Mittelberg’s speech was effective in its argument against abortion. He was able to achieve this by filling his speech with emotion and coupling these emotions with logical arguments. His hook about common misconceptions society accepts as truths, and relating it to his topic about abortion was fluid and humorous. Additionally, his use of citing outside sources helped build his argument but did not overpower the audience. By breaking his speech into three myths about abortion, Mittelberg was able to state, and then proceed to refute these myths in a very structured way. His most effective argument was the acronym, SLED; Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency. This acronym was handy for Mittelberg to continue to refer …show more content…
He could have benefitted to slow down during the speech, he sometimes was speaking quickly enough to stumble over his words. Since this topic is a very emotional one, he would benefit to slow down to maintain his professionalism. Now there were times when this emotion was acceptable, when speaking about his sister is one instance. But there additionally were other moments when Mittelberg could have better enunciated his words as to drive his point in more effectively. With this, less hand movements throughout would have been less distracting, thus allowing the audience to focus more on his arguments instead. Other than these two suggestions, there is a problem with the lack of content as well. Mittelberg failed to address the infamous Roe vs. Wade court case that legalized abortion nor the cases of those seeking abortion due to rape or incest. Mittelberg did not explicitly acknowledge that abortion is legal and there is not much that can change that. While he did acknowledge and refute three very common and fundamental myths about abortion, there were many lingering questions that pro-choicers would have asked. Though it is important to recognize that these speeches are usually capped around ten minutes and with the time allowed, Mittelberg was able to cover the basics of the pro-life
A class debate about abortion was brought up one day in Lemry’s class. Mark goes
Throughout the speech the use of humor was prevalent, which helped present the topic as well as inform the audience about many facts. In his anecdote about his time in India he hilariously states that students in India “read the textbook twice or three times or four times, in Sweden we read it once then we went party.” This clearly evokes a positive reaction from the crowd as there is lots of laughter. Humor is a great way of getting your point across as it is a style many people can digest easily. One other interesting choice he made in his delivery was to not use a laser pointer for his graphics, but a large bamboo stick; “And I also bring an innovation here.
Lastly, the board speaks of the overturning of the law and how this decision to overturn it was “unquestionably correct.” The board specifically picked “unquestionably” in order to persuade the audience to believe that, with out of a doubt, the decision the Supreme Court made was the right choice. The board is able to sway the audience towards their opinion and away from Texas and other anti-abortion believer’s opinions by using a very vivid word choice that convinces the audience that the boards views are correct and that their oppositions viewpoint is
If life was not started at conception in these cases and scientifically the unborn child could not be having any thoughts or actions running through the brain the argument would be stronger to persuade the anti-abortion side. Personally, taking away an unborn living thinking fetus’s rights just because we cannot hear them or see them physically does not seem justified. In case eight I do not see how women can just say “well it is nice of me to share my body so I will or I will not because I don’t have to,” when they have a person breathing and thinking inside of them that could be the next inventor or great doctor of the world. For Thompson to be more persuasive to the opposing side she should try discounting life at conception and arguing how the fetus can not have thoughts, therefore it cannot have desires or rights because the unborn person is 100% reliant on its mother and therefore her right has to superior to the unborn child because this fetus cannot perform one single task without the help of its
My final paper will be on one of the most controversial issues: abortion, where both sides of the controversy having equal supporters. Not to mention that both sides have the same common goals of making abortions safe and decreasing the number of abortions. Abortion is surrounded by many questions, as it is that the terms definition should not be in question. Therefore making it very important that the term is defined in a clear way so readers can fully understand the word and meaning of it. If they don’t have that you have already lost them on your stance on the topic at hand.
Before Roe v. wade the number of deaths from illegal abortions was around 5000 and in the 50s and 60s the number of illegal abortions ranged from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. These illegal abortions pose major health risks to the life of the woman including damage to the bladder, intestines as well as rupturing of the uterus. The choice to become a mother must be given to the woman most importantly because it’s her body, her health, and she will be taking on a great responsibility. A woman’s choice to choose abortion should not be restricted by anyone; there are multiple reasons why abortion will be the more sensible decision for the female.
He begins with comparing pro-life and pro-choice arguments, commenting that they are largely similar and have comparable issues. Marquis points out many fallacies both parties fall subject to, such as Feinberg and Quinlan. He also accuses them of making accidental generalizations. A few pages in, Marquis begins his own analysis on these arguments.
Women’s rights have been a long struggle in America’s legal system, as well as in the religious world, for many decades and women continue to have challenges, concerns, and struggles today. Fighting for what is best for their bodies such as a woman’s right to contraceptives to control whether she will get pregnant or not was not ideal for religious and personal reasons but would find a worthy advocate in a woman who would dedicate her life for women’s reproductive rights. The right for a woman to have an abortion became a legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Courts in a very well-known case. It has always been a double standard in what was right and wrong, moral or immoral, towards women than men. A man was looked at with respect
In this report, I will outline different events that happened and why they are conservative, as well as whom was involved in these displays of conservatism. Abortion was a hot topic in the 1980’s, as it still is today. The main contenders I have found to be involved are liberal and conservative politicians. Liberal believers call themselves pro-abortion, or more commonly, pro-choice. They represent the view point that women should have the right to choose whether or not to undergo an abortion during their pregnancy.
Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life Abortion. The word alone has the power to make a room go still. The popular debate topic has a reputation of provoking aggression no matter where it is mentioned due to its strong relation to people’s rights and ethics, but does it really need further deliberation? Abortions should be kept legal across the United States for a multitude of reasons: they allow people to stay in school and work, largely lessen likelihood of would-be-parents falling into economic depressions, prevent overload of responsibilities to the unprepared, protect women’s rights to privacy, help reduce the number of parentless children, conserve resources, give options, decrease maternal injuries, lower crime rates, and maintain the amount of federal spending on welfare.
Doe writes, “By showing how the conversation changes, he develops the theme that the girl takes control of the situation and supports the assertion that abortion is a female issue.” (2) The evidence he
In “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Thomson argues with a unique approach regarding the topic of abortion. For the purpose of the argument, Thomas agrees to go against her belief and constructs an argument based on the idea that the fetus is a person at conception. She then formulates her arguments concerning that the right to life is not an absolute right. There are certain situations where abortion is morally permissible. She believes that the fetus’s right to life does not outweigh the right for the woman to control what happens to her own body.
They talked about seven lies pro-choicers believe but are morally incorrect. For example, pro-abortionist believe abortions are needed to prevent overpopulation. When in reality, America and many other countries are below the replacement rate needed to have a steady population. They provided evidence of doctors that confirm their argument that human life begins at the beginning of conception. This source is most valuable for my essay because it helped me understand the views of pro-life.
[They hope for “pro-lifers” to join pro-choice activists in preventing unwanted pregnancies.](Wolf, 1997). They feel that a common ground can be met to which these debates will no longer exist. They realize the other side’s arguments and understand some of the cruelty. They still believe in a woman’s choice but wish to prevent pregnancies all together and stop all of the arguments. Abortion has many sides, but a woman’s choice is what needs to be protected.
“Abortion -should it be a right of every woman in the present context- A critical analysis” 1. Introduction I elected to present my dissertation on a topic based on ‘abortion’ since it is a hidden social menace in our society. It is like an iceberg. The tip represents the reported abortions, which everyone sees.