoral and justifies worse types of action. The question then becomes what type of life is being lived when the clone is only a test? Is it a person or a subject? These types of argument make us skeptical of the importance of the procedure.
In response to the article I find it very interesting that in the issue of embryos the slightest change of words makes all of the difference. In politics you have to use such careful rhetoric in order to sway the public without offending the public, which is where the term politically correct comes from. Each side of the cloning and stem cell research issue can make their arguments with fear appeals. However, to use rhetoric that eases the audience into accepting the idea at hand is a whole different arena. By simply taking out the word cloning and adding stem cell you reach a whole other audience and it keeps their fears down to a minimal level. Cloning has a negative conotation where as stem cell is presumed to be of therapeutic use. This article attracts the mind to both sides of the issue within the political debates and presents each argument with the rhetorical fear appeals used.
After reading Parry’s article I noticed that terminology has a lot to do with how people react to fear appeals. This is exemplified by the HFEA changing ‘therapeutic cloning’ to ‘therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement,’ after observing the negative connotation with the word cloning that emerged. It points out that after Dolly the sheep was born was when all the debate associated with cloning began to surface, and that’s when each side of the argument began to produce their defense to opposing fear appeals. Once that cloning in correlation with human beings was considered to be unethical and unsafe in terms of reproduction is when ‘therapeutic cloning’ began to epitomize its actual meaning. By describing ‘therapeutic cloning’ as actually only use of cloning techniques for means of possibly curing several diseases, HFEA offered a fear appeal of similar ethical value. In cases such as this it seems that cloning will always produce some form of debate given that the rhetoric from each side will always be dynamic in response.
The article discusses the rhetorical devices used within the debates for and against embryo and stem cell cloning. Cloning is important to discuss because it affects several different parties such as religious leaders, politicians, patient groups, scientists as well as non-affiliated individuals. Parry goes on to discuss the different terminology that was altered in order to reduce or increase the intensity of the fear appeal. One example that attempted to reduce the intensity includes the altering of the phrase “therapeutic cloning” to “therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement.” Attempts were also made to increase the intensity such as stating that “no current issue has more potential to undermine public confidence in the whole field of genetic and biological research than human cloning.” Those in favor and those who oppose also employed different rhetorical strategies in order to draw attention to or away from certain aspects of the debate. Those who were in favor focused on the scientific facts in order to draw “attention away from the more issues relating to cloning through rhetorically separating scientific ‘facts’ from wider social and moral questions.” The definition of embryos was one of the social and moral questions that has been questioned in debates. One anti-research protagonist stated that “she found it ‘frightening’ that ‘we have scientists who think of these [embryos]… simply as a source to be exploited in obtaining cells and tissue.” Others have also used fear inducing words such as “cannibalistic” and “science out of control” to create fear appeals. All throughout the article Parry does an effective job in demonstrating the different rhetorical strategies and maneuvering of word definitions employed by the actors and agencies involved in the debate over embryo and stem cell cloning.
Sarah Parry’s article “The Politics of Cloning…” examines the rhetorical strategies used in the debates regarding embryonic and stem cell research/cloning. The 1990 embryo debates, which resulted in the HFE Act, served as the stage and foundation for the rhetoric used in the stem cell research debates. Much of the article discusses the debate between pro-research and anti-research lobbyists in regards to “the embryo question.” There were various rhetorical strategies used by both parties to develop their points in the stem cell research debates. I find it interesting how effective changing terminology became in this debate. Pro-research lobbyist groups (HFEA/HGAC), for instance, wanted to avoid the stigma attached to the work ‘cloning,’ and replaced the term “therapeutic cloning” to “therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement.” In addition, the term “pre-embryo” is used to describe the pre-14-day-old embryos (protected under HFE Act), and the research terminology once involving “experimentation on defenseless human beings,” became “research on unformed biological material.” The change of terminology reduces fear and furthers pro stem cell research lobbyists’ arguments.
Various fear appeals were also used in the debates. Various parties warned that an anti-research culture was progressing, and therefore research and the future of the field of biotechnology were threatened if presenting stem-cell research to the public was not handle extremely delicately. Also, for those against embryonic SCR, they based their arguments similar to that of the 1990 debates, which claimed that cloning and use of embryos “generated the same basic moral questions about the sanctity of life, about our obligations to the unborn, and [responsible parenthood].” Anti-research lobbyists used the rhetoric of human rights “in the context of ‘science out of control’.” A lot of their arguments came from the anti-abortion movement.
The final rhetorical strategy I will discuss is the appeal to fear and hope (some cases involved solely hope appeals). Pro-research lobbyists used narratives of hopes and fears to create a sense of desperation. They based arguments, utilizing scientific facts in many cases, that if SCR was not conducted the lives of many suffering from various diseases are lost. They essentially said SCR could potentially be a trigger or be a cure for many diseases. Anti-research lobbyists said there was lacking evidence supporting claims that SCR will be a breakthroughs for cures. Pro-research used humanitarianism rhetoric, while the anti-research lobbyists maintained their arguments regarding embryonic practices as unethical and the idea that embryos should have rights. Opponents of SCR also used hope appeals when discussing alternatives to embryonic stem cells.
In the end, various rhetorical strategies were used in the SCR debates. Some of which include: appeals to fear, hope, morals, and changing terminology. Many of these strategies proved to be effective in different ways. This article illuminates how framing arguments and the use of rhetoric can be effective in debates and also highlights the manipulative aspects of various forms of rhetoric.
In Sarah Parry’s The politics of cloning: mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates, she addresses the issue of stem cell research and cloning. This is a very heated and sensitive issue. On one hand, there are conservative individuals who value life and who cannot imagine life being created or manipulated solely for a finite amount of time to be harvested and then destroyed. On the other hand, many individuals are fighting hard for any and every available option to cure diseases that are being fought by themselves or loved ones. There were fear appeals used in the article to support both sides of the story. Those who support embryonic stem cell research and cloning tend to use fear appeals regarding the quality of life to support the supposed need for research into cures and improvements for individual suffering with currently incurable diseases. Those who do not support that type of research use arguments that show how this type of research does devalue life and can lead to the further degradation of the value of a human life. Parry demonstrates who truly delicate this debate is and the tactics, including fear appeals, which each side uses in the debate. At the end of the article, another fear appeal was addresses through a quote: “there will … be no mad rush down the slippery slope. Rather, in Britain, there will be a cautious, gradual, almost imperceptible movement into a future in which nothing will be certain except that, in the long run, the practices, expectations, values and morality associated with human reproduction will have been transformed.“ This is the slippery slope argument. Although, in the phrasing of this quote, there is almost a reverse fear appeal feel to it, the quote is saying that the slippery slope will not come fast, but rather so gradual that those who are for the issue will be frustrated by the lack of speed, but those who are against it will be comforted by the relative calm, but will ultimately be utterly disgusted because of how much ground they will see they lost in the end. It’s a fear appeal in that it calls both sides to arms and reminds them to keep fighting because if they cede ground, they will be utterly disappointed when they wake up to realize that the issues transformed so slowly that it created a false sense of security.
Sarah Parry’s article “The Politics of Cloning: mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates” addresses the subject of cloning and stem cell research. This subject can be labeled as delicate at the very least. From what I have read, there are two main “sides” to this issue. On one side, you have those that promote or favor the idea of cloning and stem cell research in the hopes that it could help cure sickness and disease. On the other side, you have those who claim that it “violates the sanctity of life” and are fiercely against the idea entirely.
Fear appeals can be seen on both sides, depending largely on your own perspective. For those that are for the research of cloning and stem cells, it can be said that the fear appeal is the idea that “if we don’t do this research, we or our loved ones could die from a disease that could otherwise be cured”. From the perspective of those who are against this research, the fear appeal could be something as simple as the morality of the research to something as complex as questioning the value of life itself and what value is being placed on a life that is being temporarily created for the sole purpose of being harvested.
Embryo research has become a huge issue for the medical industry. The research has lead to a mass of studies done for stem cell and cloning experiments, but it has also sparked mass debate. Stem cells have a huge amount of potential for painful and immobilizing issues in humans; however, it is not to say that fear appeals have become one of the largest weapons for either side of this debate. Cloning, on the other hand, shows promise in the side of researching. this research is handy because no naturally born organism would suffer. Parry shows us that both of these procedures use fear appeals to gain support. Of course there are diseases that would run rampant if we didn't have these types of experiments, but the term "devaluing life" was used several times to describe the method at which we place humans into. Whenever life can simply be created in a lab, we see life as expendable, and ourselves as expendable. Which is worse? the fact that we would be subjected to life threatening diseases, or the fact that our lives would be meaningless in a world without these diseases? Either way, we find fear very appealing.
The debates in the 1990 HFE act circles around the debate of the embryo question. When does life began and what moral code does this fringe upon or follow with? Robert Key is quoted in Parry’s article saying, “As the Bishop of Oxford has said, “If every fertilized egg was indeed a soul … then, according to these figures, three quarters of heaven would be populated by souls that lived for less than a week.” I’ve never looked at the argument of stem cell research in that manner but it is a very good perspective to address in this debate. Parry gives a balanced view of the pro-research and anti-research arguments and views throughout his writing. The embryo question for me is a challenging question to make an educated decision. Pro-research focuses on the potential outcomes that stem cell research can provide in our future that could possibly help deal with Alzheimers, Huntingdons disease and diabetes. On the other hand, anti-research groups advocate that pro-research lobbyists are giving false hope because the current research conducted cannot conclude such diseases can be helped by stem cell research. The fear appeals that the pro-research groups use are very effective and I think stand out the most in this article. ‘If we don’t use and advance the stem cell research then we are not potentially saving the lives of our loved ones who posses these diseases’.
After reading The Politics of cloning article by Sarah Parry, I felt very informed about the research and arguments that were constructed because of the subject of human embryo cloning. Also, I have found many rhetorical devices that have been subjected in her writing. As far fear appeals, I feel like this article portrays many. Most of these fear appeals deal with political responses and within the debates that were done because of this issue. She talks about how the introduction of Dolly the sheep was the starting of the debates and opened the floodgates for argumentation about such cloning. I feel that people before this time and before the mid 1990’s from what I have read, have always felt the way they do about what cloning would do to our world. Although they didn’t have much background history on the research or much factual evidence to state a claim they still had room to create thoughts on how it could be a negative or positive effect, speaking politically. One of the parts of the article that caught my eye as far as a fear appeal would be considered is when Sarah Parry describes that, “Therapeutic cloning, however, was not considered to produce the same ethical problems as cloning whole human beings. That therapeutic cloning is the use of cloning techniques for potentially curing a multitude of diseases was an important aspect of the argument for separating the ethical issues of reproductive cloning from this “benevolent technique”. With this being said, I feel that ethical problems would still arise no matter what kind of cloning you are doing. Obviously you classify these problems in different levels of intensity but the main problem and fear links back to cloning itself no matter if it is with whole humans or not.
ReplyDeleteThe ideas of cloning and stem cell research have been thought of as political hot button issues for quite some time now. Those who argue against these types of procedures have embraced such ethical boundaries that involve the commodification of life as well as that they make life meaningless. Those who argued for explained the monumental benefits that could be reached, providing examples of cancer and diseases as reasons of importance. With issues of this magnitude, it is clear to see that there can be the implementation of fear type appeals arguing for either side of these controversial issues. On the pro-cloning and stem cell research side, you could make the argument that without these types of policy, disease and conditions would be left unchecked. That type of fear appeal would be credible because there are currently a plethora of cancers and conditions which are currently incurable and will continue to be so without cloning and stem cell research. On the other side of the spectrum, there is the argument that cloning and stem cell research actually devalue the idea of human life. This fear appeal is executed by saying the tests that you do on stem cells and clones make those lives meaningless. The subject is a life to be tested on which is immoral and justifies worse types of action. The question then becomes what type of life is being lived when the clone is only a test? Is it a person or a subject? These types of argument make us skeptical of the importance of the procedure.
DeleteIn response to the article I find it very interesting that in the issue of embryos the slightest change of words makes all of the difference. In politics you have to use such careful rhetoric in order to sway the public without offending the public, which is where the term politically correct comes from. Each side of the cloning and stem cell research issue can make their arguments with fear appeals. However, to use rhetoric that eases the audience into accepting the idea at hand is a whole different arena. By simply taking out the word cloning and adding stem cell you reach a whole other audience and it keeps their fears down to a minimal level. Cloning has a negative conotation where as stem cell is presumed to be of therapeutic use. This article attracts the mind to both sides of the issue within the political debates and presents each argument with the rhetorical fear appeals used.
DeleteAfter reading Parry’s article I noticed that terminology has a lot to do with how people react to fear appeals. This is exemplified by the HFEA changing ‘therapeutic cloning’ to ‘therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement,’ after observing the negative connotation with the word cloning that emerged. It points out that after Dolly the sheep was born was when all the debate associated with cloning began to surface, and that’s when each side of the argument began to produce their defense to opposing fear appeals. Once that cloning in correlation with human beings was considered to be unethical and unsafe in terms of reproduction is when ‘therapeutic cloning’ began to epitomize its actual meaning. By describing ‘therapeutic cloning’ as actually only use of cloning techniques for means of possibly curing several diseases, HFEA offered a fear appeal of similar ethical value. In cases such as this it seems that cloning will always produce some form of debate given that the rhetoric from each side will always be dynamic in response.
