Stage 3

I read an article in the Washington Post  named, “Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion,” written by Helen M. and Meg T. McDonnell on March 01, 2013. In this article, they are trying it show why abortion should not be legal. Their reasoning is that it could potentially violate standards of marriage and respect for life. This is very well true. The way they are trying to justify their pro-life views starts off with a question saying “Why don’t we lay down our signs, cease our marching and admit that we’ve been good and beaten for these 40 years since Roe v. Wade?” They then answer their own question by saying their views can help others understand and consider aspects of the U.S. experience when it comes to abortion. They proceed by giving the reader seven reasons why pro-life people of America stand their ground. This article was specific to those who are riding the fence when it comes to abortion, and their purpose is to win over their non-approval and deepen the reader's understanding of abortion.  As far as credibility goes, they do use statistics and numbers to prove their point, as well as history, scientific journals and past studies done on woman who have had abortions. The one thing they could have done better to make their argument even more convincing would be to use more substantial evidence. The logic and strategic way they wrote out the seven points to describe their take on abortion was nicely done. However, the explanations and facts could have been written more precisely. I did like the fact that they mentioned the problems occurring with the lower economic class and in minorities because of abortion. In their sixth point, I feel that they could have expanded the depth of their details when it came to the after-affects of having an abortion, such as mental health problems and higher risks of substance abuse, instead of just briefly mentioning it. This could have increased negative emotions in the reader and made their argument stronger. The article would have been accurate enough if .....they were talking to people who were already pro-life, but seeing as to how their demographic is people who are riding the fence and opposing  the issue of abortion, it does not suffice. In conclusion it is a well written article but does not do what it was intended to do, to persuade.