Interdisciplinary Issue Analysis

Picture by Elvert Barnes

The huge controversial topic of abortion has been a huge debate in the United States ever since the idea was discovered and even more so after the Roe vs. Wade Court case, which deemed abortion legal. The debate has been argued from the two different sides of pro-life or pro-choice and also represented through the scholarly writings of “The Wrong of Abortion”, which is written by moral philosophers, or ethicists, and the article “Untying the Moral Knot of Abortion”, which is written by a Women’s Studies scholar. The ethicist uses a clear and concise structure, medical diction, and emotional appeals, while the Women’s Studies scholar uses more evasive structure, laid back language, and ethical and emotional appeals.

Moral philosophers, or ethicists, Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, wrote their article “The Wrong of Abortion” to prove to the audience the many reasons why abortion is morally wrong. Since ethicists study the difference between the right and wrong in human actions, they typically present their information to their audience through articles that clearly relate to their argument and provide evidence that proves what is “morally good.” Lee and George do exactly that in this article and there are even several examples where they clearly say that “Abortion is morally wrong,” just to make it even more clear to the audience what their argument is. This article also is straight to the point and does not use any information, other than evidence, for their argument that abortion is immoral and should not be allowed in the United States. The authors use a very simple structure of having bold sub-headers to divide the article into sections, which specifically separates the arguments and allows the audience to understand the argument very easily. Therefore, ethicists write articles in the clearest way to provide their audience with only information about their particular subject.

On the other hand, Caitlin E. Borgmann, a scholar of Women’s Studies, who wrote “Untying the Moral Knot of Abortion,” used a completely different structure in her article. Unlike the philosophers, Borgmann uses indirect organization to persuade the audience that abortion should be left up to the mother. Borgmann does not go straight into the subject of the right or wrong of abortion, but first tells the audience how media has played a great role in making this debate more heated than it actually is. Borgmann provides us with this irrelevant information because she is writing through a discipline that requires social input and the statistics of how much media has had an effect on the debate of abortion fits this discipline. This is very different then the ethicists structure, who goes straight into the argument with facts and evidence for their particular opinion.

Since moral philosophy has to do with the study of humans, it is not surprising that Lee and George’s article is full of medical terminology. The first piece of evidence that this article presents to the audience is that human embryos are in fact human beings and they do this by describing the medical

Picture by American Life Leagues

definition of sexual reproduction. The authors go into the very detailed process of fertilization, cell division, and organ development to explain that the fetus is an immature human being. Later in the article, the development of the brain and its functions, as well as many other organs, is explained in medical terminology, which is difficult for the average audience to understand. The majority of the evidence presented in the article is first introduced with a theory from another source that is then proven wrong through the biology of human beings. One example is when they provide the audience with Judith Thomson’s analogy that says, “If children are allowed to develop normally they will have a right to vote; that does not show that they now have a right to vote.” (Lee) The authors then prove Thomson’s statement wrong by stating, “Thomson fails to advert to the fact that some rights vary with respect to place, circumstance, maturity, ability, and other factors, while other rights do not.” (Lee) They then prove this statement wrong through several paragraphs and end by saying that human embryos possess a capacity or potentiality for mental functions and prove it through more medical terminology. Although medical speech is not common in every adult, it clearly proves the human anatomy and gives valid evidence for their arguments. To compensate for the incomprehensible language, the authors provide tons of analogies and examples that help explain the biology and make it relatable. One example is when they were proving that being a person is not an accidental attribute and use the analogy that an accidental attribute is like someone being a musician or basketball player. Using the analogy, they state, “Just as you come to be at one time, but become a musician or basketball player only much later, so, they say, you and I came to be when the physical organisms we are came to be, but we became persons only at some time later.” (Lee) Their argument is that you, as a person, comes to be at conception, rather than when becoming a basketball player at a much later time. By providing the audience with a relatable analogy, it is easier to understand the concept and interpret the true meaning. Regardless that this article’s diction is incredibly hard to understand for the average audience, the authors are still able to succeed in explaining their arguments through analogies and real life examples, which is a characteristic of writing as a moral philosopher.

