Unsafe abortions remain a major public health problem in countries with very restrictiveabortion laws.
Although Latin America has very restrictive abortion law, unsafe abortion was common. Now, Zika virus has emerged as a serious social problem, so the audience can anticipate the current situation of Latin America that dangerous abortions would increase more than before.
What do we do if a few months from now, when mosquito season arrives, hundreds or thousands of low-income women in Texas and Florida find themselves pregnant with fetuses that show severe brain damage? What does ethical behavior look like in the here and now, in this political reality?
At the end of the article, the author makes the audience think themselves what an ethical behavior is in the fiercely urgent situation about Zika virus.
Garland-Thomson isn’t unsympathetic to this argument, but she notes that it wouldn’t hold water were we to substitute race of gender for disability. She blames the lack of public knowledge about the lives of people with disabilities for the widespread belief that ability-selective abortions are normal, desirable and ethical.
The author concurs with Garland-Thomson’s argument that ability-selective abortion is unethical because it is a kind of set of discriminatory attitudes and practices against disabled people. Also, she claims that it should be a very deliberative process about considering their choices to terminate a pregnancy for anti-abortion movement.
"It's days off work, it's out-of-pocket therapies until diagnoses kick in, it's fighting your insurance, it's becoming a full-time advocate," she continued. "A kid with disabilities born into poverty should be able to receive adequate support and care, and we just do not provide that.”
These are a series of tweets written by Nicole Cliffe who is the editor of The Toast and the mother of a special needs child. I can read her feeling of frustration about raising a child with a complex impairment. In my opinion, the government cannot force women to bring children with disabilities without enough financial aid, education, and services.
She acknowledges that there are very real challenges involved in parenting a child with disabilities. Raising special needs children can be enormously resource-intensive, and is often done with limited government or other structural support.
The author claims that social welfare system for the handicapped should promote to establish a society which treasures life and does not throw it away simply because of fetal abnormalities.
That having a child with a disability is undesirable is usually taken as a given, not just by pro-choice advocates, but by much of U.S. society.
This sentence shows one of the most awkward and uncomfortable truth in our society. No parents are prepared or would want to have a disabled child.
Embedded in the calls for re-examining abortion policies as Zika looms is the assumption that aborting a fetus with microcephaly is ethical and that women will want and should have the right to ability-selective abortions. There’s little room, in the usual pro-choice argument, for the notion that that disabled child has the right to exist, or for questioning the notion that life with a disability is inherently worse than life without one.
The author criticizes sharply against abortion rights advocates. They have bias against the disabled that their quality of life would be lower than the non-disabled.
Likewise, people with disabilities have long been subject to reproductive coercion, from the abandonment of newborns with disabilities to mandatory sterilization of women with disabilities. They have, said Garland-Thomson, “been eugenically eliminated from the world through selective abortion and other biomedical practices.”
The author states with the authority of Rosemarie Garland-Thomson who is a professor of English at Emory University and a pioneer of the discipline of disability studies. Disabilities’ reproductive coercion in historical event arouses the audience’s sympathy by using pathos. Her delivery is effective because she make an emotional appeal to emphasize the right of the disabled.
But if what the WHO calls an “explosion” of Zika does indeed lead to an uptick in fetal abnormalities in the U.S., the abortion rights movement faces another problem: a coming clash with the disability rights movement.
In the outbreak of Zika virus, the author raises a problem about an upcoming clash between the abortion rights and the disability rights. She claims that rights of disabilities to exist should be respected and should not be violated by the rights of a woman to have abortion.
Here in the U.S., officials have stayed mum on the topic, but abortion rights advocates are rightly wondering what an increase in fetal abnormalities would mean at a time where abortion restrictions -- from lengthy waiting periods to laws designed to shutter clinics -- have left millions of American women without access to abortion care.
The author brings up a subject that Zika virus and abortion is not just Latin America issue, but also the United States. This sentences are coded criticisms against the U.S government which has been silent on Zika virus issue.
In El Salvador, where abortion is completely outlawed, the government has advised women to simply not get pregnant until 2018.
The author exemplifies one country in Latin America how El Salvador takes emergency steps to deal with Zika virus. The government of El Salvador suggest women to delay their pregnancy until 2018. In my opinion, they show an irresponsible attitude about the current state of affairs. They should provide necessary information, education, and contraceptives for their nation to avoid pregnancy.
Zika Virus Threat Puts Abortion Rights And Disability Rights On Collision Course
The title of the article stimulates audience’s curiosity how Zika virus leads to collision course between abortion right and disability right.
As more cases of Zika virus pop up in the U.S., abortion rights advocates are raising concerns about whether harsh abortion restrictions will affect pregnant women’s ability to terminate pregnancies if they’re infected with the virus. Zika has been linked to microcephaly, in which babies are born with underdeveloped brains and abnormally small heads. Some cases seen in Brazil and elsewhere in the Americas have been severe.
Latin America which has a serious medical problem due to Zika virus and the United States are geographically close. The author predicts that Zika virus will make hundreds or thousands of fetus with microcephaly in the U.S when mosquito seasons arrive. Also, she states that Zika virus will arouse controversy about abortion right because abortion laws vary in each state.
Given that large numbers of pregnant women in the region havebeen or will be exposed to this strain, systematic investigation of spontaneous abortions andstillbirths may be warranted to evaluate the risk that ZIKV infection imparts on theseoutcomes.
The authors are forecasting that Zika virus will bring about large numbers of abortions and stillbirths in infected pregnant women across the Americas and Caribbean. The authors stand neuter about the abortion issue.
We cannot extrapolate from this single case the overall risk for developing hydrops fetalisand fetal demise among pregnant women exposed to the virus.
The authors acknowledge their research have a problem which is difficult to generalize from a single example. The purpose of the investigation aims at raising public awareness about the risk of Zika virus to fetal.
The first indication of an abnormal pregnancy was theultrasound finding of intrauterine growth retardation in the 18thgestational week.
This sentence indicates that abnormal fetus infected Zika virus can identify after 18 weeks gestation. Abortion at this point in a pregnancy is rare and hard to come by. Therefore, it makes more difficult to have abortion.
Since the majority (73%) of ZIKV infections are asymptomatic [10], it is likely that expo-sures in pregnant women, such as in the case of our patient, often go unnoticed.
That is why Zika virus is dangerous to pregnant women because they are hard to notice whether they are infected or not.
Furthermore, it serves as an alert to cli-nicians that in addition to central nervous system and ophthalmological manifestations [6,7,9],congenital ZIKV infection may cause hydrops fetalis and fetal demise.
In its final analysis, the authors state a hypothesis that Zika virus could lead to hydrops fetalis and fetal demise by using a research.
This case report of a fetus provides additional evidencefor the link between ZIKV infection and microcephaly.
This is the major core content in the Scholarly Journal that finds the connection between Zika and microcephaly based on a case study from a Brazil Woman. While reading article, the audience can easily find difference between Popular Articles and Scholarly article. It is written by researchers and scholars from various medical institution, generally uses scholarly language such as ZIKV(zika virus), Hydrops, and Hydranencephaly. Also, it includes full citations on the bottom of article. Therefore, it is more difficult to appeal to the general public than Popular Article, but it includes accurate evidences which are actual ultrasound views and gives an exact definition about Zika virus by developing logos.
While conducting an outbreak investigation in Salvador, Brazil, we identified a patient whowas referred to Hospital Geral Roberto Santos with an abnormal fetal ultrasound examinationand followed during outpatient evaluations.
The authors attached four abnormal fetal ultrasound views in the article, so it gain credibility from the audience by using the viewable evidences. Also, it can help the audience better understand their main hypothesis.
A large increase in the number ofnewborns with microcephaly was subsequently identified in Brazil in November 2015. At pres-ent, more than 4,500 microcephaly cases have been reported [4].
Zika virus have been reported with the increase in microcephaly more than 4,500 cases. Therefore, it is highly possible with the connection between Zika and microcephaly.
The current outbreak of microcephaly has raised speculations that Zika virus (ZIKV) causes acongenital syndrome. ZIKV, a mosquito-borne flavivirus, was detected in Brazil in early 2015[1,2] and has rapidly spread throughout the Americas [3].
The authors emphasize that Zika virus is not only problem of Brazil, but also entire Americas.
The case report provides evidence that in addition to microcephaly,there may be a link between Zika virus infection and hydrops fetalis and fetal demise.
The authors suggest their theory and point out that Zika virus is a devastating disease to fetus because it can lead to fetal demise.
The rapid spread of Zika virus in the Americas and current outbreak of microcephaly in Bra-zil has raised attention to the possible deleterious effects that the virus may have onfetuses.
This is background of the scholarly journal that Zika virus and microcephaly would have some connection.
This case report provides evidence that in addition to microcephaly, there may be a linkbetween Zika virus infection and hydrops fetalis and fetal demise.
