Heartbeat=Human.

Article used: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/opinion/abortion-heartbeat-ban-georgia.html

1. In her 2019 New York Times article, “The Abortion Divide Gets Deeper”, Michelle Goldberg informs her audience about the recent developments regarding the debate about abortion. She especially focuses on the progression of the “heartbeat” law in Georgia and certain other states, which mandates that fetuses that have an identifiable heartbeat may no longer be legally aborted. Goldberg addresses the prolife perspective and this side’s aspirations of altering current abortion laws, but takes a stance against this. She describes some possible consequences of repealing the infamous Roe v. Wade, which permits abortion, mentioning economic, health care, and cultural repercussions. The author discusses possible alternatives to the current regulations on abortion, but ultimately, she argues that abortion should remain legal and that republican opposition to it will only drive the already polarized nation further apart.
2. Goldberg’s purpose is to combat the current talks of repealing Roe v. Wade & the passing of antiabortion laws; in this, she seeks to demonstrate the consequences of banning abortion. To achieve her goal, Goldberg utilizes charged diction, ethos, and figurative language. Most of Goldberg’s diction when describing the perspective of Republicans is incriminating and negative. She uses words such as “anti-choice”, “Trumpy cruelty”, and “legislatively audacious”; the connotations of these phrases are that Republicans and those against abortion are supporting an unjust and despicable regime. It is heavily implied that people who support banning abortion are trying to limit the nation’s freedom and are indecent human beings. Furthermore, Goldberg always calls those who support the “heartbeat law” “anti-abortion[ists]”-not once does she refer to them as “”prolife”. This is because the connotation of “anti” is negative, whereas “pro” naturally implies something good. If the author were to call those who hold this view “prolife”, it would imply that those who support abortion are against life, which would thoroughly damage Goldberg’s argument; “prolife” claims that fetuses are in fact lives, but “anti-abortion” villainizes Republicans, strengthening Goldberg’s position. In addition, Goldberg appeals to ethos to form her position. In the article, it lists the author’s qualifications, including a Pulitzer Prize, authoring multiple books, and years of experience. This increases her credibility to an audience that may have no idea of who she is; rather than coming off as a wishy-washy, uneducated, and untrustworthy person, Goldberg gives the impression that she is well qualified to discuss this topic. Furthermore, Goldberg utilizes figurative language to build her pro-choice argument. The author calls Republican efforts to repeal past laws permitting abortion “legislative whack-a-mole”. This is not meant to be interpreted literally-there is no one with an actual hammer, and there are no literal moles popping up. Instead, this implies that the Republicans are simply crushing all regulations that go against their prolife agenda and that they are doing so quickly & thoughtlessly. Goldberg utilizes negative diction, ethos, and figurative language to convey her message.
3. As for my own perspective, I strongly disagree with the author, since I am prolife. Though I acknowledge the concerns that Goldberg has about the consequences of repealing Roe v. Wade, I believe that life is precious and that corrupt laws must be changed. It is true that I have quite a bit of bias in this area-I am both religious and the daughter of an OB-GYN nurse. Hearing my mom describe how babies have tiny heart beats and talk about what they are like has made me value all life, even when it is so small. A main defense against abortion that I have is that if one claims it is acceptable to terminate the fetus because it is just a ball of cells, when does that ball of cells officially become a human life? Those who support abortion cannot give a definitive time when this precious life actually has the qualifications to be considered a human and to deserve to live. If abortion is morally wrong, then all arguments about economic or political consequences are invalidated. Also, when a pregnant lady is killed, it is considered a double murder. If the baby is not considered human, why would this be? Does it become a human life when the mother decides it is? Is it just a clump of cells if she wants it to be? This is simply scientifically inaccurate and makes life relative. I believe that life begins at conception, that each and every life is precious, and that everyone deserves the simple chance to live.

Article 2: Addressing Attacks on Animal Testing

Article used: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/we-agree-on-animal-alternatives_b_11681212

Article Summary:

In the 2017 Huffington Post article “Stop Being Ridiculous: We Agree on Animal Alternatives”, Alan Kelly defends his perspective that political extremists on all sides are hindering progress on animal testing reforms. He explains the arguments voiced by many through categorizing them, including viewpoints that relate to absolutism, rationalism, entertainment, and pure information; after presenting each perspective, the author insightfully points out the flaw in such reasoning and shows how unproductive it is.  Instead of polar viewpoints and hostility towards opponents of one’s own beliefs, Kelly advocates for a balanced and practical mindset and for compromise. The author includes graphs and statistics that track the American people’s support and opposition to animal testing and discusses the difference between various forms of it. Kelly makes the distinction between incorporating animals into laboratory experiments to eradicate horrendous illnesses and exploiting animals for profits and cosmetics; while the former saves human lives with immense value, the second is unnecessary and often cruel. Kelley explains that the moral arguments of activists lead to irrational and impractical conclusions, and animal testing is a necessary practice in the current era until technology can advance past it. No one actually likes the cruelty, and measures should be taken to prevent extremely inhumane treatment of animals, but testing of appropriately treated animals is vital at this time in science. Ultimately, Kelly is arguing that many people are hindering progress with their extremist views, stubbornness, and their “idealistic” aspirations (in an unideal world).