ReplyDeleteThe article discusses the rhetorical devices used within the debates for and against embryo and stem cell cloning. Cloning is important to discuss because it affects several different parties such as religious leaders, politicians, patient groups, scientists as well as non-affiliated individuals. Parry goes on to discuss the different terminology that was altered in order to reduce or increase the intensity of the fear appeal. One example that attempted to reduce the intensity includes the altering of the phrase “therapeutic cloning” to “therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement.” Attempts were also made to increase the intensity such as stating that “no current issue has more potential to undermine public
ReplyDeleteconfidence in the whole field of genetic and biological research than human cloning.” Those in favor and those who oppose also employed different rhetorical strategies in order to draw attention to or away from certain aspects of the debate. Those who were in favor focused on the scientific facts in order to draw “attention away from the more issues relating to cloning through rhetorically separating scientific ‘facts’ from wider social and moral questions.” The definition of embryos was one of the social and moral questions that has been questioned in debates. One anti-research protagonist stated that “she found it ‘frightening’ that ‘we have scientists who think of these [embryos]… simply as a source to be exploited in obtaining cells and tissue.” Others have also used fear inducing words such as “cannibalistic” and “science out of control” to create fear appeals. All throughout the article Parry does an effective job in demonstrating the different rhetorical strategies and maneuvering of word definitions employed by the actors and agencies involved in the debate over embryo and stem cell cloning.
Sarah Parry’s article “The Politics of Cloning…” examines the rhetorical strategies used in the debates regarding embryonic and stem cell research/cloning. The 1990 embryo debates, which resulted in the HFE Act, served as the stage and foundation for the rhetoric used in the stem cell research debates. Much of the article discusses the debate between pro-research and anti-research lobbyists in regards to “the embryo question.” There were various rhetorical strategies used by both parties to develop their points in the stem cell research debates. I find it interesting how effective changing terminology became in this debate. Pro-research lobbyist groups (HFEA/HGAC), for instance, wanted to avoid the stigma attached to the work ‘cloning,’ and replaced the term “therapeutic cloning” to “therapeutic uses of cell nuclear replacement.” In addition, the term “pre-embryo” is used to describe the pre-14-day-old embryos (protected under HFE Act), and the research terminology once involving “experimentation on defenseless human beings,” became “research on unformed biological material.” The change of terminology reduces fear and furthers pro stem cell research lobbyists’ arguments.
ReplyDeleteVarious fear appeals were also used in the debates. Various parties warned that an anti-research culture was progressing, and therefore research and the future of the field of biotechnology were threatened if presenting stem-cell research to the public was not handle extremely delicately. Also, for those against embryonic SCR, they based their arguments similar to that of the 1990 debates, which claimed that cloning and use of embryos “generated the same basic moral questions about the sanctity of life, about our obligations to the unborn, and [responsible parenthood].” Anti-research lobbyists used the rhetoric of human rights “in the context of ‘science out of control’.” A lot of their arguments came from the anti-abortion movement.
The final rhetorical strategy I will discuss is the appeal to fear and hope (some cases involved solely hope appeals). Pro-research lobbyists used narratives of hopes and fears to create a sense of desperation. They based arguments, utilizing scientific facts in many cases, that if SCR was not conducted the lives of many suffering from various diseases are lost. They essentially said SCR could potentially be a trigger or be a cure for many diseases. Anti-research lobbyists said there was lacking evidence supporting claims that SCR will be a breakthroughs for cures. Pro-research used humanitarianism rhetoric, while the anti-research lobbyists maintained their arguments regarding embryonic practices as unethical and the idea that embryos should have rights. Opponents of SCR also used hope appeals when discussing alternatives to embryonic stem cells.
In the end, various rhetorical strategies were used in the SCR debates. Some of which include: appeals to fear, hope, morals, and changing terminology. Many of these strategies proved to be effective in different ways. This article illuminates how framing arguments and the use of rhetoric can be effective in debates and also highlights the manipulative aspects of various forms of rhetoric.