The authors report a case of a 20-year-old woman who was referred to their service after Zika virus outbreak. An induced labor was performed at the 32 weeks due to fetal demise. The authors formulate a hypothesis that Zika virus infection may have relevance to stillbirths. Although it has some persuasive points, their delivery could have been effective by developing more evidences. They commit the logical fallacy called sweeping generalization. It is nonsense to generalize to use just one case of stillbirth. To gain credibility, they need to find more examples about the case.
The rapid spread of Zika virus in the Americas and outbreak of microcephaly in Brazil hasraised attention to the possible deleterious effects that the virus may have on fetuses.
Most of the audience already acknowledge a correlation between Zika virus and Microcephaly. The authors calculate that Zika virus may result in other possible harmful effects on fetus.
Women need to be given the power to manage their own pregnancies.
The author gives directly her argument that women should manage not only contraceptives, but also abortion. She claims that abortion is a right.
Public health clinics in poor communities rarely offer either the blood test that detects the presence of the virus or the ultrasound that can diagnose birth defects. We in Brazil need to know their stories to repair the harm inflicted by the government’s negligence in controlling the outbreak.
It shows poor women’s reality in Brazil that they have little opportunity to get a birth defect examination whether their fetus is infected by Zika virus or not in public health clinics. The author urges the government to provide financial support and social medical services for the poor women.
The poor women who are most likely to contract Zika face tremendous barriers to getting safe abortions. They are forced to carry their pregnancies in fear.
In this sentence, the author premises her main argument that women need to be given the power to have safe and legal abortion.
In abortion, too, Brazil’s economic inequality is a factor: Wealthy women can pay to secure safe abortions; most women can’t. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Although abortion is illegal in Brazil, wealthy woman can have an abortion in protected and safe conditions. It is a striking contrast from women in poverty who does not have enough money to get a secure abortion. The audience reconfirm the true picture of Brazil’s severe social inequality phenomenon.
In 2010, I conducted a national survey that found that by age 40, one in five Brazilian women had had at least one abortion. The overwhelming majority of these abortions were illegal and performed in unsafe conditions.
The author claims that Brazil prohibits abortion in law, but 25% of Brazilian women had received an abortion at least one time in illegal and dangerous conditions. Though she has some persuasive points, her delivery could have been more effective by suggesting accurate evidences. She bases her argument on a national survey, but she does not state what exact name of the survey is or how many participants were enrolled in. Her lack of evidence discredits her claim and it cannot satisfy the needs of her audience who want to an accurate information about Brazil. Therefore, the author should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos.
The Zika epidemic has given Brazil a unique opportunity to look at inequality and reproductive rights, and to change how the country treats women.
The author presents a problem that Brazil government’s action against Zika virus. She criticizes their short-range policy which urges women not to fall pregnant without providing any education or information about birth control methods.
The women at greatest risk of contracting Zika live in places where the mosquito is part of their everyday lives, where mosquito-borne diseases like dengue and chikungunya were already endemic. They live in substandard, crowded housing in neighborhoods where stagnant water, the breeding ground for disease-carrying mosquitoes, is everywhere. These women can’t avoid bites: They need to be outdoors from dawn until dusk to work, shop and take care of their children. And they are the same women who have the least access to sexual and reproductive health care.
Brazil is one of the countries which have worst gap between the rich and the poor in the world. The author claims that Zika virus is a key indicator about social inequality of Brazil. Young, poor, black and brown women who live close to slum area are exposed to great danger of Zika. Also, they have fewer opportunities to access to sexual and reproductive health care. It is heart-breaking to me that the women who live in underprivileged backgrounds are also troubled with the epidemic. Brazil government should prepare measures not only focus on focuses on Zika, but also resolve social inequality in a long-term policy.
My friends who are planning to have children soon are worried about Zika. But they don’t need to be too concerned. In our well-to-do neighborhood in Brasília, the capital, there has not been a single case of a baby with the birth defects associated with the Zika epidemic. As far as I know, not one woman here has even been infected by the virus.
It is a very interesting fact that the affluent area in Brazil is perfectly safe from Zika virus, but the author does not give any evidence about it. It lacks of audience appeals and she should reinforce her rhetorical strategies by developing logos. She just relies on her ethos at this point. Although the topic is Zika virus and Brazilian women’s right to choose, she has the Brazil Olympics 2016 in mind and indirectly promotes that Brasilia which is the capital of Brazil is not dangerous at all.
I am a Brazilian woman.
What authority the author speaks is her ethos. She can observe current Zika virus problem in the immediate vicinity, Brazil. So, she looks deeper into the problem with a different perspective than other authors. The audience may think her article is more credible than others because of her nationality, Brazilian.
This conclusion comes with the caveat that further study is needed to determine whether this pattern appears consistently in other studies, or whether it is merely an artifact of this particular sample.
