Term Paper on "Abortion Pro-Choice"

Quoted Instructions for "Abortion Pro-Choice" Assignment:

Here is what I am looking for. There is a movie review that I can do if the researcher is unable to (just let me know). The first part is how I would like it set up and what it should include. In addition, if the researcher has access to the book at the bottom that would be great (but not a deal breaker). The second part is just the guideline that was

given to me. Thank you for your help.

Part 1 (my topic and what it should include).

I have chosen to write my first paper on women*****s right to have an abortion. This will give a breakdown on how my paper will be constructed. First, I will introduce my topic in my opening paragraph. This will also state how I am going to support my argument.

My second paragraph will be a summary of a movie that deals with abortion through different eras. It is called *****If These Walls Could Talk.***** Here is where my subject matter will be presented (if abortion is right or wrong).

This part of my essay will focus on the opposition of abortion. I will use works from Don Marquis and St. Thomas Aquinas***** natural law (deontolocial) theory to support the opposition of abortions and why it is considered immoral. Then, I will incorporate the anti-abortion view of a utilitarian. This should focus on the consequences of abortions.

Next, I will offer my counter argument to my opposition perspective. This part will argue why abortions should be legal/right. I will use works from Judith Thomson and Mary Ann Warren*****s articles "A Defense of Abortion" and "On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion". to convey this point. Then, I will further support the pro-choice side by introducing the utilitarian point of view (i.e. back alley deaths if illegal).

My conclusion will be used to wrap up any loose ends that I may have left. I will try to stay away from a summarization of my entire paper.

Book: The Moral of the Story, Nina Rosenstand (5th edition, 2006), published by McGraw-Hill.

Part 2

The minimum content requirement for this paper is that it must deal with at least three sources: two philosophical theories or ethical ideas from our text, and an example or

case to be analyzed. This third source may be a film or narrative of some kind, or maybe a fact or argument piece found in your own extra-curricular research. More sources

are acceptable if they help your case, but not necessary unless your argument requires them.

The rest of the guidelines offered here are for the purpose of making your paper a clear and persuasive argumentative essay. If you have a lot of essay-writing experience, you

might not need these guidelines. There is more than one way to write a good argumentative essay.

What follows is an explanation of a paragraph-by-paragraph structure (almost a template, really) which will help you see what argumentative essay writing is all about. If you follow these guidelines, it will be almost impossible to go wrong. Below, I will show that what may appear to be a very large and intimidating job (the paper) is in fact just a series of small jobs (the paragraphs). Keep in mind that some of these paragraphs may be a bit shorter (4-6 sentences) and some may be a bit longer (8-10 sentences), but in general one or possibly two paragraphs will be enough to fulfill each of these tasks. Also please note that the section titles here are for the purpose of organizing the explanation I am giving you. Titles which indicate the substance of each section may be relevant for a larger paper, particularly when read in a conference setting, as a means of providing a sense of continuity for the reader/listener. But in a paper no larger than you are required to write for this course, such titles do more to disrupt continuity than to preserve it.

First Job: Introduction

This part of your paper has to do the same job as the first paragraph of your five paragraph essay. I would suggest you review the directions for that part of the essay, as

well as any comments I may have made about it, to be sure your introduction is as strong as you can make it.

Second Job: Subject Matter

The task here is much like it was in the second paragraph of your preliminary essay. If the problem you are addressing is to be brought out in the presentation of a narrative,

of factual information, a case study, or something else of that nature, it is almost always a good idea to put that before the reader right away. As indicated in the directions for the preliminary essay, this is what gives the paper a

subject and parameters, and gives your reader a sense of the issue on which arguments will shortly be presented. So after the introduction, it is a good idea to take a paragraph

or two to get your reader acquainted with your subject matter. Hint: If you are using both a narrative and a statistical or other factual source, place the

former first to capture the reader*****s imagination, and the latter second to ground the argument in reality.

