Ambrose Ball-Harney

Reading Response

The impasse of the abortion controversy or at least what it seems to be part of it

from Bordo’s article is that the body can’t be tampered with without it’s owners consent.
The major impasse here is that an infant cannot give its’ consent even if it is to help
preserve the health and safety of the mother. However society/federal government
shouldn’t be able to put stipulations upon the mothers’ body and if she wants to proceed
to change something within her body it should be her choice and hers alone. Thus the
impasse is created by part of society advocating that the child cannot be aborted without
its’ consent, and since the child is still within the womb and unable to give its’ consent no
harm should be done to it. With the other side advocating that since it is the mothers’
body and the infant is part of her and connected to her, there shouldn’t be a law against
what she is able to do to her own body. Bordo’s argument seems to be built off of the
court cases she mentions within her paper. For example the case regarding the cousins
transfer of bone marrow and how they still have a legal right to refuse the transfer even if
it is to save another’s life. This right stems from the Constitutions saying that a person’s
body is their property and theirs alone. Thus the first part of the controversy is reached as
though legally the cousin was completely in the clear by refusing the transfer, however
morally this cousin seemed to be lacking.
Bordo also notes that the medical profession seems to be the leading group that
ignores the mother’s rights and begins to treat them as mere bodies. The bills and ideas
put forward in previous years have attempted to curb ‘defects’ within women. These bills
discriminated against the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill by trying to sterilize
them to prevent them reproducing (on a quick side note I thought this was interesting
how it seemed to parallel events that had taken place within Nazi Germany however
some of these ideas took place before the rise of Nazism).
Much of the vocabulary from Crowley and Hawkee was present within Bordo’s
article. Conjecture for example is present from the very beginning within Bordo’s article
with the mere presentation of the topic of abortion. This is a controversy that is
considered within our society constantly and a hotly debated topic among politicians and
the whole population for that matter. With this controversy having such a widespread and
profound effect on our population and society it is easy to see that Conjecture is present
within Bordo’s argument.
Definition seems a little less present, as Bordo never comes out and defines how
the act of abortion takes place. This may have been a little damaging to her argument as
well. Instead she relies on the belief that most people who will read her article from a
rhetorical standpoint already know what the act of abortion is. However she does do an
adequate job defining the court cases and the controversy at stake and the impasse
between those who say pro life and those who say pro choice.
Quality is present within Bordo’s argument in how she cites the multiple court
cases and examples of bills and actions groups that are very active in our society have
taken. Thus by citing these sources and events in history she lays out a quality argument
that lets her reader know that she is being very serious and approaching this impasse with
the utmost scrutiny. Policy can be seen from the examples above in that this is a matter
that requires much thought and should be acted on in a formal procedure, and she cites
how it has in her argument as well.