Mediated #4 Here we go again...

Off-duty St. Louis Cop Kills Man, Sparking Protest

Here we go again. Another white cop kills an 18-year-old black kid causing more protests. This case is quite different from Michael Brown's case since the officer was off-duty and he only fired at the black kid because the kid shot off three rounds at the officer first. Also the officer was off-duty, but still working as a security guard when it happened. When I first heard about this story on the radio this morning I automatically had that off-the-cuff knee jerk reaction. I automatically started to get angry that people were rioting the fact that this officer shot this 18-year-old adult in self defense. All the little news blip on the radio gave was that people in Missouri were rioting again because another cop shot a black kid. I wanted more information. As soon as I got home I went to my computer and looked it up. As it turns out I was right to feel the way I did.

This article came from MSN and was written by the Associated Press. I found it to be cogent... or maybe fallacious? I absolutely hate the title. I wish they would have said something like 'Off-duty Cop Kills man in Self-Defense', but that doesn't make it fallacious. An off-duty cop did kill a man, sparking a protest. However, I feel as though the title and the article itself was written to get people riled up; to make people feel those heated emotions no matter what side you agree with. In the article it gives information according to St. Louis Police Chief Col. Sam Dotson that the 18-year-old opened fire on the the 32-year-old police officer, who returned fire and killed the man. Dotson also said that the gun was recovered and ballistic evidence shows the teen fired three shots and tried to fire again, but his gun jammed.

Then further down in the article it tells us that people who describe themselves as relatives of the deceased told the St. Louis Post dispatch that the man was unarmed. This makes me question even more so the intent of the victim and his family when they say he wasn't armed, but the man's gun was recovered and they have ballistic evidence. It does however help the police officer's case. The thing that made me angry as I was reading this article is that the people protesting automatically jumped to the conclusion that this black kid did nothing wrong that would give reason for him to be shot by the officer, and that the officer must be a racist that wanted to kill this black teen. People all over need to realize that most of the time these police officers are just doing their jobs. They should get all the facts before they go out and protest. 

With all that being said, I'm going to say this article is in fact cogent even if it leaves questions unanswered. It tries to give both sides of the story with what little facts the press had to go off of at the time. I also have to say it is cogent because it is not an opinion piece and the reporter was giving facts. I may not agree with the way it was written or the title it was given, but it is a cogent article. 

Mediated #3

Obama and Holder Are Not Our Friends

This opinion article at Aljazeera America is written by David Cay Johnston. He is an investigative reporter who won a Pulitzter Prize while at The New York Times. He wrote this opinion piece on a speech given by Lowell Bergman who argues that journalism is under attack from corporate and government power. Johnston agrees and says that Bergman is right. Bergman spoke at the largest-ever gathering of investigative journalists in San Francisco the first week of July 2014. Johnston says it is a speech every American should know about.

“We thought that after the Bush-Ashcroft-Gonzales years that Barack Obama and Eric Holder were our
friends,” Bergman said. “They are not. While the president has said he supports whistle-blowers for their ‘courage and patriotism,’ his Justice Department is prosecuting more of them for allegedly talking to the press or ‘leaking’ than all the other presidents in the history of the United States.”

Bergman has a cogent argument with this statement. Why should journalist be afraid of reporting the truth when it is their job to do so? It is not so much that journalists are trying to keep the truth from the public, but rather they are afraid of the consequences that would follow for reporting the truth.

Bergman warned his audience, “We are on a collision course with the Justice Department and the White House. They advocate transparency and then they practice repression. Everything has to be approved by the White House — including leaks!"

Even though the title is misleading and fallacious, I believe his argument to be cogent. Johnston and Bergman are both experts in the field of journalism. They would know just as well as anybody else what is happening in the journalism world. Their reasoning is cogent. The argument is based on truths, and it would be hard to poke many holes in the argument when, as Johnston writes, two days after Bergman’s speech, the head of the NSA said in an hour-long interview with The New York Times that the damage caused by the Snowden revelations was, in fact, not such a big deal. Yet Obama’s campaign to tighten the lid, and keep you in the dark, continues.

Obama campaigned on the promise of ending the extreme secrecy of the Bush administration, yet he has been caught sweeping many things "under the rug". Where is the transparency that he promised us years ago?

Opposition Constructive Stem Cell Research

Stem Cell Research

In an NPR.org health blog Richard Harris reminds us that eighteen years ago, scientists in Scotland took the nuclear DNA from the cell of an adult sheep and put it into another sheep's egg cell that had been emptied of its own nucleus. The resulting egg was implanted in the womb of a third sheep, and the result was Dolly, the first clone of a mammal. Along with Dolly came an outcry of ethical and moral concern. Since Dolly, researchers have been using embryos and eggs from women to try and recreate the process.

Research should not be funded by taxpayers dollars because those taxpayers may not agree with stem cell research, and all of the moral and ethical questions that arise from it.  

It is true that stem cell research has come a long way from the use of embryos, and eggs of female donors, to the use of adult stem cells. Using adult stem cells is a technique, which produces "induced pluripotent stem cells," (iPS) it skips the step that requires a human egg cell. Some may say that adult stem cells are less fraught ethically. This is not true. I will tell you why embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should not be funded.

Stem cells have proven to be beneficial with all the possibilities they hold to cure diseases, however, there are still many ethical concerns involving stem cell research. Stem Cell Research raises difficult questions such as: does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth? Is a human embryo equivalent to a human child?

Does a human embryo have any rights? Might the destruction of a single embryo be justified if it provides a cure for a countless number of patients?  And since embryonic stem cells can grow indefinitely in a dish and can, in theory, still grow into a human being, is the embryo really destroyed? This last question is the biggest concern because it can lead to scientist experimenting further with the embryos and doing whatever they please with it. There is no definite answer to these questions. They can't be proven only justified and generalized, so is it worth risking the life of a soul; of an innocent unborn baby to do stem cell research on embryos? David A. Prentice, founding member of Do No Harm- The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics said, "Destroying living human embryos for research violates the basic tenet of the healing arts: 'first do no harm.' It is ethically wrong to harm or destroy some human beings for the potential benefit of others." 

Some may agree that use of embryos and eggs is ethically and or morally wrong, but will ask what is unethical with using adult stem cells? There is one major issue that arises from using adult stem cell research. Adult stem cells are known as iPS cells. These cells have the potential to develop into a human embryo, in effect producing a clone of the donor. Human cloning could be next on the agenda of stem cell researchers and this is exactly the direction research is taking us. Paul Knoepfler at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine is excited about this advance from a medical point of view. But he says this does mean we could be getting closer to being able to go beyond cloned cell lines to cloning an entire human being. "I don't think that's coming anytime soon, but certainly this kind of technology could be abused by some kind of rogue scientist," Knoepfler said. 

Stem cell research is a slippery slope. Many nations have already put legislation in place that bans human cloning. At what point does stem cell research end? Who gets to decide when enough is enough? The potential of it is endless and no one really knows if the direction it is leading is good or bad. Do we really want to get so far into research that could be morally and ethically disastrous in the end? All it takes is a few rogue scientists to do whatever they please with stem cell research to have it go awry.  These ethical and moral concerns are why it should not be funded.

Prima Facie Outline

Stem Cell Research

Introduction:

In an NPR.org health blog Richard Harris reminds us that eighteen years ago, scientists in Scotland took the nuclear DNA from the cell of an adult sheep and put it into another sheep's egg cell that had been emptied of its own nucleus. The resulting egg was implanted in the womb of a third sheep, and the result was Dolly, the first clone of a mammal. Along with Dolly came an outcry of ethical and moral concern. Since Dolly, researchers have been using embryos and eggs from women to try and recreate the process.

I.  Research should not be funded by taxpayers dollars because those taxpayers may not agree with stem cell research, and all of the moral and ethical questions that arise from it.  Stem cell research has come a long way from the use of embryos, and eggs of female donors, to the use of adult stem cells. 

A. Using adult stem cells is a technique, which produces "induced pluripotent stem cells," (iPS) it skips the          step that requires a human egg cell.

1. Some may say that adult stem cells are less fraught ethically. This is not true.

2. I will tell you why embryonic stem cell research and adult stem cell research should not be funded.

II. It's true that stem cells have proven to be beneficial with all the possibilities they hold to cure diseases.

A. There are still many ethical concerns involving stem cell research

1. Stem Cell Research raises difficult questions:

a. Does life begin at fertilization, in the womb, or at birth?  

b. Is a human embryo equivalent to a human child?

c. Does a human embryo have any rights?

d. Might the destruction of a single embryo be justified if it provides a cure for a countless number of                 patients?

e. Since embryonic stem cells can grow indefinitely in a dish and can, in theory, still grow into a human being,     is the embryo really destroyed?

i. This last question is the biggest concern because it can lead to scientist experimenting further with the              embryos and doing whatever they please with it.