 

Rhetorical Strategies:

The purpose of the article is to draw attention to the dangers of extremist views on animal testing and to advocate for more productive, rational alternatives to it; the author ultimately supports the continuation of animal testing within the bounds of necessity and respect of test subjects. To accomplish this purpose, Kelly utilizes strong diction, hard data (i.e. logos), and the appeal of pathos. One major aspect of the article is its disdain for irrational arguments in regard to animal testing. In this, Kelly’s diction includes words like “ridiculous”, “tone-deaf verbiage”, and “disingenuous”. These words all have negative connotations and imply that many extremist views are not well-reasoned, ineffectively explained, and are often ludicrous at their core. Furthermore, Kelly includes helpful graphs, charts, and statistics to provide logical evidence for his views on the continuation of animal testing and to display the opinions of other Americans. In this, Kelly states that the “public approval of animal research and testing has dropped year-to-year”. This fact demonstrates that animal testing is already getting less prominent as science advances and that many hope for a testing free future. However, with the other charts, Kelly addresses this point of view but adds that until technology can catch up, animal testing is vital to find cures to fatal diseases. The statistics are visual evidence that reiterates what he has already said. Finally, Kelly appeals to the emotions of his audience to bring them to realize that animal testing remains necessary. He states, “…no activist would rather lose their child to a disease than spare the mice and monkeys that help cure it”. The pain of losing a child is so immense, and a human being’s worth is infinitely more than that of a mouse. The reality is that even if animal testing is not ideal, it has the power to prevent one of the greatest sufferings one might endure. In addition, Kelly describes activists as those who are “driven by compassion and a dream for a higher standard of humanity”, which is packed with emotion. This declaration is inspirational and poignant, conveying utmost respect for activists.

 

Response to the Column:

The topic of animal testing in laboratories is very controversial and complex in our world today. If I believed that the animals were all being treated cruelly or thought that the worth of a human was equal to that of a mouse, I would by all means agree with the extremist activists that Kelly describes. However, since I do not think that way, I agree with Kelly’s sentiment that the extremist views on both sides of the aisle are hindering actual progress with regulations on animal testing; without compromise and awareness of every perspective, no improvements can be made. Until better technology is available, animals could provide what we need to eradicate diseases that take countless lives each day; this technology cannot be too far away anyway, judging by how science has been advancing recently in terms of genetics, engineering, and more. Personally, I was recently very concerned about whether or not I should support animal testing and to what extent. This prompted me to seek out Mrs. Schwankl and ask her about this, which led me to my new perspective. Thus, like Kelly, I believe that though animal testing should not be cruel or barbaric, it is necessary and shows promise in curing extremely dangerous illnesses.

 

The Unfortunately Misguided Reputation of Pitties

Based on article:     Opinion: Pit Bulls Should be Banned  

In a 2018 Montreal Gazette article by Barbara Kay, the author argues that the dog breed of pit bull should be banned from being owned or bred further. She discusses the brutal physical havoc that pit bulls have wrought on Canada’s population, including graphic stories of injuries suffered by those who have been attacked by pit bulls. Kay addresses possible counter arguments offered by PBAM (Pit Bull Advocacy Movement) and other supporters of the breed, but shuts them down as invalid. In particular, the author discusses the arguments about the genetic disposition of pit bulls, alternative solutions to widespread bans, and statistics about dog attacks (especially pit bull attacks).

