There are several cracks in the foundation of Dr. Jeffrey Hart's argument. Hart fails to distinguish between morality and reverence. Additionally, Hart absolutizes the legal system in a repetitive argument proclaiming no such precedent exist in the American legal system which defines a cell as "human." Hart falls victim to the fallacy on numerous occasions. Additionally, Hart fails to understand the source and thus the framing of the Declaration of Independence. These are only a few examples of the many cracks in the foundation of Hart's argument.
Morality is an often worthless currency to Christians. Christians should not be concerned with morality; instead, a Christian should be concerned with reverence (Martin, 2006). Reverence waxes…show more content… Hart argues the prospect of eliminating horrible disease justified using cells that are otherwise doomed. The "right to life" found in the Declaration of Independence, Hart argues, goes both ways (Hart, 2004). These rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness according to Hart would be more widely enjoyed in the wake of stem-cell advances (Hart, 2004). However, in the context of the history surrounding the Declaration of Independance, this is an absurd argument! In the time of our Founding Fathers, the term the terms "nature's God" and other similar appellations were frequently used by Orthodox Christians to define the God of the Bible (Hall). Thus, if the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are given to citizens of the United States not by man but by God it would seem implausible these rights would not be within reverent bounds that include the sanctity of life. Hart ignores this logic and instead hinges his argument about consequentialism. In conclusion, Hart's position on an overall justification for stem cell research is feeble. Hart's argument is horrifying in areas when one considers the disregard for the sanctity of life. The flaws in Hart's logic were only touched upon in this discussion post. I acknowledge the benefits of stem cell research. However, I also recognize the sanctity of life and the dangers of consequentialism. In the end, like Ponnuru, I approve of stem cell research with adult somatic cells and umbilical research but stop short at accepting embryoic stem cell