2. David A. Prentice, founding member of Do No Harm- The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics       said, "Destroying living human embryos for research violates the basic tenet of the healing arts: 'first do no     harm.' It is ethically wrong to harm or destroy some human beings for the potential benefit of others." 

3. There is no definite answers to these questions. They can't be proven only justified and generalized, so is it    worth risking the life of a soul; of an innocent unborn baby to do stem cell research on embryos?

B. What is unethical with using adult stem cells?

1. There is one major issue that arises from using adult stem cell research...

a. Adult stem cells are known as iPS cells. These cells have the potential to develop into a human embryo, in effect producing a clone of the donor. 

III. Human cloning could be next on the agenda of stem cell researchers and this is exactly the direction       research is taking us.

A. Paul Knoepfler at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine is excited about this advance          from a medical point of view. But he says this does mean we could be getting closer to being able to go        beyond cloned cell lines to cloning an entire human being. "I don't think that's coming anytime soon, but          certainly this kind of technology could be abused by some kind of rogue scientist," Knoepfler says.

Conclusion:

Stem cell research is a slippery slope. Many nations have already put legislation in place that bans human cloning. At what point does stem cell research end? Who gets to decide when enough is enough? The potential of it is endless and no one really knows if the direction it is leading is good or bad. Do we really want to get so far into research that could be morally and ethically disastrous in the end? All it takes is a few rogue scientists to do whatever they please with stem cell research to have it go awry.  These ethical and moral concerns are why it should not be funded.

   

     

Mediated #2

Parents Fearing Ebola Remove Children From School

This article I found through MSN and it came from the Fort Worth Star Telegram.  A letter was sent out to parents whose children attend L.L. Hotchkiss Elementary School, Tasby Middle School, Dan D. Rogers Elementary School, and Conrad High School with another elementary school being watched that connects to Tasby Middle School. Dallas Superintendent Mike Miles found out on Wednesday that five children that attend four of the schools came into contact with Thomas Eric Duncan.

Duncan is from Liberia visiting relatives and friends in the U.S. He was checked at the airport for any symptoms of Ebola, but since it can take up to three weeks for any symptoms to present themselves he was considered healthy to travel. He went to a Dallas hospital last Friday, September 26, two days after he had started experiencing the first sign of Ebola symptoms. Friday, he had a fever and severe abdominal pain. The hospital sent him home with antibiotics and pain medication instead of admitting him because "he was not exhibiting symptoms consistent with keeping him. If the person is not exhibiting the symptoms there would be know reason to keep them."  Duncan had just come from Liberia and had symptoms of the first signs of Ebola. I feel like the hospital made a huge mistake not admitting him on Friday. When Duncan went back to the hospital two days later on Sunday the 28th, the hospital then admitted him. 

That is two days more that the children of his girlfriend were exposed to him. The school district and Texas State officials are telling parents to send their kids to school because the "children exposed were not showing any symptoms and don't believe it could have been spread."  That is what the airport officials that let Duncan on the airplane to the U.S. had believed as well. And now we have the first case of Ebola in America. Symptoms of Ebola can begin to present themselves anywhere between 3-21 days of being exposed. Anybody traveling to America that is coming from one of the countries where the virus is most prevalent should not be allowed to travel until they have been observed for the full 21 days. Duncan came into contact with at least 12-18 people during the time he was presenting symptoms. If even one of those people is infected, then who knows how many more they will infect.

The article talks about how the gov't is going to control the disease, but I am not sure if that is possible now. When I read the title I thought 'a headline like that can't reassure anyone', and thought the article would take the stance that Americans should be worried about an Ebola outbreak, and the article would be fallacious. Then as I finished reading the entire article it turned out to be cogent. It told both sides of the story, was reasonable, and had relevant information. The author of the article didn't take either side of the scared parents or the State Officials. It only presented the facts and the author Bill Hanna didn't give his own opinion. Therefore, this article is cogent.