Tags: Emma Goldman Anarchy Other EssaysA Short Essay On Srinivasa RamanujanEssays About Gender Roles In SocietyAlexander Pope Essay On Criticism SummaryNarrative Essay About The Day I Met My Best FriendEssay On Declining Standards Of Sports3rd Person Essay
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.
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.
Conversely, pro-choice arguments often assume abortion is a woman’s right, and then proceed from there. 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.
"Arguments Against" uses biblical, medical, legal, and philosophical arguments to convince us that abortion is immoral and unethical.
His first subclaim is that the Bible supports a pro-life ideology, an argument from authority. 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).A detrimental effect occurs whenever people discuss issues as controversial and polemicized as abortion, in that arguments often end up “preaching to the choir”.People who are pro-life generally only expose themselves to arguments that reinforce their existing opinion, and vice versa. 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.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.This essay is an original work by Stabby the Misanthrope.It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in Rational Wiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Perhaps he is holding a sign that reads the same thing, in an obnoxious, all-capitals font.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? 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.(They won’t be, as I’ve stated earlier.) 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.