With a tone of urgency, Kay’s primary purpose is to advocate for a widespread ban of pit bulls and to convey her point that these dogs belong to a particularly violent dog breed. The author utilizes strong diction, parallelism, and appeals to ethos to achieve her purpose & sway her audience to her side. In terms of word choice, the author uses negatively charged words like “maimings”, “maulings”, “killers”, and “impulsive aggression”. The connotations of such diction convey that pit bulls are brutal, ferocious, and blood-thirsty beasts. They are portrayed as if they were convicted murderers, who had acted intentionally and with malicious intent. Kay uses violent semantics to argue that because they are likely to and sometimes have viciously attacked people, the entire breed of pit bulls should be banned and eliminated. Furthermore, Kay repeatedly opens new paragraphs with the words “PBAM will tell you…” and proceeds to shut down each new argument that her opponents present. This parallelism emphasizes that pit bull sympathizers have many arguments, but each one is as weak as the last. In addition, the repetition implies that the organization of PBAM will try to draw audiences to their side with convincing ideas, but these are incomplete and misguided notions. Lastly, Kay appeals to the ethos of a dog behaviorist and the Ohio Supreme Court to demonstrate that experts agree with her perspective. A dog behaviorist should know the science of this breed better than anyone, so whatever her insight is should consequently be trustworthy; and the Supreme Court, who protects this nation through enforcing the law, potentially should be trusted as fair and just-including in the case of pit bulls.

Do I agree with the author’s point of view? As a proud pit bull owner, of course I do not! While it is a justifiable claim to say that pit bulls are naturally more inclined to react violently, they should not be banned because they do not all behave aggressively, and most of the time, they are actually loving dogs with a bad reputation; it is wrong to apply the misdeeds of few to the whole breed. Regarding the argument presented by PBAM, I agree that pit bulls are only seen as more violent than other breeds because bad owners brutalize them and train them to act aggressively. A person in a life of crime seeking a tough guard dog would not attempt to use a chihuahua; because pit bulls are bigger and have more teeth, they would naturally be the stronger option. Pit bulls may have a higher genetic likelihood of aggressive behaviors than labradors, but this just means they need more training and love to grow into social, friendly dogs; thus, they need even more devoted, aware, and loving owners. My dog, Clutch (pictured above), is one of the most loving and loyal dogs you could come across. He loves to cuddle, play, and socialize as much as the next dog-and he is a pit bull. We knew that we had to train him carefully and socialize him well, and because we did that, he is a great dog. Statistics do display incidents of pit bull attacks when they have felt threatened, but the actions of a few dogs should not bring about the banning of an entire breed. If one simply looks at social media, they will see stories of the extreme loyalty of pit bulls and the light they give to many people of the world. Thus, the answer is not banning, but proper training, awareness, and love to this wonderful breed of man’s best friend.

 

 

Bowden’s “Our Wall”

1. In Our Wall, Bowden’s purpose is to describe the consequences of the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border wall and to explain his arguments against it. He wants to make the discussion more personal than it typically is, especially by including the opinions of some inhabitants of towns near the border (primarily of the wall’s opponents, but also some supporters). The author wants to advocate for peace and unity between the U.S. and Mexico and to denounce the border wall. Bowden’s main goal is to present his view that the wall is racist and toxic to America’s identity.

 

2. The author utilizes an appeal to pathos to strengthen his argument against the border wall. Bowden includes emotional stories of the obstacles migrants face when attempting to cross the border. For example, he states, “The border is haunted by ghosts—the hundreds who die each year from heat and cold…killed in car wrecks flee[ing] the Border Patrol, and the increasing violence”. Here, the author brings his audience to sympathize with the pain that these migrants feel and the trials they are subjected to. Emotions of sadness and frustration regarding the inhumane condition of migrants are evoked by this statement. He makes the people being discussed seem more human and individualizes them by drawing attention to their “intricate lives”. Rather than simply presenting facts or statistics, he adds emotion to his argument to persuade his audience.

 

3. I disagree with Bowden’s point in the essay for a few crucial reasons, but I acknowledge that this is a very sensitive topic and respect other people’s points of view. For one thing, I do not think that the walls formed by dictators or corrupt powers, such as the Berlin wall, can be applied to the nature of the wall between the U.S. and Mexico. This is because the wall on our southern border is a matter of national security; it is not a matter of keeping Americans in the U.S., nor a matter of hating on our neighboring country, but a matter of national defense. Celebrities will often claim to support illegal immigration and oppose the border wall on the grounds that it is racist and we must accept everyone. Yet when you look at their houses, they will have massive walls and extensive security protecting their property. Why? Because people are not trustworthy and do bad things, and these celebrities want to protect themselves from these possible threats to their safety. They are not saying that all people are terrible, but they acknowledge that some people act dangerously and should be kept out of their house, even if other people might come to their houses and act perfectly decent. America is our home, and that is why it is justifiable to have a wall, by the same logic that it is justifiable for celebrities to have them.

