Cruelty to Women Overseas

           Of the many hot topics on the political table right now, it seems abortion never gets far from center stage. Opinions are so polar that an answer is becoming impossible. A writer on the New York Times editorial board has written this article not on whether or not abortion should or should not be legal, but instead he presents another piece of abortion that many have overlooked. The author’s writes his article to argue that attention needs to be focused on helping women overseas who are dying from unsafe abortions that are rooted in the Helms amendment, which restricts the use of United States foreign aid money to finance abortions overseas, even in places where abortion is legal. It appears that the author’s audience is adults looking for a different view of abortions, not just what is going on in our country.

            In order to achieve his purpose, the author employs several rhetorical devices to bolster his argument. In assessing the different devices, it seems the most prominent device is the use of exemplification. The author uses several examples, whether in numerical or descriptive form, to appeal to his audience’s logic and emotions. When opening his argument, he writes, “Each year some 47,000 women around the world die as a result of unsafe abortions.” The use of these short but effective examples shows the audience the scale of this problem and makes it real. The examples humanize the women oversea who are suffering, and make the audience realize that they must act or 47,000 will soon turn into 60,000. Overall, the use of exemplification helps strengthen the author’s argument so the audience remembers and acts on what they read.

            To conclude, I do believe the author achieved his purpose of bringing people’s attention to an American amendment that is preventing the US from saving several thousand women. By making both a logical and emotional appeal through out the article, the author makes it so his audience walks away with something.