Article link:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/09/13/making-laws-about-making-babies
In an article posted under the Room for Debate on the New York Times online, titled "Making Laws About Making Babies" multiple debaters sharing various opinions give their opinion on whether the U.S should regulate the fertility industry more closely. Today, the fertility industry has very little regulations and according to the New York Times this allows "consumers and business people dictate what is acceptable, what is normal and what is allowable -- including the extreme cases like the one sperm donor who had 150 children."
Because this debate includes so many different responses and different views I will narrow this argument down to just a couple of different debaters opinions: program director of the New York University Fertility Center and a professor at the university’s Langone Medical Center, Jamie Grifon vs. law professor, Naomi Cahn and Director of the Donor Sibling Registry Wendy Kramer.
The presence of qualifiers and rebuttals are both difficult to point out because this debate is not presented in the traditional way that arguments may usually be presented in. Instead, each debater gives their personal opinion in their own post without knowing what the other debater is saying. This type of debate may benefit in the way that each debater is not influenced by one another and their opinions stay on point and are not stayed off topic. Each debater is able to get their main point across without being interrupted or strayed.
When analyzing the post written by Jamie Griffon, titled "A Rush to Pass Laws," I thought his qualifier could be summed up and expressed in this one sentence, "Too often in medicine, regulators and legislators feel forced to use legislation to make a knee-jerk response to what seems to be alarming information without knowing the full consequences of their actions." His rebuttal, though not a traditional rebuttal, could be "Whatever the solution, we must be mindful and empathetic to the plight of the infertile couple or individual needing this technology. Much good has occurred from sperm donation, a technique that has helped create
countless families with wanted healthy children that would otherwise not exist." This statement reminded me of rebuttal because of he defensive tone. He states that "whatever the solution" referring to other solutions that other debaters may come to.
"End the Anonymity" written by Naomi Cahn and Wendy Kramer, has an opposing view and the qualifier can be summed up by the first paragraph of their post, "The United States has almost no rules when it comes to buying or selling sperm. In fact, no one keeps records on how much sperm is bought or sold, so we don’t even know how big the sperm market really is, or how many babies are born each year through donor sperm. The same donor can father hundreds of children, and, although his sperm must undergo some minimal testing before it is used, these tests don’t catch many genetic diseases. No laws in the United States require that donors or recipients exchange any information, identifying or otherwise." Their rebuttal, which also defends against opposing views can be found in the last paragraph, "Is it fair to bring children into the world who don’t have the chance to know about their ancestry and their medical background?"
It was difficult to find qualifies and rebuttals in an argument such as this one bug if analyzed closely, they are there. With that said, some sources are definitely more likely to use qualifiers and rebuttals due to the structure of an argument.
I see some qualifiers in this document. Such as the sentence "It’s certain that more regulation, and an end to donor anonymity, would clean up the industry, soothe customers, and help donor offspring." The writer, like many modern writers, uses qualifiers of certainty versus probability. This is popular with many American writers.
ReplyDeleteThe best rebuttal seems to be by Jamie Griffon saying " "Whatever the solution, we must be mindful and empathetic to the plight of the infertile couple or individual needing this technology. Much good has occurred from sperm donation, a technique that has helped create," as the writer has pointed out. This goes against the masses of the opinion therefore I'd say it is a good rebuttal when it comes to a situation where many people are responding to an argument.
I think this post does an excellent job of articulating the qualifiers and rebuttals of the article in question as well as other other sources and articles addressing the same subject matter. I think it is interesting to note the emotional tone of many of the qualifiers and rebuttals and the fact that they are not necessarily linked to concrete data or facts. I think this owes largely to the fact that reproductive issues are controversial even today and that liberals and conservatives alike are hesitant to cause even further controversy in an area already ripe with issues. I think it's interesting that you note that an argument's structure is often responsible for the lack of rebuttals, and I would be interested to know exactly how the structure of this particular article lends to the presence or ratio of qualifiers and rebuttals.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Vint