After this, there are many possible ways of organizing your material to construct a good paper. In what follows, I am suggesting a sequence that will work well for most

configurations of authors and philosophers.

Third Job: Perspective I

(These next several tasks are essentially expanded versions of what you needed to do in the third and fourth paragraphs of your preliminary essay.)If your are using an article from an author who is discussing your subject matter

directly, it is better to turn to them right after you have presented that subject and before turning to a philosopher. For the philosopher*****s theory will likely be a bit more

abstract and require some connections to be drawn. Starting with an author speaking directly to the point and before turning to the philosopher(s) will then create a

directional flow in your paper, from the more specific or concrete to the more general or abstract. It helps the reader have a sense of progress from the situation itself, to the

discussion of the problems posed by the situation, to the principles that you are

asserting should be part of that discussion.

Keep in mind that it is almost never a good idea to give the opposition the last word, and that bouncing between authors with whom you agree and disagree is likely to

disrupt the flow/focus of your paper. So if you plan to discuss an author with whom you disagree, it is better to discuss them first. Remember that it is very important to be fair, even to views that you ultimately oppose.

For if you misrepresent them, then what you disagree with is not what they have actually said, and your objection misses the point. Also remember that if you bring up a

view you oppose at the beginning, it is important to explain your disagreement right away. Consider: what if your reader agrees with that view? Unless you can articulate

some reason why it is inadequate, they will have no motivation to *****follow***** you to the discussion of the view you support. (You might find objections Rosenstand discusses to

be useful in expressing your reasons for disagreeing).

Next: Theory/Concept I, Part A:

(Note: By this point in the paper, you should be addressing a philosopher*****s theory of right and wrong. In the event that you also did so for Perspective I, these comments about structure apply there as well.) Before you can show how a philosopher*****s views relate to the issue you are discussing,

you must first explain that philosopher*****s theory. Remember that only what you write in the paper can be a factor in my judgment of how well you have understood these ideas.

If you do not explain very much, I cannot assume you know very much, and that will have a negative impact on your grade. Yet there will probably also be aspects that are

irrelevant to your focus and should be omitted. If you are concerned about what to include or exclude, check with me.

And Then: Theory/Concept I, Part B: Having explained the general view, the next thing to do is to show (note: show, not just say) the thinker would support what you believe they would support, or that this view has certain social consequences, etc., depending on the nature of your paper. For example, if the philosopher you just explained was Kant, presumably you would have discussed the categorical imperative. So at this point, you would show just what

violates (or obeys) the categorical imperative in the situation you are discussing, or how

what you believe should (or should not) be done would uphold (or violate) it.

Theory/Concept II, Part A & B:

For your second ethical theory or concept, repeat the above process.

The Penultimate Job: The Home Stretch

(These last two tasks are essentially an expanded version of what you needed to do in the fifth paragraph of your preliminary essay.) Some students have arguments of their own which are not quite the same as anything

our authors or philosophers have to say. Others have had experiences that they believe provide an important perspective on the matter they are discussing. This material often adds a lot to a paper, making it a more personal work and giving a stronger sense of the

importance of the problem. If you have such a contribution to include, this is the place for it. Don*****t worry about cramming it into a single paragraph. Just make it good.

And Finally: The Conclusion

It is difficult for me to be very specific about this last paragraph of your paper, because

so much depends on the specifics of your paper. But here are some pointers:

1) It is a good idea to wrap up any loose ends here, but...

2) ...Do not summarize your paper or recapitulate your argument. I don*****t care what your high school English teacher told you. Your paper is not long enough, nor are you writing for a readership feeble enough, for your argument to have been forgotten already. So repetition just makes it look like you ran out of ideas and are trying to fill up space.

3) One way to culminate your paper is to give indications that your major point has an impact in areas beyond the scope of the subject you have just discussed.

However...

4) ...Confine yourself to gesturing in the direction of any broader conclusion rather than going into arguments for it or introducing new information. New material will make your paper seem to be changing direction rather than concluding.