Reproductive rights in the United States has served as a provocative issue for several years. Roe versus Wade, however, acted as a pivotal event in the reproductive rights movement. The 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision legalised abortion until the point of viability – at which a baby can survive outside the womb – by a vote of seven to two (NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin). Consequently, over the past forty-four years, pro-life activists have attempted to repeal the Supreme Court’s decision, with little success. However, the government satisfied some of the pro-life activists’ sentiments with the passing of the Hyde Amendment, which restricts federal funding for abortions, with exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or endangerment of
…show more content…
The author uses malapropism, or a deliberate mispronunciation of a name or term with the intent of poking fun, when changing “or” to “er” to enhance the man’s Southern characteristics. Moreover, he uses sarcasm and invective, or abusive language directed against a person or cause, when the man calls women “baby killers.” His use of “baby killers” also reinforces the stereotypical Republican anti-abortion view. Furthermore, the author indirectly accuses the Republican party of having misogynistic views when the man says, “baby killers – er – women.” The author’s word choice not only strengthens his view of conservative Republicans, but his use of irony compels the viewer to his point of …show more content…
Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living” (Ayn Rand). I have no qualms saying that I am firmly pro-choice. The government has no right making a woman’s health-related choices – my body, my choice. Also, just because abortion is legal, does not mean everyone will undergo one. Nor is abortion a decision lightly made by most women. Many pro-life activists use freedom of religion as an argument against abortion. This argument holds little validity because the first amendment includes the protection of and protection from religious freedom. In other words, one’s religious views cannot dictate another’s action. If someone holds anti-abortion views, they can simply choose not get an abortion. Coexistence is vital in such a large country – after all, as Abraham Lincoln stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Further, some anti-Planned Parenthood activists claim that that the taxpayers could save money by defunding the organization. However, according to research by South Dakota State (Brookings) University, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, in fact, saves taxpayers and the government money down the road – five dollars saved for every one dollar the government gives. This is because low-income women, if pregnant, would be more likely to file for government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid which costs
The author uses malapropism, or a deliberate mispronunciation of a name or term with the intent of poking fun, when changing “or” to “er” to enhance the man’s Southern characteristics. Moreover, he uses sarcasm and invective, or abusive language directed against a person or cause, when the man calls women “baby killers.” His use of “baby killers” also reinforces the stereotypical Republican anti-abortion view. Furthermore, the author indirectly accuses the Republican party of having misogynistic views when the man says, “baby killers – er – women.” The author’s word choice not only strengthens his view of conservative Republicans, but his use of irony compels the viewer to his point of …show more content…
Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living” (Ayn Rand). I have no qualms saying that I am firmly pro-choice. The government has no right making a woman’s health-related choices – my body, my choice. Also, just because abortion is legal, does not mean everyone will undergo one. Nor is abortion a decision lightly made by most women. Many pro-life activists use freedom of religion as an argument against abortion. This argument holds little validity because the first amendment includes the protection of and protection from religious freedom. In other words, one’s religious views cannot dictate another’s action. If someone holds anti-abortion views, they can simply choose not get an abortion. Coexistence is vital in such a large country – after all, as Abraham Lincoln stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Further, some anti-Planned Parenthood activists claim that that the taxpayers could save money by defunding the organization. However, according to research by South Dakota State (Brookings) University, federal funding of Planned Parenthood, in fact, saves taxpayers and the government money down the road – five dollars saved for every one dollar the government gives. This is because low-income women, if pregnant, would be more likely to file for government benefits such as food stamps and Medicaid which costs