In my opinion, I find this to be a good audience appeal. Although, some might say this information discredits the ethos of the study, I believe it helps in showing that more information is needed to find out clearer results. The authors establish ethos by showing that this subject needs more study to further understand its results. The fact that they want to further their research and keep looking into the subject is great and shows their true interest in the subject.
One possible conclusion that we might draw from this is that increased engagement in public discourse might be associated with some emerging consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but not on the policy debates regarding what should be done about it.
Interesting perspective. Although people might engage in conversation about climate change the real debate needs to be on policy implementation to help change the problem, not on the problem itself.
The Public and Its Climate: Exploring the Relationship Between Public Discourse and Opinion on Global Warming
Shreck, Brian, and Arnold Vedlitz. "The Public And Its Climate: Exploring The Relationship Between Public Discourse And Opinion On Global Warming." Society & Natural Resources 29.5 (2016): 509-524. Academic Search Premier. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
Within Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal, Shreck and Vedlitz claim that there appears to be a positive association between people engaging in conversation about climate change and the strong belief that climate change actually exists. They go on to further state that this conversation about climate change is occurring on both sides of the debate spectrum, which later will force both sides to address the issue.
Brian Shrecka* & Arnold Vedlitz
Brian Shreck is a joint appointment in the Department of Political Science and the National Wind Institute. He focuses his area of study specifically on wind energy and public policy. I see him as being highly qualified as he is at Texas Tech University as a Postdoctoral Research Scholar. He obviously has credibility on the subject of climate change and how it is being addressed throughout society. http://perg-tamu.com/people/brian-shreck
Furthermore, Shreck's co author Arnold Vedlitz is obviously just as qualified as him, as he is "holder of the Bob Bullock Chair in Government and Public Policy and director of the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (ISTPP) in the Bush School of Government and Public Service". He has done a lot throughout his career pertaining to the environment which only adds to his credibility. http://bush.tamu.edu/faculty/avedlitz/
Second, for the exchange to be truly deliberative, citizens must be open to receiving and considering this new information and new arguments and, ultimately, to changing their minds when confronted with convincing new arguments or contradictory evidence that make their current positions indefensible.
This point is a good way to increase credibility as the authors are addressing that people should listen to and welcome refutations of the arguments. Therefore, every aspect of the argument is addressed.
We fielded a national survey to collect opinions, knowledge, and engagement on climate change, including individuals’ informal public discourse with family members, friends, and coworkers
I would be interested in seeing the survey. I want to know if the same size was large enough to constitute the results of the survey. Who received the survey? Are the questions potentially biased?
However, the polarization on the issue of climate change calls into question what the result of more public discourse might look like. Would the result be an emerging consensus toward belief in the reality of climate change—and accompanying support for public policies to curb human impacts? Or would the outcome be more of the same polarization that we see now?
This is an interesting point. Because very little people are engaging in conversation about climate change currently, would increasing talk about climate change only cause more polarization on the subject or bring a new light to the subject?
These data give us a unique opportunity to analyze empirically how, and how much, the U.S. public engages in discussion of this very important but technically complex and politically contested issue.
Here is what "they" are saying. Shreck and Vedlitz are saying that in order for this issue to be truly understood it needs to be looked at two ways. First, is that people need to have an open-mind. One must consider the other sides perspectives and stay impressionable to the argument being made. Second, people need to realize that in order to engage in deliberative democratic theory they must have an active, engaged, and knowledgeable political entity that will consider all ideas equally and will reconsider its existing ideas in the face of new evidence or arguments.Because of this, they will be exposed to new information and ideas which will either help deepen their initial position or help sway them in the opposite direction.
Meng described El Niño’s rippling effects as impacting one region of the world after another.
This source might help me going forward with research because it is showing me how one thing can effect everything. It is a chain of both societal and environmental impacts. I should research the effects on each chain if climate change continues to be a big problem.
“We also know that the broader the coverage of a cap-and-trade program, the less costly it’s going to be to make the same amount of reduction,” Meng said of achieving carbon reductions around the world.
This is a global solution. It helps to see how solutions to the problems with effect a global audience rather than just a local one. This helps to show the big picture for Meng' s work.
I would be interested in researching other solutions that could be used to reach a more global audience as well.
This is also an audience appeal as he is showing how Meng's innovations are universally helpful. He is working to better the world, not just a specific nation.
The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues UCSB’s Kyle Meng Discusses Environmental Economics
Ruan, Dylan. "The Carbon Market and Global Climate Issues." Santa Barbara Independent 1 Mar. 2016: n. pag. Web.
