Christopher Smith Save Life Summary

Rushil Rawal

Professor Mattson

English 1A

24 September 2015

Christopher Smith Analysis: Save a life, Save an Embryo

Envision if your underdeveloped child was killed and kept frozen for a group of scientists

to perform stem cell research. There are many cases in which embryos are being used for stem

cell research. Currently, innocent embryos are being frozen and eventually killed for the purpose

that their one hundred and fifty cells will be used to create any type of cell for the future use of

human bodies. Killing embryos is simply dejected and vicious. In fact, United States

Representative, Christopher Smith, a senior member of the United States House Committee on

Foreign Affairs, apprises an inconsolable anecdote about

a girl named Hannah Strege, who was

once a frozen embryo facing the road of death, and now a two year old experiencing life. As the

Dalai Lama once said, “Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help

them, at least don't hurt them.” Essentially, killing an embryo is abolishing an individual. People

of Congress, including Christopher Smith, are raising a debate on whether embryonic stem cell

research should be condoned. Christopher Smith in his article, “Perils and Promise: Destroy an

Embryo, Waste a Life,” illuminates through the use of ethos, pathos, and logos, how embryonic

stem cells are not saving a life, but taking away a life.

The credibility of Christopher H. Smith plays a big role in his outlook and his

perseverance as an author. Being a U.S Representative of New Jersey, Smith is well aware of

human rights and ethics. In fact, Christopher Smith is the head patron for the Stem Cell

Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005. This is primarily why he serves as such an awe-inspiring

figure and writer for the topic of embryonic stem cells. Having such a high position in

researching makes Christopher Smith intelligent and capable of understanding how stem cells

impact society. Essentially, Smith is a U.S representative who wants his audience to realize that

he has a long experience pertaining to stem cell research, and therefore readers should believe

him. His experience in foreign affairs gives him a credible voice internationally which allows

him to be trusted. Smith has found possible ways to improvise stem cells that are not embryonic-

induced. There so many options that scientists can use to gain stem cells such as “cord blood

stem cells” ( “Stem Cell Act of 2005” para.5) and “adult stem cells” (Smith 9). Embryonic stem

cells are not the only type of stem cells that scientists can use. Christopher Smith in his article,

“Perils and Promise: Destroy an Embryo, Waste a Life,” provides reputational evidence

apprising how scientists should stay away from embryonic stem cell research and further their

research. Furthermore, Smith mentions, “Donald Orlic [of the] National Human Genome

Research Institute... 'Adult stem cells can function as well [as embryonic stem cells], perhaps

even better'” (Smith 6). By referring to Donald Orlic, Christopher Smith wants readers to know

that he is not the only human being that presumes embryonic stem cell research needs to be

stopped. Orlic is a scientist at the National Human Genome Research Institute that essentially

advices how adult stem cells should be used to cure people. Christopher Smith credits Donald

Orlic in his article due to the fact that he uses logical reasoning to convey his point. What

Christopher Smith and Donald Orlic are both asserting is that embryonic stem cells are used

from embryos that are eventually killed through the process. Not only does Smith mention the

research contributed by the National Human Genome Research Institute, but also the National

Journal of Medicine. In fact, the source itself is a journalized website formed by the group effort

of doctors, who in many cases address information about stem cell research. Christopher Smith's

purpose in manipulating paradigms is so that his audience can gain a well understanding of the

ethical issues of embryonic stem cell research. Smith asserts that it is logical how using adult

stem cells would not be life-threatening and would work effectively. Adult stem cells would

establish from developed human adults that have trillions of cells in their body by which they

would not die if a few of their cells were extracted. By possessing an open mind and a creative

approach, the U.S Foreign Affairs Committee member creates a well-known reputation for

himself. Being a journalist on ethical issues, Smith wants people to be aware that embryonic

stem cells will hurt humanity in the end. There are many reliable sources that describe Smith's

message: mankind should not destroy the lives of embryos that many believe have natural value.

The killing of defenseless organisms without any objections would be a catastrophic blow to this

nation’s morals, which Smith argues throughout his article.

Through the use of pathos, Christopher Smith presents an emotionally alluring story of

Hannah Strege. Smith uses Hannah as a prime example in his article, “Perils and Promise:

Destroy an Embryo, Waste a Life,” due to the fact that Hannah's incident sets up a tone that is

very impactful. In fact, through the use of pathetical appeal, Christopher Smith builds his

intended audience which consists of parents who have or are experiencing life with an embryo,

and scientists. He wants people to fathom that having a child that is not in the form of an

accustomed human being does not mean he or she is worthless. It is important to clarify through

common sense that an embryo is a human being because it has a living structure. In Christopher

Smith's example of Hannah, parents are being motivated to keep their children even though they

are in the form of embryos. Through the use of pathos, Smith addresses that “No child is spare or

leftover....We must speak for them” (Smith 13). This keeps his intended audience interested on

the topic of stem cell research. Smith wants his readers to comprehend that even though many

critics believe that embryonic research is a useful factor, people must be aware of their actions.

