Rhetorical Analysis On Abortion

Abortion has been a heated topic over the years, and one of the most controversial subjects in today’s political debates. In his article “Planned Parenthood Means Fewer Abortions,” Michael Spector employs a variety of different literary devices in order to create his rhetorical appeal and grant his own insight into the subject. He uses a combination of allusion, hyperbole, rhetorical questions, and anecdotes to create the desired tone throughout the writing, thus forming a logical stance on a usually emotionally biased debate.

In the first sentence of the article, Specter brings up the fact that Mike Huckabee considers the effects of the Roe v. Wade trial are comparable to those of the Holocaust, which is not only a hyperbole, but also an allusion to one of the most well-known tragedies in Western history. Specter uses the hyperbole stance on that belief to show how violently some people feel about the abortion policies, and the allusion part to show how people consider abortion on the same line as the mass genocide of millions of Jewish people. The extremism in both halves

of the statement better helps to create an appeal towards pathos, though that is not the main rhetorical appeal within the article.
Further along in the article, Specter states in an ironic tone, “If only we could find an organisation that educates young girls, and boys, about the dangers of early and unwanted pregnancies…” (paragraph 3), when Planned Parenthood is a pre existing organisation that fulfills that exact objective.

He then goes on to describe the full range of help that the organisation offers, not just limited to abortions. After describing the benefits, it is hard to see the downside, so Specter adds a rhetorical question and asks, “And who wouldn’t want that?” (paragraph 6) This question is asked almost condescendingly, as there are many people, including former president George W. Bush, who refuse to see past the abortions to the other services provided by Planned Parenthood. The ironic tone and rhetorical question help to add sarcasm to the article, yet still remain serious, providing an appeal to

logos.
Sarcasm aside, there are many other times within the article where some emotion can be felt as if Specter is vaguely frustrated by the instances of rejection of a beneficial organisation in lieu of ridiculous strategies. One of the more notable examples of this was during the Bush administration, when the main government supported solution to unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and abortion was abstinence. In paragraph nine, Specter uses an anecdote to tell one particularly disappointing tale from that era. He says. “Once, he [George W. Bush] sent federal officials to lecture experienced scientists at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, in Atlanta, on the value of refraining from sex.” Specter uses this particular anecdote to show to what extent the Bush administration had pushed abstinence only, making it difficult for those who would learn about safety and prevention in the case of pregnancy and STDs from Planned Parenthood to do so. This anecdote helps support the logical appeal in the article because it demonstrates the alternative to proper instruction about safety during intimacy.
Overall, Michael Specter makes his main rhetorical appeal to logos. His persuasion is based on logic and reasoning, backed by facts and what many consider to simply be common sense. For example, when he asks why people would people not want to support Planned Parenthood after learning all of its benefits, including the fact that the main service it provides is not abortions, but the preventing of those unwanted pregnancies in the first place. His uses of allusion, hyperbole, rhetorical questioning, anecdotes all help to strengthen his stance on the Planned Parenthood debate, for what he logically argues will be for the better, not worse.