Absurdity In Argumentation

In an article in Time on-line, the exploits of Douglas Melton are examined. As a died-in-the-wool embryonic stem cell supporter, Melton decries the Bush restrictions on embryonic stem cells. Yet he acknowledges and apparently pursues the non-embryonic stem cells as well. The article most frequently refers to the embryonic type as "stem cells", and non-embryonic type as adult or iPS cells. So the ethical lapse is palpable throughout the article.

Here is an example of the "logic" that impressed these embryonic enthusiasts:

"When the class discussed the morality of embryonic-stem-cell research, Melton invited Richard Doerflinger of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops to present arguments against the field. Melton asked Doerflinger if he considered a day-old embryo and a 6-year-old to be moral equivalents; when Doerflinger responded yes, Melton countered by asking why society accepts the freezing of embryos but not the freezing of 6-year-olds."

The blatant Category Error is unnoticed, and Doerflinger's answer is omitted. The obvious answer is that there is a PHYSICAL difference between embryos and 6-year-olds, which allows embryos to be frozen without damage. Freezability has no bearing whatsoever on the "moral equivalency" of the two categories of human existence.

When one subscribes to the relativistic ethic, logic is no longer necessary or even recognized, it appears. To think that the exchange above is meaningful reveals a total lack of logical ability in the speaker, the author and the editors. And the built-in bias of the article toward embryonic stem cells is another clue.