TOW #11: Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion by: Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell

When I came across the article “Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion,” and I saw it was written by two obviously educated and high-profile people, Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell one of whom is even a professor of law at George Mason University, I expected an academic argument about the debate on abortion with considerable substance. To my disappointment, this article depicted “pro-lifers” to be simpleton and the article’s purpose does not even have a platform.

The article aims to convey reasons why the pro-life argument has survived, and at the same time give people who are pro-life confidence in their views. However, in the beginning, Alvaré and McDonnell make a fatal mistake. They begin with, “pro-choice Americans must wonder from time to time what keeps pro-lifers going,” (para. 1). Beginning an article with a highly arguable statement like that plants the seed of doubt in a reader’s mind right away. Not only that, but their reasoning for their purpose relies mainly upon the assumption that pro-choice has been beating pro-life for “40 years since Roe v. Wade,” (para. 1). This is also an assumption. If the abortion battle had been won by the pro-choice side, then “pro-lifers” would be a minority with a very bleak future. This is what Alvaré and McDonnell attempt to illustrate with this assumption, but it just is not true. The abortion debate is still very prevalent and neither side has dominated. Although there are laws that legalize abortions, many states are passing preventative pro-life laws. For example, in Virginia, it is illegal to get an abortion unless the woman views an ultrasound of the unborn baby and then decides to go through with the abortion. This is very much a victory for people who are pro-life because it prevents a significant amount of abortions.

Aside from the premise of the views in the article which fuel the purpose being refutable, the rest of the arguments in this article are spotty, and never offer any facts. The few fact that are thrown in are stated plainly without a source and highly questionable. So, even if the article was not based on a refutable idea, the lack of facts and reliable information to support their arguments would crush any shot Alvaré and McDonnell had at proving their purpose regardless.

(Source)