In Sarah Parry’s The politics of cloning: mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates, she addresses the issue of stem cell research and cloning. This is a very heated and sensitive issue. On one hand, there are conservative individuals who value life and who cannot imagine life being created or manipulated solely for a finite amount of time to be harvested and then destroyed. On the other hand, many individuals are fighting hard for any and every available option to cure diseases that are being fought by themselves or loved ones. There were fear appeals used in the article to support both sides of the story. Those who support embryonic stem cell research and cloning tend to use fear appeals regarding the quality of life to support the supposed need for research into cures and improvements for individual suffering with currently incurable diseases. Those who do not support that type of research use arguments that show how this type of research does devalue life and can lead to the further degradation of the value of a human life. Parry demonstrates who truly delicate this debate is and the tactics, including fear appeals, which each side uses in the debate. At the end of the article, another fear appeal was addresses through a quote:
ReplyDelete“there will … be no mad rush down the slippery slope. Rather, in Britain, there will be a cautious, gradual, almost imperceptible movement into a future in which nothing will be certain except that, in the long run, the practices, expectations, values and morality associated with human reproduction will have been transformed.“
This is the slippery slope argument. Although, in the phrasing of this quote, there is almost a reverse fear appeal feel to it, the quote is saying that the slippery slope will not come fast, but rather so gradual that those who are for the issue will be frustrated by the lack of speed, but those who are against it will be comforted by the relative calm, but will ultimately be utterly disgusted because of how much ground they will see they lost in the end. It’s a fear appeal in that it calls both sides to arms and reminds them to keep fighting because if they cede ground, they will be utterly disappointed when they wake up to realize that the issues transformed so slowly that it created a false sense of security.
Sarah Parry’s article “The Politics of Cloning: mapping the rhetorical convergence of embryos and stem cells in parliamentary debates” addresses the subject of cloning and stem cell research. This subject can be labeled as delicate at the very least. From what I have read, there are two main “sides” to this issue. On one side, you have those that promote or favor the idea of cloning and stem cell research in the hopes that it could help cure sickness and disease. On the other side, you have those who claim that it “violates the sanctity of life” and are fiercely against the idea entirely.
ReplyDeleteFear appeals can be seen on both sides, depending largely on your own perspective. For those that are for the research of cloning and stem cells, it can be said that the fear appeal is the idea that “if we don’t do this research, we or our loved ones could die from a disease that could otherwise be cured”. From the perspective of those who are against this research, the fear appeal could be something as simple as the morality of the research to something as complex as questioning the value of life itself and what value is being placed on a life that is being temporarily created for the sole purpose of being harvested.
Embryo research has become a huge issue for the medical industry. The research has lead to a mass of studies done for stem cell and cloning experiments, but it has also sparked mass debate. Stem cells have a huge amount of potential for painful and immobilizing issues in humans; however, it is not to say that fear appeals have become one of the largest weapons for either side of this debate. Cloning, on the other hand, shows promise in the side of researching. this research is handy because no naturally born organism would suffer. Parry shows us that both of these procedures use fear appeals to gain support. Of course there are diseases that would run rampant if we didn't have these types of experiments, but the term "devaluing life" was used several times to describe the method at which we place humans into. Whenever life can simply be created in a lab, we see life as expendable, and ourselves as expendable. Which is worse? the fact that we would be subjected to life threatening diseases, or the fact that our lives would be meaningless in a world without these diseases? Either way, we find fear very appealing.
ReplyDeleteThe debates in the 1990 HFE act circles around the debate of the embryo question. When does life began and what moral code does this fringe upon or follow with? Robert Key is quoted in Parry’s article saying, “As the Bishop of Oxford has said, “If every fertilized egg was indeed a soul … then, according to these figures, three quarters of heaven would be populated by souls that lived for less than a week.” I’ve never looked at the argument of stem cell research in that manner but it is a very good perspective to address in this debate. Parry gives a balanced view of the pro-research and anti-research arguments and views throughout his writing. The embryo question for me is a challenging question to make an educated decision. Pro-research focuses on the potential outcomes that stem cell research can provide in our future that could possibly help deal with Alzheimers, Huntingdons disease and diabetes. On the other hand, anti-research groups advocate that pro-research lobbyists are giving false hope because the current research conducted cannot conclude such diseases can be helped by stem cell research. The fear appeals that the pro-research groups use are very effective and I think stand out the most in this article. ‘If we don’t use and advance the stem cell research then we are not potentially saving the lives of our loved ones who posses these diseases’.
ReplyDelete