Ruan claims that UCSB's Kyle Meng is focusing on creating a future where "climate change is battled with market-based solutions". Moreover, that climate change can be addressed using environmental economics.
Because this consequence is experienced by someone else — the environment, humans on other continents, or animals — there is little obvious incentive for many of us to reduce carbon emissions. One solution to this problem is to put a price on pollution.
By showing a possible solution to the problem, Ruan establishes early on the credibility in Meng's work. His solution is backed by his vast understanding of economics as he explains to the audience how it would benefit society to put a price of pollution. In doing this, reduction of activity would occur, in turn causing carbon emissions to become reduced.
Meng believes that environmental economics “is fundamentally about harnessing the power of markets to address environmental problems.”
This is what "they" are saying. Ruan is articulating Meng's philosophy to the audience. Meng, who is well versed in economics and the environment, specifically climate change and market-based solutions, is showing how we can use the market to help fix the environment. Meng addresses primarily two ways economics can be used to bring communities together to reduce emissions. He also addresses environmental effects like El Nino that can have dramatic repercussions if not properly analyzed and helped.
Meng’s research also focuses on the potential impacts of climate change, which he tries to understand by looking to the recent past, such as the global climatic phenomenon known as El Niño
Another example to help establish credibility falls within Meng's research of a past climate change event, El Nino. Most of the time to better gain understanding of a particular problem and its solutions, a person should look at the past to address what worked and what didn't. This will save both time and money and help in deciding future actions of climate change.
These major agricultural losses, he observed, have the potential to lead to an increased amount of civil unrest and conflict within tropical nations.
I would be interested in further researching potential conflicts between tropical nations. How prevalent has this issue been and has it ended up causing big conflicts in the past?
The Backlash Against Serial—and Why It's Wrong
Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.
Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.
As Lindsay Beyerstein notes in The New York Observer
Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.
Let's get my biases out of the way
Nice job of getting some refutations out there early on. This helps establish ethos in that Friedersdorf appears to be self-aware, although, as I pointed out in an earlier annotation, he is not entirely self-aware because he ignores his own point that there is usually some grain of truth in criticisms about white reporter privilege.
As often as not, there is at least something to be learned from the critic.
I agree with this point, and it's something I need to do further research on. After reading the article in full, I don't think Friedersdorf acknowledges what Koneig could learn from her critics. Instead, he focuses on undermining Kang's concerns about Serial. In my opinion, the takeaway for Koenig is to be more mindful of race and culture in her reporting, and to be sure to refer to credible authorities when she may not fully understand.
They're worth addressing for two reasons.
Friedersdorf tries to establish credibility right away by acknowledging the value in Kang's concerns.
Conor Friedersdorf
Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. "Conor Friedersdorf"
The Atlantic is a well-known magazine (a reliable popular source) known as "high quality review with a moderate worldview."
One of the oldest and most respected of American reviews, The Atlantic Monthly was founded in 1857 by Moses Dresser Phillips and Francis H. Underwood. It has long been noted for the quality of its fiction and general articles, contributed by a long line of distinguished editors and authors.
Most of all, the response to mistakes should never be to discourage white reporters from telling important stories.
Here Friedersdorf gets to what's at stake in the big picture: according to Friedersdorf, it's important that people's stories are told. The truth needs to be out there, and it's dangerous to make reporters feel scared to tell someone else's story.
What broadcast journalism show is telling these stories better? How many broadcasters are telling them at all? Are these episodes best characterized as exhaustively reported features told with care and empathy, or as stomping around communities the journalists don't understand? Would journalism or social justice be advanced if This American Life told fewer stories like these to its huge, influential audience—or would it be better if other broadcast journalism more resembled This American Life? What particular mistakes do these episodes make? Are they best noted specifically and constructively, or bundled under the vague label "white-privileged cultural tourism," which many of the subjects would dispute?
Good questions here. I don't know where I stand on the issue and need to do further research. Just because This American Life is doing a better job than some news outlets doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for its failings.
None of this means that the disproportionate whiteness and lack of religious, ideological, and socioeconomic diversity in most American newsrooms isn't a problem that negatively affects the quality of journalistic output.
Nice refutation here. Friedersdorf acknowledges that there is a wider problem with white reporter privilege, just not as much in this case.
But even if we accept Kang's speculation
It's a good idea to accept Kang's speculation even after disproving it because it shows that Friedersdorf is unbiased and truly taking Kang's opinion into account.
It’s a total non sequitur.
This is useful to see how someone calls an author out for a logical fallacy. It undermines Kang's ethos, the "they" to whom Friedersdorf is responding.