Student name
Instructor name
Course
Date
Pro-life and Pro-choice Stand: A Rhetorical Analysis of Kerby Anderson’s “Argument Against Abortion”
The issue of abortion has been a topic under discussion over a long period. Kerby Anderson addresses this issue through his article by the title, “Argument Against Abortion.” He uses this work to defend the pro-life perception and urges the readers to buy his point of view. “Argument Against Abortion” is an article that was published back in 1997 intended for Probe Ministries. Anderson develops a strong pro-life argument in a five-page article and strongly supports it using arguments borrowed from various distinct disciplines. He convinced me to buy his idea by using multiple views to support his points, including medical, philosophical, and medical facts.
The book and this article are aimed at convincing humankind to support abortion and aimed at those who keep their pro-life perceptions. Anderson’s primary motive for writing this article is to convince pro-choice supporters to renounce their beliefs and support pro-life. Also, the main aim is not only to persuade people but also to provide information for those who are still opposed to abortion to back up their ideas when needed. He gives guidelines, which is entirely what Scott Klusendof talks about in his article. Scott is sharing tips on how to have a pro-life stand (klusendof). The article does this by disapproving of the counter-arguments elevated in the article, which is explained later. The paper is written to challenge the education level of both pro-life and pro-choice.
The attitude is articulated in this essay by beginning with acknowledging Anderson’s achievements. Anderson highlights that he graduated from Oregon University with B.S, from Yale University with M.F.S AND Georgetown College. He acknowledges the different works he has written on the same topic (Anderson).
Anderson wastes no time as he goes straight to introducing the primary purpose of his article. He begins his article with the sentence, “Arguments against abortion will be addressed on this essay.” This leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind as this sentence tells the reader the primary purpose of the article. This helps the reader concentrate on the actual argument (Anderson) instead of decoding what the paper will talk about. Anderson clearly shows his firm stand on the pro-choice stand on this topic.
To give a clear understanding of medical, theological, philosophical, and legal aspects of the case, the essay is designed through the use of headers to divide the different parts of the article. Anderson begins his work with the Bible, the apparent justification against pregnancy termination. He starts by admitting that pregnancy termination is not addressed in the Bible. He points out was considered a crime among the Israelites as he points out that children were considered a blessing from the Lord, and barrenness was considered a curse (Anderson). To support his claims, he backs up his idea with quotations from the Bible. He quotes three separate verses from the Bible, Psalms 139, where David states God created him in his mother’s womb. The next one is Psalms 51, which says that humankind and the unborn are all made in the image and resembles God. The last verse is from Exodus 21, which talks about the Old Testament and the perception of infants’ status. About quoting the Bible, Piper quotes Luke 12:47-48 to make his arguments on the pro-life and pro-choice arguments (Piper).
Anderson proceeds to give medical facts against pregnancy termination if the reader does not believe in the Bible. He applies logos in his work to appeal to his audience. For example, it explains that from the moment a baby is conceived, the embryo has its genetics throughout its growth it the womb.
In his work on the concept of life and death, the author introduces a critical statement. He commends that the same approach should be applied when defining life and death. He says that if that’s the approach, then the fetus should be considered to be alive for the reason that even before the birth of a baby, they yield a pulse and brain functions that can be applied in describing death. This pushes the audience to do more research on the difference between pregnancy termination and murdering other people. This is a mixture of logos and despair because it familiarizes the readers’ rationality and the readers’ feelings in comparing pregnancy termination and a homicidal death.
On the part of fetal suffering, the author reuses despair. He sites the statement, “Attempt piercing a child with a pin and note what happens,” from a British medical journal. The child will open the mouth to sob and pull away from the pin (Anderson). He also suggests that anyone pierce an eight-week-old fetus in hand; it will also open the mouth and take away then hand. From these two, he gives a technical explanation that the heart rate and fetal movements vary over time, illustrating that the fetus suffers from intrauterine manipulations, thus giving the reader a clear illustration of what unborn babies suffer from.
He ends this part by his arguments on medical claims. He claims medical studies support the pro-life idea instead of the pro-choice idea, contrary to mutual opinion. He argues that if medicine were to make a decision, it would be basing on the time of conception that the unborn should be considered human. To conclude, he says that treatment is most factually pro-life based on logos’ previous use (Anderson).
In the next section of the essay, Anderson offers legal opinions against pregnancy termination in case the reader has not been convinced yet. He reveals the faults of the famous Roe verse Wade case in the supreme court. He refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment which says that the court does not deal with complicated matters when life begins. When those with philosophical, medical, and theological knowledge fail to conclude, then the judiciary cannot make a judgment regarding the creation in man’s ability.
Anderson blames the court for failing to make a judgment. He uses an illustration to compare the court’s failure to decide for a hunter who is not familiar with hunting. He quotes. “The matter of proof should remain with the killer, and the benefit of the doubt should be to the life-giver, and should not be altered within the case of doubt. Anderson says that a hunter who hears rumbles from a bush should not fire because he is uncertain of what it might be (Anderson). He relates this to the court case and says that a court with no knowledge of when conceiving starts should not decide abortion. This comparison skill is appealing to the audience to feel as it compares abortion and the process of hunting animals.
Anderson also discusses moral opinions against pregnancy abortion in the last part of the article. The thematic question behind this whole article is, “When does humankind transform into a person?” Anderson has expounded this matter by addressing the lies in a statement made by Dr. Francis Crick, who commented in the British journal Nature that,” in case a child is said to be lawfully given birth to, two days old, it could be investigated to find out if it was a “suitable person in the community.” Frank’s opinion is an illustration of generalization and is illustrated by Anderson to show infanticide (Anderson).
Anderson finalizes his article by accepting that there exist significant opinions against pregnancy termination. He says there is not only the conventional, theological pro-life beliefs but also the philosophical and lawful views. He has used this article effectively by applying several rhetoric and proofs backing up a pro-life viewpoint from different sources such as religion, medicine, philosophical and legal opinions against pregnancy termination. This is the same idea that addresses the article, “A sheep in Wolf’s clothing.” The author, a feminist, has the same views as Anderson on this issue of abortion (Wolf).
Work cited
Anderson, Kerby. “Arguments Against Abortion.” Probe Ministries. 3 Oct. 2006 <http://www.probe.org/content/view/33/0/>
klusendof, Scott. “The 5-Minute Pro-Lifer.” Life Training Institute, 2020, prolifetraining.com/resources/5-min-pro-lifer/. Accessed 20 Sept. 2020.
Piper, john. “We Know They Are Killing Children — All of Us Know.” Desiring God, 2013, www.desiringgod.org/articles/we-know-they-are-killing-children-all-of-us-know. Accessed 20 Sept. 2020.
Wolf, Naomi. “Our bodies, our souls.” The New Republic 213.16 (1995): 26-29.