Supporting the wall does not mean one is completely against immigration, nor does it make someone racist; it just means they are against illegal immigration. I would not exist if not for immigration-my Opa came here legally many years ago from Germany. Thus, I value immigration and believe that it is beneficial to our nation; after all, we are a nation of immigrants and of people making great human progress. We should help those in need and try to aid those urgently seeking immigration to escape terrible things, but we should do so cautiously and wisely. In conclusion, I enjoyed reading this passage, even if I disagree with the author’s central belief.

 

Women’s Brains by Stephen Jay Gould

1. Gould’s primary purpose in the essay is to provide a rebuttal against the misogynistic writings of past scientists. He strives to first expose what these scientists believed about the inferiority of women based on brain size; then, he moves to providing his own evidence, logic, and a strong defense to disprove the beliefs of these scientists. Gould’s main idea is that while past scientists believed that women were incontestably inferior based on their smaller brain size to men, the truth is that many factors (age, height, cause of death, etc.) impacted the data and made both the findings and the interpretations invalid. Also, the author argues that brain size does not determine intelligence and that the amount of sexism women have faced throughout history is despicable. Including the arguments of Broca, Topinard, and Le Bon, the author shows his desire to inform the audience about the misogynic opinions of the findings of smaller female brain weight on average and to persuade them that these views were disgustingly wrong through logical reasoning.
2. Gould utilizes a rhetorical appeal to logos to disprove arguments of past scientists about brain size and express his view that women are equal in intelligence to their male counterpart. To provide logical evidence to his perspective, Gould discusses the details of his mathematical findings. He claims, “I used multiple regression, a technique that allowed me to asses simultaneously the influence of height and age upon brain size.” Here, Gould clearly is showing the process of his reasoning and provides a valid train of thought. The author argues that the findings of these misogynistic scientists were inaccurate due to external factors affecting their data (i.e. age/body type) and logically proves that not only is the difference in weight between women’s and men’s brains statistically smaller (if there is any), but also there is no proof that smaller brains would mean any less intelligence- nor would it grant any less humanity. Thus, by reason and logic, women should be seen as equals and respected as such.
3. Of course I agree with Gould’s point in the essay! Women have proven themselves to be remarkably intelligent and deserving of equal respect in every field of study. Also, God created us to be equal and in His image, so why would it make sense for women to reflect the image of His knowledge any less? Furthermore, Gould’s findings on women’s and men’s brains seem logically sound. In my life experience, I draw from the classes at Linfield; often, when you look around, you will find that there are equal or more girls in an AP or Honors class than guys; this may be faulty and I am not sure about others’ classes, but I know that in AP Lang Block 1 we have only 4 guys to however many girls, and the same in Spanish 3. Aside from this, the girls in our grade prove themselves to be brilliant and equal every day at school by their outstanding grades and effort in class.

About Men by Gretel Ehrlich

1. Ehrlich’s purpose is to juxtapose the stereotypical view cowboys with the reality of who they are. Her goal is to break down the viewpoint that cowboys are all tough, danger-seeking, “manly” men and to redefine what it means to be “manly,” particularly for cowboys. Rather than the typical idea of them, the author strives to provide an accurate description of cowboys, painting them as soft, “nurturing,” isolated, and caring men with a selfless core. Ehrlich uses examples of cowboys she had befriended to provide evidence for her view that the popular idea of cowboys portrayed by the media is misguided and not the entire truth. Essentially, About Men is a commentary on society’s view of cowboys and men as a whole.

 

2. In her commentary, Ehrlich employs the rhetorical strategy of diction in order to prove her point. Ehrlich uses words like “perverted,” “disesteemed,” and the phrase “iconic myth” convey that the true character of cowboys is being warped and ruined. The connotations of such words imply that the media’s concept of the cowboy is simply an imaginary invention; the cowboy they portray does not exist to the author. Instead, Ehrlich hopes to persuade her audience that cowboys are something entirely different through words like “soft,” “nurturers,” and “maternalism.” The author’s diction advances her argument that cowboys are actually not as “macho” at their core, but instead are loving caretakers. Thus, Ehrlich’s diction dispelled the popular view of cowboys and “manliness.”

 

3. Yes, I agree with Ehrlich’s point in the essay, because stereotypes are everywhere in our society, at both an individual and widespread level. People naturally have preconceptions of others due to their upbringing or what they have been told by society & the media. Also, the media often stretches or warps the truth about who people actually are. For example, guys who work out all the time, like country, and drive trucks are often seen as tough and not emotional, like the cowboys Ehrlich describes. My brother is like this, but he breaks away from society’s view of that type of person when he gets sucked into The Bachelorette or chooses to watch Moana. There are other stereotypes in our world that can actually be dangerous, such as those based on race, gender, occupation, upbringing, and more, but this was the first one that came up in my mind.

 

Blogs!

