Valenti's Argument Analysis

Abortion is the deliberate killing of the weakest and most defenseless among us. Unfortunately, for the last few decades, the practice has been recognized as a fundamental human right by the highest court of the land. American culture has become increasingly accepting of traditional values and principles being compromised. Political correctness now replaces ethics, self-reliance is replaced by dependency, and crudeness now takes the place of knowledgeability. Today’s culture is corrupt and morally depraved, and there is no other topic that demonstrates this better than abortion.

While the pro-choice group has political support, the pro-life members have ideals centered on ethics. Such ethics derive from religious beliefs, as those of Randall Terry, “leader of the militant anti-abortion group: Operation Rescue” (Randall Terry). Terry has led many protests at abortion clinics, causing public disruption and more than fifty arrests. Along his side are his wife and members of his church. This further shows the kind of people in support of life for the child to be. Although their reason to protest is rational, the methods for spreading their ideas are questionable. NAF (National Abortion Federation) has “reported more than five thousand crimes against pro-choice organizations, clinic members, and even new reports” (Raw Story). Among these crimes are, burglary, vandalism, trespassing, and stalking. In other words, these people claim to be pro-life, but will put lives in danger to send a message.Represented above is a political cartoon of a man holding up a sign saying: “PRO-government in your private LIFE.” This image suggests that being pro-life will lead to government intrusion in a woman’s privacy. The fact that a man is holding the sign, further emphasizes the growing support from men in this

It is worth mentioning in the first place that the continuing debate over the abortion problem has always been based on two main opposing views. Nagan (1971) terms these viewpoints as “the fetus oriented view and the female perspective” (p. 288). To his mind, defining the status of the fetus as a human being or only as a potential human being best indicates polarity

The issue of abortion has always been a controversial one for citizens of the United States. Abortion is the practice of terminating a pregnancy after the embryo has been planted in the uterus (Abortion). An individual’s stance on this controversial issue categorizes them into one of two very different groups. An individual who feels that a woman should not have an abortion- due to moral or religious views- is said to be “pro-life”. Coincidently, those who feel that a woman should have the right to choose abortion are said to be “pro-choice”. “Pro-life” supporters point to the practice of abortion as an immoral one. Supporters state abortion is immoral because it takes away the rights of the unborn fetus, since activists consider human

- In New York Times of February 27, 2016, similar to ones around country, the 2013Texas’ law was written by anti-abortion activists with only one purpose of shutting down clinics since its two main requirements have nothing to do with protecting women’s health. First, admitting privileges are often hard for doctors to get for bureaucratic reasons. Second, ambulatory surgical center standards are prohibitively expensive to meet and medically unnecessary due to the fact that abortion is one of the safest of all medical procedures, with a complication rate less than one-tenth of 1%. (The Editorial Board,

During this article he will talk about anti-abortion and prochoice, meaning one is against abortion and the other one is okay with the choice you decide to go with. Anti-abortionist believe that everything is obvious and it shows how abortion is murder. Pro choicer believe that the truth is obvious as well but abortion is not a killing. Each of these groups will claim that their reasoning behind aborting or not will either be right or wrong depending in what group you seem to represent. In the article, Marquis wrote that anti-abortionist will claim that their information supported will be morally correct because of how wrong it is to take a baby’s life. As for the pro choicer, they will claim that it is accepted by the moral values and on how it is not wrong to take a human life. By trying to correct the problems of decision making it can still lead to other problems. The anit-abortionist will try to get rid of the problem by reconciling the wrongs of killing a human. After this it can lead to “It is always prima facie seriously wrong to end a human being” (p.253). This advantage can be a bit harder to reach because it is stated in this article that a fetus is a human and alive, but it still doesn’t mean that that the fetus

In a time fraught with hot button issues, one that polarizes perhaps more than any other is that of abortion. Unfortunately, it is also an issue that is difficult to write about while remaining unbiased. Paul Stark’s “How Abortion Hurts Women” and Sarah Barnes’ “The Long Term Effects of Abortion on Women” both set out to prove that abortion has serious side effects on the affected party. Both Stark and Barnes cite several studies done in both America and abroad to support their claims, as well as, in Barnes case, offering their own insights on the matter. It seems that both authors purpose is to enlighten their audiences on the under-reported effects of abortion on women in order to spark a new conversation that doesn’t center around the unborn

Bauer writes about some of those in our society who have an indifferent attitude about the relation between abortion and those with

When it comes to sensitive topics, there are few that draw on people’s emotions as much as abortion. Why it this so? It is the nature of the topic. Abortion is a topic in which people’s views are just as diverse as the population itself. Most people avoid writing about such topics altogether, especially when they are in support of such an act. However when economist Steven D. Levitt and writer Stephen J Dubner wrote chapter 4 of “Freakonomics” titled “Where have all the Criminals Gone?” they did just that. The chapter details historical examples of bans on abortion, possible reasons for the sharp decline in crime in the US, and a strong final argument for why abortion is the reason the crime rate dropped so suddenly. The emotionally

Michael Kelly, a name that is attached to credible publishers such as: The Washington Post and the National Journal, was a columnist and editor known for his spill on controversial topics. As a dig to his career, “Dialogues” fails to properly spell his name correctly, adding an extra ‘e’. Nevertheless, when he saw an article released by a notable name in 1997, he couldn’t let his legacy die. Line after line, he ripped apart the very foundation that Steven Pinker tried to build in his essay, “Why They Kill Their Newborns,” which is an article favoring infanticide, or the act of killing a newborn. Kelly considers many of Pinker’s claims, ultimately providing evidence to why it might be wrong, by his standards. In his response piece, he deems

“Excessive restrictions stigmatize women seeking abortions and discriminate against those who lack the knowledge and understanding of legal grounds for abortion and vulnerable groups, such as poor and rural women and girls” (Finer). Abortion is commonly known as a murderous crime in which a mother chooses to terminate her child, but I do not view abortion that way. Abortion is when a mother determines that she is not capable to raise a child at the moment. I believe that tougher abortion laws should not be passed because it should be a women’s basic right to her own body, also, many women do not have the financial resources it takes to raise a child, and either way women will still seek illegal ways to get an abortion with risky outcomes

In the article Ethics of Abortion, much of the pro life argument seems to be

A common debate in the world today involves abortion, the deliberate end of human pregnancy, and whether or not it should be legalized. “Every year in the world there are an estimated 40-50 million abortions. This corresponds to approximately 125,000 abortions per day” (“Abortions Worldwide this Year”). On one side of the argument, people are not disturbed by this grotesque number, and on the other side there are people outraged and simply appalled. Although people attempt to deem abortion acceptable in society because of circumstances like the mother not being able to support the child or in instances of rape, it is still morally wrong.

Abortion has been around since a lot of years in every inhabited corner of the globe. It has always been accepted as a means to prevent the suffering of both woman and potential child. It has been practiced widely in every society for many reasons including famine, war, poverty, overpopulation, or simply because a woman felt she was not ready for a child (Whitney 40). No one ever questioned a woman’s right to this procedure till the 1800’s. During this era of change people began to turn their attention in a new direction, the fetus. They began to protest abortion as cruel, inhumane, and murderous. Abortionists who were once revered and depended upon were scorned and threatened. Though abortions still happened with regularity, they were kept silent and seen as a matter of shame. “Over the next hundred years, public sentiment for fetus continued to rise until the inevitable happened in America during the early 40’s; Abortion was made illegal.” (Cohen 17). The pro-life supporters had succeeded in saving the lives of innocent babies who would have been slaughtered for the convenience of selfish, ignorant and irresponsible women. This new law had made women actually settle down and raise families or give birth to beautiful children. We all know that, it has been proven time to time throughout history that the human spirit will not allow prohibition. Something inside us feels the need to strike out at that, which restrains us and holds us from the

The tone that is dominant throughout the article supports the claim that the author has allowed his emotions to dominant his diction, therefore displaying his biasness. “…‘big up’ mothers. Mothers probably wanted to, but decided not to abort or kill that child in the womb!” While the writer praises mothers in this instant, he implies the contrary to the women who aborted. Chisholm chooses not to consider the possible reasons that may lead to abortion and argues his points accordingly, despite the glaring counterarguments. Hence being biased against women who considers abortion as a solution. The author further goes on to discriminate doctors by referring to them as ‘a certain brand of medical schizophrenia.’ Again, without careful examination of the controversy on a whole, he displays a bias attitude towards the medical community. The author’s choice of words clearly reveal that he holds doctors partially responsible for their contribution the abortion. Here, he creates a fallacy, since he distracts the audience with distorted arguments, rather than tackling the issue from logical and realistic perspective. Without any authentic investigation, Chisholm displays biasness against them, in that, he does not consider their point of view or stance in the matter, therefore presenting examples that are debatable. This piece conveys the author’s points in an emotively biased