Jill Filipovic Argument

Corey Skeldon

Ms. Alyesse Orr

English 103

14 September 2015

“The Pope’s Unforgiving Message of Forgiveness on Abortion”

In her article, “The Pope’s Unforgiving Message of Forgiveness on Abortion,” Jill Filipovic argued that the Pope’s announcement that women who have aborted fetuses will be given forgiveness during the churches Holy Year of Mercy is actually an act of cruelty rather than mercy. Although Jill Filipovic presented sufficient evidence to support her position, she did have biases and other aspects of her writing that also weakened her argument. Throughout the article Filipovic employed emotional appeals, logical appeals, and emotionally charged diction to strengthen her argument. On the other hand Filipovic also displayed clear

bias in her writing as well as lack of important information to support some of her claims. If Filipovic were to fix these her article would be much more effective in her attempt to convince the reader that the Pope’s forgiveness of Abortion is actually sending a negative message to and about women who choose to have abortions.
Jill Filipovic claimed that while the church is advertising that a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy is an “agonizing and painful decision” research actually shows just the opposite.

Filipovic offered, “…research shows that a vast majority of women who terminate pregnancies in the United States don’t actually feel bad about it” (Filipovic, page #). Instead of simply stating that research proved this, she sourced where she got her information and provided a link directly to the website providing this information, in this case being plos.org. By doing so, she is not only appealing to the reader in a logical way, she is actually bolstering her credibility by citing a respected source of information. Filipovic continued with her point that the existence of a rule that threatens the excommunication of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy actually illuminates their stance on women’s rights. The author pointed, “Inviting women to feel shame and guilt for their abortions isn’t a mercy; it’s cruelty” (page #). Her deliberate use of the words “shame”, “guilt”, and “cruelty” invoke a feeling of outrage and unjustness in the minds of her viewers. Thus this direct use emotionally charged diction, helps further Filipovic’s position against the Pope’s message of supposed mercy. Jill Filipovic also addresses any counterarguments to her claims when she says “Which doesn’t mean some women don’t feel very real guilt or regret around abortion; for some women, post

abortion emotions are complex” (page #). By addressing and acknowledging the other side of the issue, the author was able to avoid alienating those with a differing point of view on the after effects of abortion. By not grouping together all women and generalizing their situations she was again able to further her credibility with the reader and thus support her stance. She again employed a logical appeal when referencing surveys that show that Catholic and non-Catholic women alike, participate in abortions in equal rates. By qualifying where she got this information, and providing a link for the reader to look at the data, she is enabling the audience to check her facts and not solely rely on her word, and she was able to further persuade the reader.
Jill Filipovic weakened her argument when she claimed, “…most American priests, notably, have been able to forgive and not excommunicate women who have had abortions for years” (page #).

While this statement would seem to support her argument that the church is offering this year of mercy as a tactic to support the anti-abortion cause, she actually hindered her argument because she didn’t support this claim with any evidence to support its validity. By failing to do so, she lost credibility with her audience. In the paragraph following that statement, she again weakened her argument when she pointed, “According to the mercy narrative, entirely normal and common reproductive choices are actually tragedies in which women are ignorant dupes manipulated by doctors or unsupportive partners” (page #). In this statement the author showed clear signs of bias, in her evaluation of abortion as an “entirely normal and common” practice. While I may agree with her point of view, many readers would not, and by stating this she is clearly not appealing to the demographic of her audience who disagree. In this same sentence she is again using emotionally charged diction when she refers to women being seen as “ignorant dupes”. By doing the author was able to evoke a feeling of outrage in her female readers especially, again furthering her point of

view.
Jill Filipovic later brought into perspective the vast numbers of women who are either killed or injured every year from risky abortion procedures. She again provided a link to the information she was proposing which thus helped boost her credibility and appeal logically to her audience. Filipovic then introduced the story of a 9-year old girl in Brazil. “…she had been raped by her stepfather and was pregnant with twins”(page #). While she was allowed a legal abortion, the church excommunicated her mother and the doctors who performed the termination of the pregnancy, but didn’t excommunicate stepfather who had raped her. By using this case involving a child, the author was able to appeal emotionally to the audience. Filipovic ended her argument with her statement, “The leaders of the same church that tried to force her as a child to bear her rapist’s children now offer her mercy if she cops to her sin. Perhaps they should be the ones begging her forgiveness” (page #). This statement was again meant to evoke strong feelings of dismay and outrage with the way the church handled situations regarding the termination of pregnancy, especially in such heinous cases. By referring to the rape of a 9 year old girl as “her sin” the author was able to highlight the absurdity of the church’s stance on abortion, and again further her position.