Women’s Studies do not have the medical background that philosophy does, so Borgmann’s article lacks the anatomy explanations for evidence and instead uses statistics and polls to prove her argument. Women’s Studies examine the ways that social categories transform the understanding of culture, history, and society. So, giving her evidence through statistics from voting polls relates to her particular discipline. Borgmann proves that the idea of abortion has been over debated and the media is making the argument more heated than it really is through a Texas poll that showed that sixty-three percent of voters think that there are enough restrictions on abortions. The author uses voting polls several other times throughout the article to support ideas, which goes along with Borgmann’s background education of studying the social aspects of culture. The article also is clearly written through a feminist perspective from the first paragraph of the article, where the author states that women should be able to make their own decision for the fate of their own child. There are also three instances where the author uses the phrase “protecting women” and talks about how the topic of abortion should assure that the woman is safe and healthy. Another example of feminism in the paper is when the author writes “let us not forget a man helped cause that predicament,” because it is distinctly representing that women cannot be the only ones responsible for a child, since the man had a large responsibility in the pregnancy also. (Borgmann) This quote is the strongest example of feminism in the article, because the author is obviously supporting the idea that women should be represented equally, as men are, which is the overlying factor behind Women’s Studies. So, since Women’s Studies is examining how society interacts with the study of women, it is apparent why this article would be written with a feminism perspective.

Within the biological language of “The Wrong of Abortion,” the authors persuade the audience of their claim through emotional appeals. Since philosophers are concerned with how we, as people, live our lives, they use appeals that pull on people’s emotions to make them think about the overall picture of “life” and how we can live “morally good.” The two strongest examples of emotional appeals within this article is first “.to have destroyed the human organism that you are or I am even at an early stage of our lives would have been to have killed you or me,” and then later the authors state “Abortion is the act of extracting the unborn human being from the womb – an extraction that usually rips him or her to pieces or does him or her violence in some other way.” (Lee) Both of these quotes make the audience think about how important life is and both mention abortion as a way of killing a person or even more harshly, murdering. The first quotation allows the audience to think of abortion as killing a person, any person, regardless if they are in the womb or not. As most people know, killing somebody is considered murder and it is morally wrong for the reason of sin, if you are religious, and also wrong because it is a crime in the United States. Now that the audience is thinking about killing somebody outside the womb and committing a crime and murder, they are more likely to side against abortion, which is the claim that the author is making. The second quotation refers to the violent procedure that doctors must go through to abort an embryo. This quote uses the words “unborn human” in the first phrase so the audience is picturing the ripping of a human to pieces, until they are pronounced dead. This image also persuades the audience that abortion is morally wrong, because it allows the audience to picture a full grown human being shredded, which is also a crime in the US. Lee and George persuade the audience through emotional appeals because it is the most effective way to convince the audience that abortion is morally wrong, while still writing within their discipline.

Contrasting, Borgmann is able to use ethical and emotional appeals in her article because of her personal discipline of Women’s Studies. She is able to use an ethical appeal because she has information from other Women’s Studies scholars and compares their opinions with her argument. Borgmann uses information from Judge Yeakel in her argument to describe the debate of abortion through the eyes of a federal district judge. Since Yeakel is a highly respected public figure, the audience is persuaded to trust her opinion. The use of a quote from a judge is expected in a paper written by a Women’s Studies scholar because the author is using social evidence and the fact that Yeakel is a female, also helps Borgmann with her argument. Like the philosophers, Borgmann also uses the emotional appeal to argue her claim, but she does it in a much different way. Instead of using the emotions of the audience to make them feel like the subject is morally right or wrong, Borgmann uses the emotions of the audience to relate to the feelings of the mother. The most obvious quote that is within this paper states “...fetuses can feel pain at twenty weeks.” (Borgmann) In this particular context, the author was persuading the audience that some mothers do not want to intentionally kill their unborn child, but they are completing the termination because of other circumstances, like cervical cancer. This quote explains that the mother understands that terminating her unborn fetus would cause it to feel pain, but she makes the decision that would be best for her health. By doing this, Borgmann uses the appeal of emotion to get a perspective on the hard decision that a mother has to make about terminating a pregnancy. So, articles written through the discipline of Women’s Studies show emotional and ethical appeals because of both of these appeal support the idea of feminism and equality.

Abortion is currently referred to as a “war” (Borgmann) and there have been many arguments and debates about if it should be banned or kept legal. In these two particular articles the moral philosophers pick the pro-life side, while the Women’s Studies scholar chooses the pro-choice standpoint, but this topic could be argued from either side in both of these academic disciplines. Regardless that these two disciplines presented their case with completely different structures, languages, and appeals, both articles were able to successfully give an accurate argument for their particular side in the subject of abortion.

Sources

Lee, Patrick, and Robert P. George. "Abortion." The Wrong of Abortion (2005): n. pag. Princeton Pro-Life. Blackwell Publisher. Web. 30 Nov. 2015. <http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/1405115475/Cohen_sample%20chapter_Contemporary%20debates%20in%20applied%20ethics.pdf>.

Borgmann, Caitlin E. "Keynote Address: Untying the Moral Knot of Abortion." Washington and Lee Law Review 71.2 (2014): 1299-314. ProQuest. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.<http://search.proquest.com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/docview/1534525001?pq-origsite=summon>.