I decided to do my Rhetorical Analysis on an article I found called "Abortion in the American Context" written by John T. Noonar, Jr. Noonar explains in this article that abortion is still a main issue and it still exists in America. He expresses his opinion on abortion and he agree that abortion has become a really big issue in America and that we need to fix it and deal it with care. As I continue to read the article he expresses and uses effective Rhetorical analysis to make us agree upon his statement. He uses many effective appeals such as, ethos, pathos, logos, and Kairos. The first appeal he used was ethos. He stated how unethical abortion is by stating that "Until the child in the womb is visible, the Supreme court has determined …show more content…
He trys to appeal to mothers and includes the psychological and emotional well-being of all mothers. He also talks about how mothers should be embarrassed to try and kill the child within the womb. I liked how he stated that " If you have set your heart on destroying your offspring, why should you be embarrassed by the offspring's survival?"(Noonar). As you can see that all his emotional statements appeal to all mothers. The next appeal Noonar used was logos. He stated that there's no difference between abortion and infanticide. Infanticide is to be accepted. He thinks that "If abortion is killing- I do not say murder for that is a term traditionally reserved for the taking of more mature human life- but if it is the killin of human beings, how can we tolerate it in the name of "pluralism?"(Noonar). And he's right, who can tolerate killing an innocent child because we need to think about ourselves a think if our parents aborted us too, we wouldn’t be living in this world and so aborting your own child is not the right thing to do. Finally, he states that everything is like an amendment and that all of it has failed. The sates have tried to care for the unborn chosen for the abortion. They have tried to respect the rights of husband and of father and mother. Noonar cannot tolerate how the constitution handle things and I also agree with
Judith Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” is an essay where Thomson argues that abortion is not impermissible. To be even more precise, she argues for abortion should also be sometimes permissible, but she also grants that there are certain situations in which getting an abortion would be immoral. “Most opposition to abortion relies on the premise that the fetus is a human being, a person, from the moment of conception.” (Thomson, 48). She uses the rhetorical triangle to help her achieve her argument about abortion. Which uses ethos, pathos, and logos to influence her providing the argument surrounding abortion.
Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood by Kristen Luker, analyzes the historical and complex sociology of abortion. Luker focuses on three important factors: a historical overview of abortion, the pro-life and pro-choice views, and the direction the abortion debates are going (11, Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood p. 000). Abortion has always been seen as murder and with the idea that those who are already living have more rights. Back in the days, the laws didn’t give fetus personhood. Also, the laws against abortions weren’t strictly enforced upon anyone. In addition, abortion didn’t seem to be a huge problem, which explains why abortion was ignored in the past.
The laws surrounding Abortion, particularly the efforts to ban abortion and overturn Roe Vs. Wade are one of the most significant social problems we are facing in 2017. Roe v. wade is a landmark decision that was made by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion back in 1973. Abortion has been a prevalent social problem throughout history and continues to be very much a part of the social and political debate today. In fact, abortion has been one of the biggest controversies of all time. Both sides of the argument, pro-choice and pro-life, have many valid points to back their opinion and that is partly why this continues to be such a big debate. The other part is that it is very much a political issue. I stand firmly on the
Parker attempts to use pathos in order to appeal to her audience's emotion. For example, she appeals to her audiences’ weaknesses by saying that women who have undergone an abortion feel shame, yet how can someone determine that another feels shameful because they realize that abortion is wrong. You could easily argue that they were in a state of depression because they miss their baby; that does not make them shameful.
Pro-life rhetoric concludes, that the unborn child is not human, or alive. According to Francis Beckwith, in “Politically Correct Death” “ One begs the question whenever one assumes what one is trying to prove. To cite an example, abortion advocates who argue that abortion is justified because a woman should have the right to "control her own body" are assuming that there is only one body involved in the abortion act that of the woman.” This is the point they are trying to prove. Or, the popular assertion, "No one knows when life begins, so abortion should remain legal." But to argue that no one knows when life begins, and that abortion must remain legal through all nine months of pregnancy, assumes that life does not begin before birth the exact point the abortion advocate is trying to make. Then, there is the well known "back alley" argument that asserts American women will die by the millions if abortion is restricted in any way. But unless you begin with the assumption that the unborn child is not human, this argument is more or less to saying, "Because some people are killed attempting to murder others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so."
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
The conservative, Star Parker, recently published an article, “Liberals Continue to Distort the Truth About Abortion”, asserting that the United States as a nation needs to return back to the time when abortion was illegal and considered unjust. By doing so, Parker believes that our nation will return to its former “glory”. In order to persuade her audience to believe in her claims, she uses ethos, pathos and logos, but primarily ethos and pathos.
The topic I chose to write about is “The Abortion Controversy” because it is a complex issue. It is a debate between people who see abortion as a moral issue (pro-life) and those who value a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body (pro-choice). The debate between these two groups has been going on for decades.
Abortion may be one of the most controversial topics in America today. Abortion is defined as “the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus” (cite dictionary). There are really only two sides on people’s opinion on abortion; pro-life which means abortion should be outlawed and pro-choice which means a woman should be able to decide whether she wants to keep her baby. Thousands of protests and riots have begun due to the fact pro-life activists believe abortion should become illegal. Both sides bring valid points to support their decision that could sway any person’s thoughts. The Roe v. Wade law has allowed abortion to be legal in the U.S since 1973 (Chittom & Newton, 2015). The law “gives women total control over first trimester abortions and grants state legislative control over second and third trimester abortions” (Chittom & Newton, 2015). Ever since the law was put in place, millions of people have tried to overturn it and still
In the Judith Jarvis Thomson’s paper, “A Defense of Abortion”, the author argues that even though the fetus has a right to life, there are morally permissible reasons to have an abortion. Of course there are impermissible reasons to have an abortion, but she points out her reasoning why an abortion would be morally permissible. She believes that a woman should have control of her body and what is inside of her body. A person and a fetus’ right to life have a strong role in whether an abortion would be okay. Thomson continuously uses the story of a violinist to get the reader to understand her point of view.
In her essay “Abortion, Intimacy, and the Duty to Gestate,” Margaret Olivia Little examines whether it should be permissible for the state to force the intimacy of gestation on a woman against her consent. Little concludes that “mandating gestation against a woman’s consent is itself a harm - a liberty harm” (p. 303). She reaches this conclusion after examining the deficiencies in the current methods used to examine and evaluate the issues of abortion. Their focus on the definition of a “person” and the point in time when the fetus becomes a distinct person entitled to the benefits and protections of the law fails to capture “the subtleties and ambivalences that suffuse the issue” (p. 295). Public debate on the right to life and the right to choose has largely ignored the nature of the relationship between the mother and the fetus through the gestational period and a woman’s right to either accept or decline participation in this relationship.
In the article 'A Defense of Abortion' Judith Jarvis Thomson argues that abortion is morally permissible even if the fetus is considered a person. In this paper I will give a fairly detailed description of Thomson main arguments for abortion. In particular I will take a close look at her famous 'violinist' argument. Following will be objections to the argumentative story focused on the reasoning that one person's right to life outweighs another person's right to autonomy. Then appropriate responses to these objections. Concluding the paper I will argue that Thomson's 'violinist' argument supporting the idea of a mother's right to autonomy outweighing a fetus' right to life does not make abortion permissible.
In A Defense of Abortion (Cahn and Markie), Judith Thomson presents an argument that abortion can be morally permissible even if the fetus is considered to be a person. Her primary reason for presenting an argument of this nature is that the abortion argument at the time had effectively come to a standstill. The typical anti-abortion argument was based on the idea that a fetus is a person and since killing a person is wrong, abortion is wrong. The pro-abortion adopts the opposite view: namely, that a fetus is not a person and is thus not entitled to the rights of people and so killing it couldn’t possibly be wrong.
One of the most controversial issues in this day and age is the stance people take on abortion. The two main positions that people take are either of pro-choice or pro-life; both sides, although polar opposites, tend to refer to both the issue of morality and logical rationale. The pro-life side of the debate believes that abortion is an utterly immoral practice that should be abolished. On the contrary, abortion should remain a legal procedure because it is a reproductive right; its eradication would not only take away the pregnant person’s autonomy, but would also put more children in financially unstable homes and the adoption system, and would cause an increase in potentially fatal, unsafe abortions.