Editorial by Dorothy Samuels
Opponents of abortion have gotten more aggressive and persistent in recent years. While they recognize that an outright ban on abortion is nearly impossible at this point in time, they are doing everything they can to make abortion as difficult as possible by imposing numerous of new restrictions. As a result, they are unjustly compromising the right of a woman to make her own childbearing decisions. The number of abortion clinics nationwide has also steadily decreased due to this legislature.
This article is from New York Times, a well-established and trusted resource.
The context infers that the audience is pro-abortion. It includes the ongoing conflict between abortion supporters and opposers. It also takes into account the Roe v. Wade Trial, which legalized abortion nationwide, and the current Congress, which holds a Republican majority that is ultimately against abortion.
The purpose of the author was to convince pro-abortion supporters to make their voices heard, because if they don't, abortion rights will only decrease. Dorothy is evidently pro-abortion throughout the text.
Dorothy used statistics (support) displaying the increasing number of states that are accepting these new abortion restrictions. She uses this to appeal to her readers logically, to prove that anti-abortion supporters will prevail if no steps are taken to stop them.
The article was informative but as an editorial piece, I found it to be a little weak. I was not very moved for her use of diction lacked a certain power and passion. Instead, it was almost boring and cliche. I admire the author's views but she could have done a better job in substantiating them by offering the philosophy behind pro-abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment