Editorial: The War of Abortion RIghts

The war on abortion rights

       It is inevitable that the human race will run into walls. These barriers are built from the stubbornness invading every breath and the struggle for power blurring sight. Heated topics circle the world, with no answer that satisfy everyone; no answer that breaks down the walls. Given that it is election year, these debated topics are infamous and crucial. One of the most battled is abortion. This past July, The LA Times released The war on abortion rights: an editorial that is without a doubt, pro-choice. The author intensifies his or her message by using forceful diction, unique syntax, and crucial details.

            Diction sets the tone of a piece. This author was sure to use intense words with negative connotations to prove their point. For example, he or she says, “the new law pretends that it’s not about Planned Parenthood.” By using the word “pretends” the author makes the new lawmakers’ look like phony, untruthful people. They also say that abortion rights “require vigilant defense [from] continuing attacks.” With words such as “defense” and attacks” they create a real battle. “Vigilant” makes the abortion rights seem like a helpless victim. Throughout the entire editorial, the angry tone caused by the negative connotation of the forceful words helps the writer make the subject look dark and in need of rescue.

            In terms of syntax, the author uses a unique technique in which they state a fact and follow it up with a negative, sarcastic remark. When speaking negatively about the Republican bullies trying to defund parent hood the author states “These efforts come on the heels of similar moves in Arizona, Texas and other states — as well as the Republican-led vote last year in the House of Representatives to defund Planned Parenthood.” The author informs you of a fact, and the sticks you with a negative phrase to intensify their point. Another influential technique used in this editorial was stating both sides to the argument by connecting phrases. The author uses phrases like “but even if it did” and “instead” in the middle of sentences to include the opponents position and then state their rebuttal. These unique techniques give the reader a realistic view of the author’s point by including facts in an interesting, non-interrupting way. 

            The use of details in this editorial is extremely important to the author’s position. The author provides heart-wrenching facts like “there [is] less money for Planned Parenthood to provide such services as breast checkups, contraception and screening for sexually transmitted diseases,” making it near-impossible for the reader to disagree with his or her point. By including details like “[the stated reason for the law was to protect women’s health, but that is transparently a pretext] when speaking about pro-life laws, makes the reader increasingly despise the government and legal bodies. The author did an impeccable job of packing this editorial full of crucial details to give body to his or her point.

            Diction, syntax, and details lead the author to a successful editorial. Abortion is a highly debated issue and this document would help to transform any reader to a pro-choice candidate.

 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-reproductive-rights-20120718,0,4884243.story