Rhetorical Analysis of “dead Reckoning”Rhetorical Analysis of “dead Reckoning”Rhetorical Analysis of “Dead Reckoning”“Dead Reckoning” is an editorial from the National Review, 01/26/98, Vol. 50 Issue 1, p11, 3p. It was written to condemn the standings of the US Supreme Court on their proceedings with protecting Abortion. The author really slams the Supreme Court here for dragging its feet on this issue and uses Substantiation and policy here to persuade the reader to follow. In addition talks about the slow progress of the Court to move through the findings of several years of facts. Also seems to point to the democrats as the leading feet draggers if you will. Also “Abortion Is To Complex To Feel All One Way About” Anna Quindlen, p97, The Call To Write, Copyright 2002, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc. This article really plays on the sympathy side of things.
The right and wrong of the Abortion policy has been battled over for quite some time and it doesn’t seem to be at an end any time soon. It appears that the Supreme Court is not making it any easier either. I am not sure of the changes in the law as to date on this issue. I am sure that it seems quieter in the news and public as of late. The reason for the quietness I’m not sure. It might be that I’m not looking in the right places. I am aware of the day set aside every year for it and even some local people march here in town. Also there is a booth at the Red River Fair every year showing the phases of the embryo.
The readers are supposed to get disgusted with the Supreme Court for dragging its feet and also be against abortion at the same time, also in the other article there supposed to be for the right to make a choice in my opinion. It appears that the writers want the readers to take action immediately. And also hate the democrats, or any person against their view for this opposition.
It seems that the lines of reasoning the writers use is that if we so easily allow the death of infants without limit then next it will be our elderly and retarded, or “In-Firm”. In addition to this it might be as easy to just get rid of any one who is an obstacle or in the way if you will. Or that if you are at a young age and risk jeopardizing your future because of a child. The writers really play this along in a sarcastic way which continues throughout. It also seems that the writers Ethos is heard in a way of sarcasm and disgust, also pity and understanding with the Supreme Court and their allowing, letting abortion stand. The one thing they mention is that “Everything Abortion touches, it corrupts”. This is a good example of the way the one writer feels dirty or disgusted with them. He/She describes fathers who abandon their offspring’s as “Predatory Males”. While the other writer states”The right-to-lifers try to portray that abortion rights as something feminists thought
.
Another way to express how things are different is an example of the way it is done. The writer is trying to defend Roe v. Wade as he sees that abortion is a choice of two people based on the birth order. This argument is made by the writer to the editor. It is all right by the writer to express how he feels and see his situation as he sees it. Even if it fails, then all the other writers can stop here, at least they have the right to say something about it!
Why is there a difference? This is only one reason why there is a difference between these two lines of the argument.
The only reason to have different lines of comments is the fact that they are trying to change the subject in such a way as to take it with them.
This is not all that new for these two lines of comments. In our cases, the author must have thought and understood the situation and his/her own behavior. He has a very positive attitude towards his/her own situation.
As a matter of fact, the writers try to change the topic by saying ‘that all abortions were done to save the life of the mother and that the women had an unfair equal chance, but that all abortions resulted in a great loss”’. It is true that they may think that this would be bad to save the life of the pregnant woman who is going to die, but their reasoning is just wrong to believe that this would make a positive change of minds, or even to try and justify it at all. This is because if one thinks differently about the situation then they end up with another side of their argument that is even more illogical.
This is the very reason why there are no lines of comments to speak of them.
As I pointed out back in the previous comment section, this is not all that new this time around, I have always wondered what sort of comments that the writers have been getting. If what the writers have said is taken as evidence that the Supreme Court thinks that abortion rights are the way to achieve that goal then they have already been trying to change the topic of their own comment that they are trying to change the subject of.
What happens if the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to hear any of these conversations? They can end things like this. It is not as if these lines of writing are about abortion rights or people who end up having to deal with them. I only hope that these points can finally end in my writing.