The article first established pathos by connecting with the values of the reader. Pro-life obviously values life of human beings over choice. The word life has a very positive connotation, which would automatically pull in readers to agree with their position. The article seemed kind of degrading towards the readers. When I read, it made me feel like I was stupid for either not knowing what abortion really was or not agreeing with the authors position. It attacked my value system, but then gave a solution to fix it. No person wants to feel immoral or ignorant so by attacking our value system it made us want to fix ourselves and also adopt pro-life ideals. The article established logos by giving statistics about how women felt emotional holes, depression, and suicidal thoughts after aborting. The statistics also had an emotional factor, but the numbers behind it give the readers a sense of logic and feel that it is the only sensible thing to stop abortion. The article also established ethos by stating how doctors agree that abortion is murder since lie begins at contraception. Once again this argument relies on pathos, but it is also ethos since doctors are trusted in society.
Although all the facts given were entirely true, I believe that the article was poorly written. It used words such as "crap" to describe the arguments behind pro-choice and it was severely one-sided. The support behind why rape victims should not have an abortion was one real-life account of a woman who felt better to keep her child. I didn't find it supportive enough however because it was only one account and didn't take into consideration that many women have different mentalities. Of course "abortion doesn't unrape a woman" as the article argued, but a women might not want to be reminded everyday of their rape if they were to keep the child.
I have always been pro-choice, but for me there is a very unclear line of when it is okay and when it is not okay. The question I have is why does it have to be conditional? Even I don't understand...
Do you think I am a mushroom?
I found your write up very interesting. My feeling is that when your campaigning for something, no matter what it is, the point of it is to get your idea across, so by them not mentioning anything about the other side (well anything good), I understand it, (not that I agree with it, but I understand it). As for the content of the article, you (Kylea) already know my feelings about pro-choice/pro-life. It's what I believe in and what I was taught by my parents. With that said, I am not going to go expressing my views (unless someone asks for them) because I believe they're a private matter. The only 2 reasons why I would express them is if I were campaigning for something, like the article talks about, or if someone asks. I am not ashamed of my views and ideals and I feel no one should be because they have a right to them. Even if it is something that you don't necessarily believe in. I have personal experience with this since my views are conflicting with everyone around me. But I shouldn't and no one should criticize other people's views, or get mad at people's views (like some people). I know that we think differently, but hey, we're human and I think that's the thing that bests describes us and u know that we will always be friends, regardless of what we believe in.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your example. However, I was confused on the whole mushroom thing.... Anyways, in your analysis, I really liked how you pointed out that they used the words "pro life." I thought this was really interesting, and it reminded me of the fallacy False Dilemma. When you ask someone if they are "pro life," you are giving them two options only: either you support human life or you are against it. Not many people would say that they don't want human life. However the issue is much more complex than that, otherwise it wouldn't be such a hotly debated topic. Also, I thought it was weird that they chose to campaign by handing out pamphlets. Who would listen to a little flyer or newspaper that was thrust upon them by some random guy on a street corner? No ethos has been established! In fact I would think the practice would be counterproductive, because people would be annoyed that the guy bothered them and gave them the packet, so they would be biased against the content! Good topic, Kylea, it was an interesting read.
ReplyDeleteI actually received one of those pamphlets that they were handing out and it was all too confusing for me. Your quick summary was very helpful so thanks for that. This topic is very hotly debated and very interesting, but I don't like that you are asked if you're pro life or not. It gives you two choices when there are many other solutions you can come up with. Hey that's a false dillema. Well Kylea, when it boils down to it,... I think you're a mushroom.
ReplyDelete