The main argument of this piece is whether it should be mandatory by Oklahoma state law for the information of women who have had an abortion to be published. The writer of this article, Lynn Harris, is trying to gain support in the favor of the women who have had an abortion. As far as I can tell, Lynn is trying to convince the general public or at least anyone who reads her article. It doesn’t seem that her argument has been curtailed to any certain audience.
What really makes this a salient argument is the fact that the root of the topic is the issue of abortion. Once abortion is brought up in a conversation, it is almost impossible to continue without someone voicing their opinion and causing a disagreement. The contents of this article affect anyone who has an opinion about abortion, but it directly affects the women of Oklahoma who have had an abortion. There’s not a whole lot at stake here in this article. All I can see is the privacy of the women who have had an abortion in Oklahoma are in jeopardy. If the law remains active, people will have access to their information and can single them out. The sides are easily drawn in this article. The author separates the sides of this argument into two groups: those who support the law that collects the information of women who abort, and those who feel that those women should not be required to disclose that information. There isn’t much in the way of other writer’s arguments or additions due to the fact that this piece has a single author. There are quotes from other people in the piece, but they all support the viewpoint of the author. This totally makes sense since the writer is the one who added the quotes to help her argument.
For the most part, this article is factually sound. Unfortunately, there are more than just a couple of logical fallacies. First of all, in the last sentence in the first paragraph, the author makes a sick joke about how the women’s information will be posted on “ShameOnYouWhore.com.” This is not factually based what-so-ever and does nothing except to make her look bad for insinuating that the information will be posted for gossiping women to gawk at. Even before that line the author states how “blasphemous” it is that Oklahoma legislation would even propose such a law. One of Lynn’s main arguments is that the questionnaire the women take is too specific would be able to identify the woman in a town of less than 200 even though the questionnaire is filled out anonymously. If what the women are doing isn’t wrong, than what’s the problem with making your abortion public? I say it’s because the act of having an abortion is shameful and selfish and most of the women who get one know that.
Lynn also argues a point that is unrelated the original issue. She brought up that the expected cost of maintaining the web site that Oklahoma legislation plans to create will cost 200 grand a year. She then proceeds to ridicule them by stating that this money will have been “left over after feeding and clothing all existing children in need and making sure all underserved women who want to carry to term have access to prenatal care.”
Lynn appeals to Ad Populem when she states that hopefully “women and families of Oklahoma” will prevail in court, suggesting that the majority of Oklahoma’s population is against the abortion information disclosure law. How would this be a win for families? Last time I checked, families usually have CHILDREN. That’s kind of hard to do when you’re killing your kids. In my opinion, this would be a loss for the family. You’ll have to make your own judgment on this one.
Did she end the article there? Not without ridiculing public officials first. She declares that “these guys'll be back again, sowing stigma and straw men, wasting time and money.” This statement appeals to ridicule, tradition, and is an over generalization all in one sentence. Bravo on that one Lynn. Thankfully the article ends there.
By my stance I would reverse the argument in this article. The people who would need to be convinced would be the ones who were originally against the law for requiring women to disclose some information when they get an abortion. I would probably discard the facts about the cost of the website because it is unrelated to the topic at hand. At the moment I can’t really think of any additional facts I would include in the article. I would probably change the logical conclusion that Oklahoma’s abortion information law should be changed. Let the law stand as it is and if you don’t want your information posted, then don’t have an abortion in Oklahoma. Seems like a pretty easy fix to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment