The Journaling of Hinton 389

abortion Is an Example of a Very Controversial Issue. The Two Opposing Viewpoints Surrounding Abortion Are Like Two Sides of a Coin. On One Side, There Is the Pro-Choice Activist and On the Other Is the Pro-Life Activist. The Argument Is a Balanced One; For Every Point Supporting Abortion There Is a Counter-Point Condemning Abortion. This Essay Will Delineate the Controversy in One Type of Comparison/contrast Essay Form: The "Argument Versus Argument," Or, "Block-By-Block" Format. In This Style of Writing, First You Present All the Arguments Surrounding One Side of the Issue, Then You Present All the Arguments Surrounding the Other Side of the Issue. You Are Generally Not Expected to Reach a Conclusion, But Simply to Present the Opposing Sides of the Argument. One of the Most Divisive Issues in America Is the Controversy Surrounding Abortion. Currently, Abortion Is Legal in America, And Many People Believe That It Should Remain Legal. These People, Pro-Choice Activists, Believe That It Is the Women's Right to Chose Whether or Not to Give Birth. However, There Are Many Groups Who Are Lobbying Congress to Pass Laws That Would Make Abortion Illegal. These People Are Called the Pro-Life Activists.

this Second Example Is Also an Essay About Abortion. We Have Used the Same Information and Line of Reasoning in This Essay, However, This One Will Be Presented in the "Point-By-Point" Style Argument. The Point-By-Point Style Argument Presents Both Sides of the Argument at the Same Time. First, You Would Present One Point On a Specific Topic, Then You Would Follow That Up with the Opposing Point On the Same Topic. Again, You Are Generally Not Expected to Draw Any Conclusions, Simply to Fairly Present Both Sides of the Argument. One of the Most Divisive Issues in America Is the Controversy Surrounding Abortion. Currently, Abortion Is Legal in America, And Many People Believe That It Should Remain Legal. These People, Pro-Choice Activists, Believe That It Is the Women's Right to Chose Whether or Not to Give Birth. However, There Are Many Groups Who Are Lobbying Congress to Pass Laws That Would Make Abortion Illegal. These People Are Called the Pro-Life Activists. If We Take Away the Woman’s Right to Chose, Will We Begin Limiting Her Other Rights Also? Or, If We Keep Abortion Legal, Are We Devaluing Human Life? There Is No Easy Answer to These Questions. Both Sides Present Strong, Logical Arguments. Though It Is a Very Personal Decision, T He Fate of Abortion Rights Will Have to Be Left for the Supreme Court to Decide.

he Concludes His Medical Arguments by Affirming His Belief That Medical Science Requires Acknowledgment of a Zygote As Full Human Being at the Moment of Conception. Anderson’s Medical Arguments Are Effective, But They Prove to Be Specious, As I Will Address Later. The Next Set of Arguments in €�arguments Against” Is Legal. Anderson Claims That the 1973 Landmark Supreme Court Case Roe V. Wade, Which Effectively Struck Down Laws Banning Abortion, Violates €�standard Legal Reasoning”. Anderson Rejects the Ruling, Which Declined to Define When Life Begins in the Womb yet Still Overturned Abortion Laws in Fifty States. He Reasons That If the Supreme Court Refused to Define When Life Begins, Then They Should Have Erred On the Humane Side, And Struck Down Abortion. He Emotionally Proclaims That They Allowed €�over 30 Million Abortions (Roughly the Size of Canada) In the United States” (Anderson) To Happen. While His Logical Reasoning Is Sound, Anderson Also Damages His Ethos with His Misunderstanding of Roe V. Wade. The Primary Basis of the Ruling Was That Abortion Laws Violated Due Process, Which Holds That Laws Must Be Apply to Everyone and Be Enforced Equally.

restrictions On Abortion Were Historically Only Enforced Against Poor or Minority Women—wealthy White Women Were Generally Given a Free Pass. This Bias Violated the Principle of Due Process, As Stated in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Additionally, Anderson Gets One of His Facts Wrong: Roe V. Wade Only Overturned Abortion Laws in Forty-Six States, Not All Fifty. €�arguments Against” Concludes It's Line of Arguments with Philosophical Arguments Against Abortion. In Essence, Anderson Argues That Any Other Definition of Human Beings Would Condone Infanticide, Which Is a Rather Broad Statement to Make. Surely, There Must Be Some Alternative Way of Defining Humanity? Finding an Unconventional yet Philosophically Sound Definition of Humanity Is Exactly What Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan’s Essay €�the Question of Abortion” Attempts to Do. Unlike Many Others On the Subject, The Two of Them Make a Claim of Policy, Rather Than Value. Druyan and Sagan Begin by Acknowledging the Controversy Surrounding Abortion, The Complexity of the Issue, And Observing the Strength of Arguments Used by Both Sides. This Introduction Marks Their Essay As Unique Among Abortion Essays. Most Abortion Essays Do Not Acknowledge the Other Side’s Arguments As Legitimate.

article has Been Generated by https://essayfreelancewriters.com!

the Essay Methodically Goes Through and Addresses Each Sides Concerns and Hang-Ups, Relying Predominantly On Logical Reasoning. Druyan and Sagan Begin by Addressing the Most Common Pro-Life Arguments. €�a Newborn Baby Is Surely the Same Being It Was Just Before Birth”, So It Cannot Be Moral to Kill a Fetus Close to Birth. The Authors Build Ethos When They Proceed to Acknowledge the Pro-Choice Counter-Arguments. They Note the Extreme Rarity of Partial-Birth Abortions, And Discuss Pro-Choicers Worries of a Slippery Slope Towards Total State Control of Women’s Reproductive Rights. €�the Question of Abortion” Continues in This Manner, Methodically Considering Each Side’s Arguments and Counter-Arguments. In Doing So, Druyan and Sagan Not Only Utilize Logos in the Analysis but They Build a Sense of Credibility, A Powerful Ethos. The Authors’ Most Powerful Argument Regards How to Define a Human Being—one Who Receives the Rights Inherent to Human Beings. A Human Being Cannot Be Defined As €�potential”, Or We Would Be Compelled to Protect Every Sperm and Ovum, An Absurd Impracticality.