Just how Hannah is an embryo that is given the opportunity to live a normal life, all embryos

deserve a life as well. Smith indirectly addresses that it is logical to stay away from embryonic

stem cell research because it is harming the life of a living structure, as well as putting an

emotional effect on people living in society. Many folks consider living things as a waste, which

in thought is hypocritical due to the fact that human beings are living organisms and therefore

should treat phases of human development, such as embryos, uniformly. Christopher Smith

suggests all human beings evolved from embryos and should make sure that their fellow

embryos are treated with respect. Taking away the valuable stem cells of an embryo is taking

advantage of an embryo on the behalf of established human beings that want to be cured from

their paralyzed segments and diseased conditions. Embryos have “Precious stem cells.... [Which]

are not ours to take” (Smith 5).

Christopher Smith asserts that there are many cultures that

believe embryos should be immolated, but in evaluation, it is morally wrong. Through the use of

logic, Smith apprises how it is clear if embryos are killed because of their cells, it is not a benefit

for people, but is a loss for a family that could have spent a time in their life with that embryo. In

Smith's perspective, it is illogical how civilization can execute embryos that do not affect people,

but provide people with the means to create new families.

From beginning to end, Christopher Smith addresses logical reasoning in his article,

“Perils and Promise: Destroy an Embryo, Waste a Life.” Smith wants people to know that

destroying embryos is taking the happiness away from human beings. There are programs such

as the Snowflakes program, acknowledged in Christopher Smith's article, that allow embryos to

be placed for adoption with any of the “infertile couples waiting to begin families of their own”

(Smith 4). The Snowflakes program extensively researches on stem cells and understands how

embryos are an important part of human development. In fact, the website Nightlight

Christian

Adoption states, “Over 1100 families have donated their remaining embryos through

Snowflakes” (“Snowflakes Embryo Adoption” para.3). Christopher Smith is expressing common

sense to his intended audience by notifying the purpose of the Snowflakes Program. If people

want to establish families, killing embryos will terminate the chance of creating a family.

Embryonic stem cell research is harming society in a systematic fashion, which Smith is

indirectly apprising. If humans cannot interact with one another and do not get the opportunity to

live as embryos, then why are we performing embryonic stem cell research in the first place?

Many sources believe that embryonic stem cell research will allow people to learn about the

“complex events that occur during human development,” (“Stem Basics” para. 1). On the other

hand, Christopher Smith informs that killing embryos on the basis on science will ultimately

cause “all [of] life [to be portrayed as] devalued” (Smith 10). Smith states that if living

organisms such as embryos are killed, the worth of human beings will decrease due to the fact

that scientific studies will progress as living things are killed for studies. If there are other ways

of doing stem cell research, as Christopher Smith mentions, then why should we kill abnormal

human beings who have not done any harm to us? As some references state, “embryos are stem

cells....these cells begin to differentiate and become heart, liver [and other tissues in the

human

body]” (“Sacrificed ending lives” para. 2). However, through the use of logical reasoning and

proper diction, Christopher Smith pinpoints that embryonic stem cell have not been as beneficial

as already used adult stem cells that have helped cure things such as “ovarian cancer,

leukemia...and liver disease” (Smith 7). Smith determines that embryonic stem cells are no use

when there are adult stem cells already curing human beings. Smith alerts his audience that it is

unnecessary how embryos are being used in stem cell research when there is death involved.

All in all, Christopher Smith uses a myriad of ways to persuade his audience. Smith’s

article “Perils and Promise: Destroy an Embryo, Waste a Life,” expresses how embryonic stem

cell research is not beneficial in any way. It is his consistent use of rhetoric, diction, and sentence

structure that drives his audience throughout his article. If an embryo is killed to save someone,

there is no impact. In fact, the result is neutralized. Although there may be groups of human

beings who support embryonic stem cell research, the idea itself surpasses the rules and

regulations established in society. The debate still continues today, as there are people like

Christopher Smith who utilize strong rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, and logos) to convey their

judgments on embryonic stem cell research. There are continuous controversies over stem cell

research in which Smith is participating in. His stance fluctuates on the viewpoints of various

individuals living in society. Essentially, Christopher Smith knows that individuals will disagree

in society, but his point remains stable: all human beings should be treated fairly.