RCL4: Analysis of a Dubious Advocacy Site

The National Right to Life organization was founded in 1968 to protect the lives of those unborn, and they seem to have a particularly attractive appeal when first stumbling upon their organization’s website. With the specific organization of information and general displays of “what-to-know’s”, individuals can easily access the information they need to protest and take action against those in favor of abortion or letting others have abortions. The website even features a video titled “Baby’s First Months” in which they highlight the wonders of life within the first few months of the baby’s development, and the lives that each of these unborn children can be granted. That being said, any good organization should offer the information to convince their audience to support their organization. This organization accepts monetary donations to lobby for legislators and support other organizations in the attempt to bring down pro-choice establishments. Still not convinced to be pro-life? The National Right to Life provides tons of different fact sheets for visitors to download, save, and print out for consistent use and reminding.

This pro-life organization blatantly states in one of its advertisements: “When you think Planned Parenthood think abortion!”. When I think of Planned Parenthood, I think of women’s health, because after all the “Nation’s Abortion Giant”’s (according to The National Right to Life organization) services are majority having to deal with cancer screenings, STD testing, LGBT services, pregnancy testing and care, and wide range of other services. I believe that this statement is a hasty generalization (fallacy) on behalf of the fact that not even 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services are abortions. The other 97% consists of all the services listed above. Although Planned Parenthood is a name that many know from the funding they receive and controversy surrounding any organization that offers abortions, they are not to be just known as an organization that only provides abortions because they help thousands of women seek the healthcare that they need.

“Protect unborn babies from dismemberment abortion.” is the next advertisement that was shown across the screen as I explored the homepage looking for all of the links that looked inviting. Intact dilation and extraction, unofficially known as dismemberment abortion, is the practice of aborting the unborn baby in the late term of pregnancy. Although this practice is not something that I wholeheartedly support for myself, I do believe that instances such as miscarriages, lack of means to support the child, mother illness, etc. all constitute as reasons to allow this procedure. In many cases, states have strict abortion laws that prevent most women from receiving an abortion after a certain amount of weeks so most dismemberment abortions are truly necessary to keep the mother alive. Is it wrong to save one life at the expense of another? That is the question that is heavily debated around this subject, so I searched some more through the website to find the opinion of those who are pro-life and supporting this organization. I was unsuccessful in my search, but this is something that I found fairly odd to not include in the conversation because I would have liked to have analyzed their viewpoint on the matter.

As I had mentioned earlier, The National Right to Life offers a page of fact sheets that you can download, save, and print from the website. I believe that it is significantly important to base any argument off of facts, so I give this organization props for including such information for their audience. Each of the sheets also provide talking points with legislators and steps to take after that. I also found it interesting that for an organization focused so heavily on abortions, they included links to fact sheets on assisted suicide/ euthanasia. These are valid talking points for the “right to life” movement. Across the website, you will find pictures and videos of adorable little babies and tots and this is an example of pathos because once you see the babies on the website, you are more likely to donate and support their cause. They are using these images and videos to simply appeal to the audience’s emotions for support. Why aren’t there any visual advertisements for assisted suicide/ euthanasia. The video presented on the homepage also delivers a well-spoken argument to really feed into the audience’s sympathy for the cause.

I personally do not agree with allowing anyone to choose what you can and cannot do with your body because access to one’s own body should not be on the table. It is a woman’s right to decide what she can and cannot do. However, I can understand the argument because abortion is something that I never would consider for myself. This website would be much more effective in advocating for a pro-life world if it had encouraged other means of contraception, provided funding for helping women take care of the children once they are born, offering different options if they do not want to keep the child, and so forth. Support systems are offered, but often times women need direct guidance when they do not have the option of raising their child. The organization lacked in providing enough resources to null and void abortion, so if they improved on that I would definitely reconsider their argument. For now, I do not believe in defunding organizations such as Planned Parenthood because they provide abortions. If they want to use their money to start new facilities for women’s health, STD testing, etc., then that is the action they should take instead of trying to deter support to one of the leading women’s health centers. An argument can only be won if there is a better solution, and right now The National Right to Life organization does not have a solid solution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *