The author of this opinion article presents an argument that will be very effective in respect to his target audience. The purpose of this argument is not to change the opinion of someone who feels differently about the subject matter; if this were the case the article could be seen as being incredibly ineffective. Because the purpose of this article seems to be to rally those that already share the views and opinions of the author it can be seen as being very effective. The author relies heavily on ethos and pathos to get his audience involved in the piece and he uses them very effectively to show his audience why “…stem cell research involving the killing of human embryos is irrelevant to medical advancement.”
When reading this article it is important to remember that the audience this article is directed at is primarily made up of Pro-Life advocates. These advocates believe that life begins at inception and that taking any life is ethically wrong. Within the first two paragraphs of this article the author refers to the “supposed scientific justification” of using human embryos for stem cell research. This is a clear play to both the readers’ ethos and pathos with the author’s word choice alone. The language that he uses implies that there is no real justification for this type of research and this is something that his audience would agree with.
Once he has set the stage for his argument Blumer then pastes in a portion of the article he is referring to. This allows the readers to see what information he is referring to however, the information that is provided is not shown in its entirety. Due to the nature of the audience of this argument it is not likely that they wonder about the information that has been left out. It seems that this may be what Blumer is counting on. Once readers are able to peruse the excerpts they are then summarized and the writer draws them into his conclusion that, if stem cell...