Visual Argument- Stem cell research

Visuals, whether they are videos or images, can present an argument that is more direct and easily taken in by the reader. Visuals stimulate the human mind and are more memorable to most people. The argument that a visual may make can be immediate compared to reading an article, and that has its advantages. People may skim through words but a visual is easily absorbed by the mind and the message of the argument gets through to people quickly. In this way, visual arguments are helpful tools that can be utilized to persuade people. To some visuals may seem to be more truthful than just written text. When reading a paper or an article, people may question the writer’s credibility. With a visual, since the absorption and persuasion of the argument is so quick, there is less to question about it. However, the downfall of visual arguments is just that. Since it is limited and usually absorbed faster, the audience may lose the message of the argument quicker than other forms of arguments.

The two main controversies with stem cell research are well presented in this visual argument. Since stem cell research has developed, researchers have been using stem cells derived from embryos. Many believe that life begins at the point of conception so the use of embryos for research is cruel and inhumane. As this visual argument simply explains, stem cell research kills human life. Another aspect of the argument is one that is less obvious. The old man says that he is on that cloud because he was “waiting” for stem cell research. Stem cell research has had much time and effort put into it without as much evidence and advances shown to the public. Because of this, some people argue that stem cell research is a lost cause that is just soaking up money.

The fact that stem cells are derived from embryos is a fact that cannot be ignored, whether one is for or against the research. However, the fact that an embryo is considered life is arguable. When embryos are taken for research purposes, they are taken from either donated or from an in vitro fertilization process. Not only do these tiny embryos not resemble babies at this stage, nor are they visible to the human eye, they had no chance to develop into life. Because they are discarded embryos, they cannot have the proper nutrition or setting to become life. The cartoon portrays an adorable-looking little talking baby boy as the embryo, and this is the main fault of this visual argument. Granted that this is a drawn cartoon, how can an embryo that consists of a few hundred cells at its later stage be visualized as a walking, talking human? This raises the question of credibility of the artist of this particular cartoon. Was this person biased? Does this person even know what embryos are? Were they utilizing a subjective form of persuasion? From the cartoon, I would think yes, yes, and yes.

The second image (which I found online but incorporated my own texts to) is obviously pro-stem cell research. The argument being made here is that stem cell research provides a vast range of medical benefits to people of various needs. The tiny circular mass at the bottom of the poster represents a stem cell. There is a root or a branch growing from that cell into body parts, organs, and medicine. The concept is simple and persuasive. The leaf (which I colored green to pronounce it) is there to incorporate the idea that stem cell research is a growing and blooming process that betters or even creates life. In conjunction with the fact of what embryos really are, this poster makes for a very effective argument.