Anatomy of a Ban

The name of this article tells us in itself that the author is going to dissect the subject. This is a catchy way to bring out curiosity in readers. There are many ways that the author accurately depicts the situation; however, many logical fallacies can be found within the article.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=12389

Hasty Generalization/sweeping generalization is used in the following ways:

-"Women who have had an abortion require psychological treatment of such symptoms as nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, and deep regrets,"

• Saying that all women who have had an abortion need psychological treatment covers such a basic range of women. It explains only one side, leaving the women who are relieved by the choice to abort.

"Abortion results in increased tobacco smoking,"

• This is obviously a skewed statement trying to make the reader think that every woman who aborted now smokes, and if they already smoked, they smoke more now. A sentence that could still accurately portray the affects of abortion on smoking would include "can result in." The author can lose ethos by a conscious reader recognizing this fallacy.
  

"Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship,"

• Saying "most couples" has a misleading connotation unless a published study is cited as a reference to solidify the facts.
  

"Abortion exploits women, treating them and their children as mere property,"

• One woman who has never chosen to abort feels that abortion itself exploits women. a statement by this woman could easily be turned into the quote we see above. If women chose to abort, then how can they feel like property?

False Analogy

The article concludes with the statement, "Because the bill is so radical, experts don't expect it to make it out of the House of Representatives." What makes the bill so radical? Comparing it with one other state's bill hardly gives the true view of the topic. To say that because this bill is so radical that it won't make it past the House compares it with other "radical" bills that didn't pass. This bill is completely different than other bills in content and purpose. A fair comparison would account for that.

All of these problems give little credibility to the author. This makes it harder to build good ethos, pathos, and logos.