Abortion, religion and reason

David Harsanyi in his article “Abortion, religion and reason” discusses the ever divisive issue of abortion rights in the United States. His argument does not hinge on the second word of his title, but rather the American population’s problem with the third: reason. Mr. Harsanyi believes that when citizens begin to discuss this very sensitive subject common sense and logic are abandoned and emotional appeals are used in order to distract the other from the actual point of the argument.

Mr. Harsanyi uses the current news story of Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia doctor who allegedly completed botched late-term abortions by using scissors to cut the spinal cord in a living baby’s neck. Since Roe v Wade occurred over thirty years ago, this new twist in the abortion discussion creates the perfect time for a debate to occur.

As a libertarian, Mr. Harsanyi frequently tries to disconnect himself from religious organizations which are typically affiliated with the conservative movement, and generally depend strongly on emotional appeals rather than logical ones. Emotion is one of the easiest ways to lose an argument. He says, “There were folks I generally don't hang with: Catholics for Life, Baptists for Life, Lutherans for Life — no denomination left behind.” Mr. Harsanyi makes a joke at both the conservative movement and religious organizations by alluding to former President George W. Bush’s policy named No Child Left Behind (with which many libertarians disagreed) and by saying that he normally does not associate with such groups. Mr. Harsanyi also makes a slight joke with his final part of that statement by pointing out how many religious organizations hop on the anti-abortion bandwagon, which begins his argument.

“How many Americans avoid an honest look at the abortion issue because of the cultural dimensions of the debate. How many Americans instinctively turn to the pro-choice camp because pro-life proponents aggravate their secular sensibilities?” Mr. Harsanyi asks. He discusses the facts of the issues believing that a statistical analysis of abortion is a more centered and more logical view of the topic. He states that 41.3 percent of Hispanic pregnancy and 60 percent of “non-Hispanic black” pregnancy end in abortion and that overall, 41 percent of all pregnancies in New York were terminated by means of abortion. Mr. Harsanyi uses these numbers to make his argument have substance and background, essentially using this to support (what I believe) to be his opinion about abortion: it is wrong and overly used. However, Mr. Harsanyi neglects to actually analyze the information which has supplied, which in reality strengthens his argument.

These statistics could be construed in either a pro-choice manner or a pro-life one very easily. The pro-life argument has already been supplied: there are too many abortions in the country being used for reasons other than rape and incest. The flip side of that argument would be that maybe Hispanic women and “non-Hispanic black” women are more likely to be raped in their lifetimes. Mr. Harsanyi neglects to point out that maybe many of these women are prostitutes. But the stronger point which Mr. Harsanyi ignores is the fact that many minority women do not report their pregnancies to doctors because they cannot afford it. This could mean of those mothers who choose not to report their pregnancy either 1) they have abortions or 2) they do not. If Mr. Harsanyi had mentioned this thought, it could have very easily strengthened and very easily weakened his argument. This entire article hinges on the idea of logical reasoning and using facts to support that reason, but because statistics can be interpreted so differently on a regular basis, Mr. Harsanyi supplies the statistics supported by his interpretation and therefore leaves no room for the reader to interpret it him/herself.

Mr. Harsanyi concludes his article by appealing to a logical nature. He states, “But if the pro-life movement is going to win the hearts and minds of the rest of the nation, it's not going to need more God. It's going to need more reason.” He uses this tactic because of his initial question of how many people are turned away from a pro-life aspect because of the religious organizations. More people from the secular part of the American population would be willing to accept the pro-life stance more if it was not so much, “You will go to hell for killing one of God’s creations” and more “A single celled zygote has the ability to develop into a grown human adult. Based on the law of biogenesis, dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats and humans beget humans. An unborn child does not suddenly become human as it exits the womb; it is human from the start.” Also by using this tactic, emphasizing an argument based in reason, he is appealing to the liberal population which only holds the pro-choice belief because they are so turned off from religion in politics.

This is an appeal to both sides of the abortion issue: the right and the left. Mr. Harsanyi very effectively addresses both populations and in a way this tactic strengthens his argument as well. By doing this, he is bringing both sides into a room to speak about the issue as adults. He asks the right wing conservatives to use reason more that moral and emotional appeals and asks the left to listen to reason and not just ignore the other side of the argument because of religious bias. While he does not address the liberal population which has a belief about abortion grounded in research, he does try to contact those who are of the “indifferent” population in the left.

Overall, Mr. Harsanyi uses his article very effectively to make his point about needing more reason in the abortion argument. He uses kairos to begin his argument, finding an event that has occurred recently (the doctor in Pennsylvania). He uses his ethos as a libertarian who tends to stay away from religious politics in order to establish a relationship with others who are skeptical of religious movements. Mr. Harsanyi uses statistics and ignores other aspects of the argument in order to strengthen his current position. And finally he appeals to what he hopes is the reader’s logical nature by emphasizing his belief that the abortion argument needs less God and more reason.

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_17197225