"In fact, many nations currently refuse to support embryonic stem cell research of any kind"
About this Quote
The power move here is the blandness. Nathan Deal isn’t arguing the ethics of embryonic stem cell research; he’s normalizing opposition to it by treating refusal as the international default. “In fact” works like a rhetorical stamp of authority, implying the listener has been misled by wishful thinking or scientific hype. “Many nations” is conveniently vague: it conjures a global consensus without the burden of names, numbers, or the messy detail that some countries restrict public funding while allowing private work, or permit research under strict embryo-age limits. The phrase “refuse to support” also narrows the battlefield. It doesn’t claim research is universally banned; it frames the issue around government endorsement, a posture that lets politicians sound pragmatic rather than doctrinaire.
Then comes the clincher: “of any kind.” That absolutist tag turns a complex policy spectrum into a binary moral line. It sweeps in nuances like discarded IVF embryos, therapeutic cloning, and the difference between creating embryos for research versus using existing ones. Subtextually, Deal is inviting a familiar culture-war inference: if even “many nations” won’t touch it, then support is not just controversial but aberrant, potentially reckless.
Placed in the American policy fights of the 2000s and early 2010s, the quote reads as legislative positioning. It’s meant to steady a skeptical audience, reassure religious conservatives, and cast restraint as responsible governance rather than ideological refusal.
Then comes the clincher: “of any kind.” That absolutist tag turns a complex policy spectrum into a binary moral line. It sweeps in nuances like discarded IVF embryos, therapeutic cloning, and the difference between creating embryos for research versus using existing ones. Subtextually, Deal is inviting a familiar culture-war inference: if even “many nations” won’t touch it, then support is not just controversial but aberrant, potentially reckless.
Placed in the American policy fights of the 2000s and early 2010s, the quote reads as legislative positioning. It’s meant to steady a skeptical audience, reassure religious conservatives, and cast restraint as responsible governance rather than ideological refusal.
Quote Details
| Topic | Ethics & Morality |
|---|
More Quotes by Nathan
Add to List

