” you hear a protester scream. Perhaps he is holding a sign that reads the same thing, in an obnoxious, all-capitals font. Across the street, you may see another demonstrator, supporting another argument: “Women, not fetuses”, or some such declaration. The issue they are arguing is, of course, abortion. But the sentiments they express—what do they mean, underneath the simple polemics of “pro-life” and “pro-choice”? What arguments do they subscribe to that led them to hold those positions? Abortion is without a doubt important. If the “pro-life” movement is right, then it means that, since the Supreme Court affirmed the right to an abortion in 1973 (the year the Supreme Court ruled the right to an abortion constitutionally protected in the precedent-establishing case Roe v. Wade), 40 million innocent human beings have been murdered. If the “pro-choice” movement is right, then abortion is part of a larger issue: the fundamental human right to control one’s own body. Either presents undeniable human rights issues. The issue is also a personal interest—I find polemics fascinating. Finding structured, well-thought-out arguments regarding abortion proves rather difficult.

Anti-abortion papers in particular often consist of the refrain “Abortion is murder! ” repeated in slightly different ways. A disturbing percentage of these anti-abortion essays have been written by Christian-private-school-educated girls, who are only capable of parroting whatever anti-abortion propaganda was fed to them. Conversely, [[https://userscloud.com/hqqw1dvqz4q8|5-Paragraph Argumentative Essay On Abortion]] -choice arguments often assume abortion is a woman’s right, and then proceed from there. It can make for some very frustrating reading. Nonetheless, structured, well-thought-out arguments concerning abortion can be found. One such writing is the pro-life essay “Arguments Against Abortion”, by Kerby Anderson. Another essay, cumbersomely entitled “Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice”? The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers”, by Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan, seeks a middle ground between the extremes of pro-life and pro-choice. A detrimental effect occurs whenever people discuss issues as controversial and polemicized as abortion, in that arguments often end up “preaching to the choir”. Article was generated with [[//essayfreelancewriters.com/|Essay Freelance Writers]] !

People who are pro-life generally only expose themselves to arguments that reinforce their existing opinion, and vice versa. The audience is restricted on both sides. Druyan and Sagan’s essay strives to break this ideological constraint, and strives to address both sides equally, in an attempt to reach an agreeable solution for both sides. This unique approach widens its potential audience to include all but the most diehard polemics from either side. This contrasts with Anderson’s approach, who, in the arrogance so often held by writers with strict religious constraints, assumes the opposing side is actually interested in hearing his arguments. Anderson further restricts his audience by citing biblical arguments against abortion, alienating any non-Christians less than a paragraph in. In case any non-Christians stayed through the remainder of the text, he disregards them again in the essay’s final line: “The Bible and logic are on the side of the Christian who wants to stand for the sanctity of human life.” The likely audience for “Arguments Against Abortion” is biblical literalist Christians who already firmly lean towards the pro-life side, and desire to better educate themselves about pro-life arguments.

Anderson begins his essay with a cringe-worthy "this essay will be about"-style introduction, proudly demonstrating his awesome sixth-grade-level essay skills. The claims he makes in “Arguments Against Abortion” are all claims of value. His first subclaim is that the Bible supports a pro-life ideology, an argument from authority. Unfortunately, [[https://www2.zippyshare.com/v/vYuZ7tss/file.html|Five Paragraph Essay On Abortion]] fails entirely. The entire basis for the Bible as a source of authority is the tautology “The Bible is true because God says so; he says so in the Bible.” This does not hold up rhetorically, and completely disregards biblical criticism, an entire branch of scholarship predicated on the fact that the Bible is the work of humans (and hence not divine or particularly useful as a moral guide). Anderson may think he is using logos, but he is actually using pathos, because for Christians the Bible elicits an immediate and powerful emotional and spiritual response. This is a classic mistake committed by the religious. Furthermore, by citing the Bible, Anderson damages his ethos by suggesting his arguments from authority are less than authoritative.

Citing the Bible as an authority also reveals Anderson’s most significant constraint: his religion. Anderson’s second claim is that medical science supports a pro-life position. In his essay, he argues that because an embryo is genetically distinct from the mother at the moment of conception, it is an individual, and morally cannot be terminated by the mother. He then uses the medical definitions for death to define life, in order to demonstrate that an embryo is indeed alive. Most significantly, he cites the onset of brainwave functions (at about 40 days into gestation) as proof that a fetus is fully human. “Arguments Against” then addresses the issue of whether a fetus can feel pain (it does). Anderson’s last medical arguments are pure pathos. Our visual senses tell us this is a baby growing and maturing. This is not a piece of protoplasm; this is a baby inside the womb” (Anderson). [[https://dailyuploads.net/rfit76cchpax|Abortion Thesis Statements]] tugs at our heartstrings with this imagery.