The Anticipated Embryonic Stem Cell News Article
...offered by Dn. James Ferrenberg, a sinner at 8:21 AM [+]
Wow...I'm surprised at how obvious the subtle bias is in this article. I think this is one amongst many examples of how so many news articles are facades for opinion pieces. Read THIS carefully. First the Title and the first sentence:
Stem-cell policy change liberating to researchers: Eight years of frustration are close to an end for scientists seeking ways to use embryonic stem cells to combat illness and injury.
Rather gives the impression that scientists were in a sort of researchers Auschwitz and the policy change was the Allied Army. It also gives the impression that the whole of the scientific community is celebrating and benefiting from the "liberation." This is of course not at all true because there are MANY scientists with moral objections to growing and harvesting and destroying humans. More than that, they have gone a very very long ways in showing the amazing utility of non-embryonic stem cells which I have long been noting here as often as I have heard about them. (Don't tell the Obama admin that THIS site still is up - I'm sure it'd be gone the very next day. But even this is a partial list.)
The long-promised move will allow a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis...
That's not a quote; that's a statement from the article. And then....cue the ominous music:
But it stirs intense controversy over whether government crosses a moral line with such research, and opponents promptly denounced the move.
Based on what you've read so far, what "move" have opponents denounced? The destroying of human life? Nope, "a rush of research aimed at one day better treating, if not curing, ailments from diabetes to paralysis." Boy, opponents must be like Nazi storm troopers or something, eh? Surely the next paragraph will give some explanation as to why someone might be opposed to this, right? Some sympathy for the Nazis...even if akin to the film "The Reader"?
Not so much, we immediately get a one sentence definition of stem cells followed by further explanation of their incredible potential to help people - further emphasizing, I guess, their wonderful Utopian potential.
Perhaps the next paragraph?
Nope, a quote from a survivor of the researches holocaust.
But the research is controversial because days-old embryos must be destroyed to obtain the cells.
There we go...some reasoning at last. Wow, maybe opponents aren't Nazis? Hold on for the next line before you decide:
They typically are culled from fertility-clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away.
Ahhh...so, the opponents aren't so much evil as they are just stupid with regard to common sense utilitarianism! These little babies would be thrown away otherwise so why not take them, divide them up, endlessly grow them over and over again and destroy them and manipulate them for our usage. (Wait a second...who's acting more like Dr. Mengele here...quit confusing us James.) As if further argument would be required: Key word here: "TYPICALLY."
So in a two sentence paragraph the opponent argumentative point is made and demonstrated to be moot. Wow, no bias here at all.
The article then goes on to discuss ONE advance in embryonic stem cell research that took place even in the concentration camps - followed by more quotes from holocaust survivors about how people in essence are dying and suffering for lack of cures in the last 8 years. No discussion yet of ANY of the MANY advances made with non-embryonic stem cells.
And then at last a point is offered for opponents. Unlike all but a couple of the other pro points before, this one of course comes as a quote from a Nazi.
"Taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for experiments that require the destruction of human life," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "President Obama's policy change is especially troubling given the significant adult stem cell advances that are being used to treat patients now without harming or destroying human embryos."
Astonishingly the article will now read like an online debate between friends as this little argument is followed by an "Indeed....but" statement, not from a proponent holocaust survivor, but the writer(s) of the "news" article itself. This is amazing...this writer is arguing with his/her quote source. Surely they taught you NOT to do that in journalism school? No? Not to let another source argue? Apparently not.
Indeed...But even researchers who work with varying types consider embryonic stem cells the most flexible and thus most promising form — and say that science, not politics, should ultimately judge.
Here, I will argue...quite vehemently. Let me be clear with CAPS: SCIENCE SHOULD NOT BE THE ULTIMATE MORAL JUDGE OF ANYTHING! Any good scientists will tell you the same thing: science makes no moral judgments, it is never in any position to tell you anything other that what is...never what ought to be. See the difference? I'm teetering on the edge of a rant here because I'm sick and tired of this notion that WE are NOT the dictating voice of morality to our scientists. Add on top of this the nonsense that ANYTIME you want to try and end a debate you claim your opponent is playing politics? Pish tosh...you are ALL playing politics! How is it not playing politics for the president to enact a political policy that will take our tax money so some scientists and pharmaceutical companies can play Dr. Mengele with embryos? But somehow asking that this not be done is playing politics?
So the argument against the advances and morally superior use of non-embryonic stem cells is that baby harvesting is just easier. Brilliant. It's easier so morality is swept aside.
I'm left to wonder, was there ever a time when one could read the news and actually get a non-biased story? Despite my own bias, I'm relatively certain I could write a news article that tells both sides on this issue...but I'm not sure reporters even try anymore. I think these days they see their job more as being some moral agent of change rather than actually informing people of news.