Nature versus Nurture: One, the Other, or Both?

https://simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

In AP Lang class, we were all given the same prompt, a very general one and with vast possibilities: pick a news article-yes, any article-and write your perspective on it based on logical evidence and personal experiences. After bouncing between many topics, from the death penalty to abortion and even to Harry Potter, I was overwhelmed with all the possibilities; it is noteworthy that I am undoubtedly one of the most indecisive people on the planet. However, I love thinking about people, how they relate, and how the mind works. Specifically, I am fascinated with the topic of human nature.

The article I examined discussed the topic of “nature versus nurture.” Essentially, this concept deals with whether human conduct and behavior is the product of their genetic composition or the experiences they have throughout their life. The former is called “nature,” while the latter is commonly known as “nurture.” Generally, most people do not think it is simply one or the other; as the article addressed, most people see it as a combination of both, but the controversy comes from how much of either part. Though it is such a simple question, the answers can be extremely complex; so, what contributes most to who an individual is? Though both nature (genetic predisposition) and nurture (experiences) contribute to a person’s perspective and personality, nurture contributes far more so due to the impact of cultural impressions, familial influences, and more specific experiences, such as tragedies.

How often is it that we hear about the effects of the media on the population? How is it that a whole people group in one part of the world can hold similar values, but across the world another group has completely opposite views? These and more are consequences of the nurture side of the spectrum. As much as people would like to deny it, we are highly impressionable creatures, and can sometimes be easily convinced to believe a certain thing or behave a certain way. For example, if a culture commonly believes that eating pork is wrong, then it is very likely that an individual of that culture will agree. This is because their mind has been conditioned by the world around them; their perception of reality is a product of what their culture has told them, even though it can be altered by outside factors. Similarly, familial influences display the effects of “nurture.” If a child is told that Santa is real by their parents, then he certainly has to be, and no one can tell them otherwise. They may not have believed that before by nature, but since their parents told them, this position has been impressed upon them until it can be affected by another outside source-yet this source is still considered part of nurture, anyway. Our family impresses our beliefs, behaviors, and even aspects of our character on us. Is not it aweing to consider how different you could have been if you had been brought up in a different family? A shy person could have been the most extroverted if that quality had not been repressed by their parents, and vice-versa. An optimist could have been a pessimist had their parents not encouraged them to think positively when they were younger. All of these are influenced by (though not limited to) their family, furthering the case for “nurture” holding more power. This even shows in the animal kingdom-while most male gorillas are very aggressive, there was a group of them which somehow had no adult males (possibly lost, killed, etc.) and the male baby grew up to be a nonaggressive gorilla, all due to how he was raised. In addition, there are countless real life people and fictional characters influenced by tragic events in their lives. Often, authors give their characters dramatic “sob stories” because they recognize that these can be the source of their character’s personality; without that unfortunate event, they would not have been the same person (see Harry Potter, Frozen, every character of the Percy Jackson series, or any typical YA genre book these days). Thus, people’s personality and perspective is the product of their environment and experiences.

Some may argue that all of our personality is preset in our nature; this argument has some truth to it, but also crucial limits. For Christians, the belief is that our nature is sinful and has been since the infamous Garden of Eden. This does give us a natural tendency to be focused on ourselves and to mess up. However, just because our nature is this way, does not mean we always will choose to do wrong. We have been informed through life of right and wrong and have been rewired by outside influences to strive for good and try to improve. This is still nurture-we have been taught by other people to disregard the evilness of the world and to try to be better. In addition, some may argue that our instincts show who we are by nature. However, though some of our instincts are natural (eat, sleep, breathe, etc.), much of our reaction plans have been impressed upon us by our upbringing (fight or slight, help or avoid, etc.), and our further reflection after our first instinct displays the conditioning of the world. Based on past experiences, our instincts have adapted to better prepare us for the next situation. We may have naturally been a fighter, but after that did not work time after time, our experience (nurture) changed us into a flight oriented person. Though the argument of nature has strong points and is valid, it is not as strong as nurture.

In short, we as humans may have been preset to be a certain way, but our experiences and people around us can alter who we were originally. Culture, family, and specific experiences greatly display this. The incredible thing is that no matter why we are who we are, God created us to be that person and allowed us to experience these things that have shaped who we are. To argue that humans are only influenced by nature and not nurture would be to claim that people are static creatures, but this simply is not so. We live and we learn, we grow and we change-for better or for worse; we are sharpened by our experiences, like swords sharpened by iron, growing continuously throughout our lives.

**I would love to hear other people’s input on this or to clarify anything unclear, so feel free to comment!!

 

The Journey Begins

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton