Monday, January 11, 2010
Abortion
At the site http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html Kerby Anderson is making a claim on how Abortion is bad in all different aspects of life. This is definitely an initially unacceptable claim. Although I agree with his claim there are many who do not at all. We can see that in the amount of abortions we have each year. Just in U.S. since 1973, when it became legal, there have been approximately 46 million abortions. Kerby Anderson’s claim is not accepted by all Americans. He starts off using the bible as an argument against abortion. He uses a couple of areas in Psalms, he uses a lot of different scriptures throughout the bible. As he ends he really focuses on a legal code in Exodus concerning a prematurely birth due to a man hitting a women, if this happens that man will die. He concludes that a baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb and so that it is unlawful to kill a baby inside the womb. For those who do not believe in the Bible he goes on to use medical arguments against Abortion. Some of the main points were the definition of death. One definition is the cessation of heartbeat. So if that means death, than does the start of a heartbeat mean life which starts the 18th day in the womb. He continues the argument by going to legal arguments against abortion. He says that since the Supreme Court does not know how to define when life begins they should have acted “as if” life was in the womb, since they did not know. But they didn’t and ended up overturning state laws that protected the fetus. Lastly he uses philosophical arguments. He gives some of the definitions people have for life or human beings. But if we followed those then we could have an infanticide. Throughout his argument he tries to reach all types of people, Christians, Doctors, and those in law.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally I am against abortion.
ReplyDeleteI think it was wise of the author to s try to have many different point of views on the subject to try to connect with as many people as he could. When writers onyl write towards on audience they lose the support of many more. It was a ver good move to do what this author did and you offend less people that way.
Something to think about:
Obama said that parenthood starts at conception, but he is also for abortion (aka Pro-choice). There is something seriously wrong with this picture. I have nothing more to say about that.
It definitely was a good approach to be very broad in his defense. I've seen so often than in arguments people just harp on one point and it makes them seem uninformed or narrow minded. This way the author is able to provide evidence from a variety of sources which allows the argument to appeal to more people and provide a stronger argument.
ReplyDeleteI agree will Aaron! all to often when someone is talking about one of these big issues in the nation today, the writer beats one angle to death.... i feel he did very well at making sure he covered all different walks of people by giving evidence from many sources and different angles. Thus reaching a greater audience
ReplyDeleteYes I agree with both Ty and Aaron. I thought the way he presented his argument was very good, he covered a wide variety of people. I really liked the way he used the Bible as part of his source because it doesn't outright say "no abortion." But the way he presented it says in many different ways and times that abortion is not ok. I just hadn't thought of using the Bible for this argument
ReplyDeleteInteresting thought Chelsea. I hadn't made that connection.
ReplyDeleteOkay, about the article. I did appreciate that the author tried to relate to more than one audience. I would have like to see him acknowledge the opposite side, you know what I mean? Don't get me wrong, I'm not for abortion, but sometimes it makes the argument stronger when you can refute the opposition.
Let me make that last comment more clear. I wish he could have tried to use the opposite perspective in his article, just so he could make a stronger case. Say I was for abortion (which I'm not), I would read his article and say to myself, "well, he just doesn't understand.. what if there was a unique situation? I have some good points too!" But if the author had mentioned those, and was able to prove them wrong, or outweigh them with his claim, then he would be covering all his bases.
ReplyDeleteReading the Bible verses he cited, I wonder if they all strengthened his case. Some of the connections he drew were a little tenuous, and based on poetic passages that are hard to interpret literally. Maybe it would have been better to stick to a few really strong arguments, rather than open himself to attack on weaker, speculative ones.
ReplyDeleteI do see where you are comming from Lydia. Being able to prove the other side wrong would have strengthened his case. I also see where Kevin is comming from too. The verses he came up with were... interesting to me that he could come up with a meaning of abortion from that verse. But some were just his opion I think.
ReplyDelete