On January 23rd, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to end funding overseas abortions, for better or for worse. Regardless of personal opinion, both sides of responses to this decision use persuasive strategies to attempt to get neutral parties on their side. The responders who support abortion believe that this was a bad decision, but the responders on the other side believe this is a good decision. Pro-choice supporters generally lean on the left side, and pro-life supporters typically lean on the right side. Although the topic is very personal, both sides of the argument attempt to persuade the moderate audience using persuasive strategies.
Buzzfeed, a popular left wing website, released an article about the situation. The first strategy used in this article is the strong use of pathos in regards to women. The writer of this article focuses on the idea that abortion should be a universal option for all women of the world. Additionally, the article uses ethos through stating that public health experts believe this decision is dangerous for women of other countries. Another strategy used by this side of the argument is testimony, such as when they quote representatives of various organizations who support abortion. Logos was used in this article and is usually used on this side of the argument through various projected statistics and percentages. Overall, this side of the argument uses many persuasive strategies with a strong focus on pathos in order to get their audience to sympathize and to stir their emotions.
On the contrary, a popular right wing website, Right Wing News, also released an article about this situation. This article focuses on the idea that this decision will improve where and how America is spending its money. Pathos is used through the article discussing how it is not Americans’ duty to pay for other countries’ abortions. This is effective because many who are on this side of the argument care a lot about America and how it is spending its money, but more importantly, where their money is going. This article also includes logos because it discusses some facts about previous presidencies and how they relate to abortion related matters. Throughout the entire article the author focuses on the benefits of defunding Planned Parenthood and how this decision is going to be good for Americans.
Both sides of this argument use persuasive strategies to win over neutral parties. While the left side focuses on tugging on the heart strings of others, the right side focuses on money and benefits for Americans. In addition, this entire situation is very personal for people on both sides because it is a matter of life and death. Pro-life supporters either believe that abortion is completely wrong and out of the question or that it is completely wrong after the baby has developed past a certain point. Some of these supporters are focused on the religious aspect of this or simply believe that it is wrong from a moral standpoint. On the other side, Pro-choice supporters focus more on the mother and her decision no matter what the situation is. Some of these supporters may believe that abortion is only right if the mother is in danger or strongly does not want a child, such as if she is a college student or a high school student.
Works Cited:
This is a very well-organized post that does well to compare the basic talking points contained in these two articles. As often happens in the abortion debate, how you define the issue itself will indicate the side you are on in this apples-v-oranges debate. You suggest that both sides are engaged because this is a matter of life and death - but I would suggest that is true only on one side, and that the progressive side is about the limits of government authority. Opinion polls would seem to indicate that, while the majority of the public has strong views, they would decline to make the decision for someone else. There is a consistent plurality, however, who would want to defend the fetus - which renders the issue perpetually unresolved and emotionally hot. Because the Constitution contains an acknowledgment of the right to life, there will always be a case to be made; which makes this a political wedge of the highest order.
ReplyDeleteYou suggest that each side attempts "to win over neutral parties;" but consider whether or not that is an accurate understanding of the goal. Perhaps the real goal - given that most people already have formed an opinion - is to mobilize voter support. This is a classic wedge issue that extends to many political areas, including foreign aid qualification, health care, and separation of church and state. And while you have cited two articles that stemmed from a particular executive order, the competing narratives here encompass far more than that small event. This would be a very ambitious project.
Please let me know how I can help.
For my project I will most likely decide to focus on narratives that target mobilizing voter support because of the lack of voter support being shown currently. According to CNN, the amount of voters who actually went out and voted was at an all time low at just above fifty percent of voters who were eligible to go out and vote. This proves that there are a lot of potential voters who decided not to vote. This can be compared to the abortion issue because there may be many eligible voters who can vote to change laws or regulations regarding abortion but do not want to go out and vote. Persuasion is a key strategy to getting these potential voters out there and I would like to analyze how this can be done in my paper.
DeleteI am a bit indecisive about whether or not I should continue to pursue the abortion controversy or if I should switch over to the most recent presidential election. If I decide to switch to the most recent presidential election, I believe there will be more to analyze overall regarding eligible voters who decide not to vote. If I decide to continue with the abortion issue, I feel like I can focus more and be more specific about the issue. I could research both sides of the issue and see why people are or are not passionate enough about the issue and how they could be persuaded to become passionate.
For the abortion controversy, I could research both sides by interviewing two passionate supporters - one from each side - and I could discuss in the paper why they are passionate and what they believe could motivate others to be this way too. Additionally, I could research organizations and programs that are made to persuade these possible supporters to go out and participate. This could be a great paper because it can be specific without being too short since there is a good amount of research I could do. My biggest concern about doing the other topic, the presidential election, is that it would be too broad of a subject to research. If I decide to focus on this issue I could successfully research it and learn about what motivates or persuades people to become passionate about a political issue and how it can affect the movement as a whole.
I will take this paper and make it about more than just comparing articles. My goal is to compare how both sides of the abortion controversy try to persuade possible supporters into becoming active and passionate about the issue. Additionally, I would like to interview two individuals, one from each side, and compare their thoughts about the situation regarding motivation and how they may have been persuaded to be active in the controversy.
CNN article mentioned: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/
I'm not sure that efforts are necessary to get the public "active and passionate" about the abortion issue. Let's suggest that this continues to be one of the most reliable wedge issues in modern politics.
ReplyDeleteThe notion that each partisan group will engage in constant efforts to maximize voter turnout is simply a fact of the political world. What we envision here is a comparison of competing narratives in order to recognize and analyze persuasive strategy and technique. I'd suggest that, abstractly, both sides would engage in basically the same argument to mobilize their voters: that we need to stay together in order to fight the other party - which represents an existential threat to the type of society we value. Most partisan argument devolves into this basic trope - because the goal of most political argument is to affirm the nobility of your own side, while sewing outrage and fear about the other. Unfortunately little of the public discourse focuses upon the actual, practical effects of any policy upon the problems that exist in our society.
Regarding the abortion issue, a number of new areas have opened up: the role of Planned Parenthood and the idea that being "pro-choice" also means being in support of "abortion on demand in any circumstance." The latter, perhaps, becoming one of the reasons why large portions of women did not support the Dem candidate in the last election.
You are on to a large-scale issue here - still very ambitious. Please let me know how I can help!