Reviews for Exasperating Essays and Such

Reviews For: Exasperating Essays and Such

Kiyane 2008-05-13 ch 4,	abuseWell all feedback come in positive and constructive. I'll try to play devil's advocate, so please don't get upset. I'm not quite sure of the term, but it seems as though "fetuses" was misspelled (There's a red squiggly under the word indicating error). If you were referring to something else, then, I guess we can disregard that. [Foetuses on the other hand may have similar physical attributes at the time of abortion, but they are just empty shells.] Earlier you mentioned that pro-lifers disregarding t the orphaned children is humanitarian, and yet you addressed the issue of fetuses as merely "empty shells." This may in fact be just an opinion, but that statement wouldn't convince the opposing party otherwise because there's nothing to back it up. In addition, [Humans are superior. Humans, however, are just animals themselves, and foetuses are not even human; they only look human.] True, humans see themselves as the superior race, but compared to animals who rely solely on instinct for survival, humans have intricate minds that solve problems, think critically, and weave mind-blowing ideas. We can't communicate with animals, that's a given and the fact itself can't prove that animals aren't subjected to emotion, but the claim of humans as superior was based on the workings of our mind. I'm not sure who came up who declared that, and not to sound anti-animals (I love animals), but humans can do more than animals. Based on the "survival of the fittest" theory discussed in Biology, the strongest, most capable set are deemed superior. Then again, the thought of humans competing with animals for the top spot is paradox. Animals are "An organized living being endowed with sensation and the power of voluntary motion, and also characterized by taking its food into an internal cavity or stomach for digestion; by giving carbonic acid to the air and taking oxygen in the process of respiration; and by increasing in motive power or active aggressive force with progress to maturity." Humans do the same things, in terms on internal functions, but men and women are a far cry from animals. We're mammals, but not savages. Yes, we do eat meat like other animals, but classifying ourselves under that category just doesn't click. Fetuses may not look human, but playing the role of devil's advocate, fetuses eventually become humans so they are living beings. I know you didn't exactly state that fetuses (I'm getting confused with the spelling) are non-living, but the question may possibly formulate in the reader's mind. Perhaps if written in another way, the statement would be stronger and more effective. "To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself…" ~It kind of sounds as if the child itself was planted inside the woman's womb. Sure, the decision is up to her, but the mother should already have known beforehand that her actions could lead to the possibility of bearing a child. Overall, it was a very strong, passionately written essay. You may even convince someone to change sides. However, a persuasive essay involves statements from the opposing side. You used words that attacked all pro-lifers, and it sounds offensive to a pro-lifer who doesn't necessarily believe everything the stereotype says. It was very catchy, you won't lose any strong reader who is truly concerned about the topic, and most of all, your writing skills are way beyond your years. I admire that about any writer who goes above and beyond :) Keep it up :) -Kiyane
Lorendiac 2007-10-23 ch 4,	abuseI read this chapter at least a week ago, but didn't get around to responding right away. Now I'll take a stab at it. You say at the end that you want constructive criticism that doesn't waste its time squabbling over the content of your piece (or words to that effect). I'll do what I can to provide some, by concentrating on how clearly and convincingly you present your ideas. By the way, when I quote passages of a piece I'm criticizing here on FP, I normally put the parts that I'm quoting inside asterisks -- * like this * -- to make it easier for everyone to tell which parts are your original words and which parts are my comments responding to those words. In the second paragraph you say: * But what makes a potential human life more valuable than a chicken’s? A maple tree’s? A shark’s? Simply because they cannot communicate in means human organisms are able to comprehend, it does not mean they are unable to feel, to suffer. * Have lots of pro-lifers been running around saying that other lifeforms are definitely unable to feel and to suffer? I hadn't heard about it. If they actually have made that argument as a fundamental part of their platforms, then you really ought to provide specific quotations and sources to show us exactly how we can verify that they are being so foolish. All through your piece I got a strong feeling that you were "preaching to the converted." By which I mean to say that this essay is likely to be a lot more persuasive when read by people who ALREADY share most of your basic assumptions. When read by people who don't share all those assumptions, it's not very likely to cause them to change their opinions. For example, in your third paragraph, you say: * Through the roaring of the crowd, it is hardly realized that the shoes of a pregnant mother are smaller, tighter than those of an onlooker’s. It is about them, not anyone else. * Now, a pro-lifer is very likely going to say that pregnancy (and the option of abortion) is all about the pregnant mother AND about the unborn child. Not just about the mother. So right there you're losing some of your audience by making the fundamental assumption that the fetus doesn't count for anything and expecting your readers to go along (I'll quote some other bits on that subject, later). A bit later in that paragraph, trying to support the point I just quoted, you say: * If this was not so, why do some anti-abortionists so concrete in their beliefs, put into the shoes of a pregnant mother, crumble? From personal experience, a cousin of mine allowed two of his children to be aborted though he and both families involved are adamantly against abortion. * A few points about that -- 1) You don't mention anything about the specific circumstances, such as why the cousin decided to go along with a couple of abortions, so it's very hard for me to judge what that example might "prove" about what type of choice, on what sort of moral basis, was being made in those cases. I know that many members of the "pro-life" movement feel that sometimes abortions are morally justified; they don't all favor the idea that there ought to be laws saying "Thou Shalt Never Have an Abortion No Matter What." (Although I know that some do favor that exact position about what the law should be -- I think that's still the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church, for instance, although I'm not Catholic so I don't lose much sleep over the question of what their exact policies are.) So some pro-lifers could be active in whatever it is that pro-lifers do to attract attention to their cause, and yet they could turn around and watch abortions happen within their families, and not be hypocritical about it if they had NEVER been saying, "All abortions are bad, no matter what the circumstances." 2) It's actually a little unclear just who had the abortions. You said in that passage: * a cousin of mine allowed two of his children to be aborted * At first glance, that makes me think that the cousin was a man who approved of the idea of having two unborn fetuses (of whom he was the genetic father) get aborted. Looking it over some more, I wonder if maybe you mean that something else was happening -- such as, was it actually his living children, two daughters, who got pregnant by other men and then had the abortions? If that was what you meant, you need to rewrite that sentence. * Ultimately, the choice of whether or not to abort is not a political issue, a religious issue, or a moral issue; it is a personal issue. * That's a very sweeping statement. It surprises and confuses me. It would be nice if you elaborated upon what you mean by your list of things that the choice "is not." Why, for example, do you say that whether or not to get an abortion is not a moral issue at all? Why wouldn't someone's moral beliefs be involved? And if someone belongs to a church (the Roman Catholic Church, for instance) that has strong religious ideas about abortion, then how can that person realistically say "it's not even a religious issue" for me? (The person may very well choose to ignore the teachings of her church from time to time, but isn't that still a religious decision she's making?) * Anti-abortionists, pro-lifers fool themselves into believing that “every child, a wanted child” (Planned Parenthood). * That sounds like a flimsy, "straw man" argument at first glance. Do spokesmen of pro-lifer movements actually run around saying "every child is a wanted child" as a matter of policy? I hadn't heard. If they do say, just what do they mean? And you cite "Planned Parenthood" as your source for that quote about "every child, a wanted child," but that doesn't really tell me anything. You don't mention any particular website or document or whatever that would tell me where you came up with that quote -- and from the name "Planned Parenthood," I strongly suspect that the organization you are quoting is on the pro-choice side of the fence. Reading what one side of an argument likes to say the OTHER side believes does not carry much conviction for me, because people describing the attitudes of their ideological opponents tend to have a huge ax to grind and some bias is likely to leak through. If you quoted some leading spokesperson for the pro-life movement as having said, "Every child is a wanted child," and if you then told me where I could double-check the accuracy of that quote, then that would carry a lot more weight with me in persuading me that an awful lot of pro-lifers actually believe the idea that you are refuting here. In your second paragraph, you said: * Foetuses on the other hand may have similar physical attributes at the time of abortion, but they are just empty shells. * and you say something similar in your fifth paragraph: * Firstly, nobody likes being accused a murderer, hence pro-abortionists say that animals are just animals. Humans are superior. Humans, however, are just animals themselves, and foetuses are not even human; they only look human. * Both times, you seem to be begging the question: How do you KNOW that fetuses are "not even human," but just "empty shells"? At what point does the fetus finally become human? Can you prove your point to the satisfaction of a neutral observer? You don't mention any evidence to back up your sweeping assertions on that touchy subject. Again, this feels like a case of "preaching to the converted," where your argument will make a lot more sense to people who already share your attitude that fetuses aren't really human yet. If the reader is not already convinced of that point, then he's not likely to just take your word for it when you offer no "proof" of that idea. (You also might want to clarify the point of just when you think a fetus DOES become human, and why. At the moment of childbirth? Or at some earlier time? Or some later time, for that matter?) P.S. In your Author Comments at the very end, you say: * Also, for the first point about hypocrisy, take note that these so called 'pro-lifers' burn down abortion clinics whilst people are inside. * I'm reasonably certain that the overwhelming majority of pro-lifers have never burned down any abortion clinics in their entire lives, and never will. Your statement gives the opposite impression. You seem to be saying there's only one type of pro-lifer people in the whole wide world -- they are ALL the type of people who burn clinics and people at the drop of a hat? That stereotyping makes about as much sense as it would make if someone said: "I was mugged last night by an African-American, therefore ALL African-Americans are muggers." Your phrasing, and my proposed phrasing for a hypothetical mugging victim, are both ridiculously UNFAIR to millions of people who don't run around committing violent crimes!
Tiefling 2007-10-21 ch 4,	abuse"Anti-abortionists defend rights of all. " No, they don't. They don't even claim to. Re. the first paragraph, the overuse of rhetorical questions is lazy writing. "Pro-lifers value the development of potential human beings, but they ruthlessly, disrespectfully decide human life superior to all others? " Don't generalise. Actually, I've met vegan pro-lifers, who believed that animal life was very valuable. On the other hand, I don't think it's 'ruthless' or 'disrepctful' to consider human life superior to others. I think most people probably do. If you were given a choice where either a child or a rabbit had to die, would you choose the rabbit? "First of all, the hypocrisy of pro-lifers is surprising when they scream for the end to the so-called massacre of human life whilst partaking in murder." Some do, and yeah, that's hypocritical, not to mention criminal, but don't assume that anyone who thinks abortion is wrong also thinks it's okay to kill to prevent abortions. There are many peaceful anti-abortion activists. "But what makes a potential human life more valuable than a chicken’s? A maple tree’s? A shark’s? Simply because they cannot communicate in means human organisms are able to comprehend, it does not mean they are unable to feel, to suffer." A maple tree most certainly cannot feel and suffer, since it lacks a nervous system like animals have. To answer your question, several things- the fact that humans are more intelligent (If you intended to claim otherwise, a chicken is a particularly bad example. Spend a little time around one and you'll see how stupid they are.) and the simple fact that they are human. It's natural to want to preserve your own species over others. We're genetically programmed that way. "Foetuses on the other hand may have similar physical attributes at the time of abortion, but they are just empty shells. " If it's intelligence you're talking about your point would be clearer if you said so outright. Foetuses are aborted before their brains are developed enough to think and feel pain. "In conclusion, anti-abortionists do not see all life as equal." I don't think they ever even claim to. You're wasting a lot of effort trying to disprove something that's entirely irrelevant. Re.adoption- adoptions of children from other countries are extremely difficult and expensive to arrange, making them impossible for all but the wealthiest couples. It's not anti-abortionists who are to blame for all those children not being taken in and cared for. Something needs to be done to change the legislation to make it easier to adopt them. If it's adoptions of children born in first world countries you're talking about, well I'm not sure about the US, but here in Australia it almost never happens any more because there are hardly any children put up for adoption here these days. This is partially because there are more abortions. Abortions in these cases don't save children from having to live on the streets. On the contrary, there is an extrememly long waiting list of potential adoptive parents (all vetted by the department of families to ensure they have good jobs, enough money to support the kid, stable relationships etc.) waiting to adopt unwanted children here, but those children just aren't being born any more. Your assumption that such children are better off not being born is wrong. " Let me emphasize once more: it's the same story as Mary Magdalene and Jesus. " What on earth do Mary Magdelene and Jesus have to do with abortion? Are you suggesting Jesus got Mary Magdelene pregnant or something?
Tiefling 2007-10-21 ch 2,	abuseThere is no 'e' on the end of 'cloth' (you have mispelled it in the chapter heading). "Work cited list not included to prevent plagiarism." What the? How would not citing your works prevent plagiarism? Not including it just makes it easier for you to plagiarise unnoticed. I have heard the argument that cloth nappies actually contribute more polution because of the process of washing them which uses more energy and detergent. I don't know whether that's true- I'd have to research it, and I'm really not up for writing an essay about nappies, I just thought you might be interested. "So do cloth diapers, but cloth diapers that do not require chemical conditioning do not produce water pollution that damages ground water." Actually, they require bleaching, which is chemical conditioning. I don't know what effect that has on ground water though. "Sixty times more solid waste and twenty time more raw materials like crude oil is needed to manufacture synthetic diapers as well. " You really do need to include sources to back this up. "It is obvious why cloth diapers are more preferred by the planet as it should be to the people who inhabit it." The planet doesn't 'prefer' things. It's a ball of rock. Also, something is either preferred or not. It can't be 'more preferred'. "But, the pickier the user is with how many, unnecessary, steps of cleaning cloth diapers will go through, the more costly it will be. " What unnecessary steps of cleaning? Seriously. You wash them, then dry them. What else is there? "Since this is considerably inconvenient to others, diaper services are also available. " That would seem to negate your claim that cloth nappies save money. 'Diaper services' are expensive. You can't have it both ways- cloth nappies are either inconvenient and cheaper, or convenient (with someone else washing them) and expensive. "However, the impact of energy and water use is actually less than home-washed diapers. Diaper service per month costs less than buying a large pack of disposable diapers every week." Ah, so you did look into that. You need to give stats, though. Just your say so isn't enough. "Back in the 1940s, synthetic diapers were as unheard of as rashes." Interesting, though you should maybe add that you mean 'diaper rashes' since rashes in general weren't unheard of in the 40s. If it's true that disposables are bad for babies, that's a powerful argument. "It is not wrong to say that disposable diapers are as healthy to babies as it is to the environment." That sentence sounds odd. Your verb doesn't agree with your subject. "Usage of Earth-killing synthetic diapers is a want, not a need. It is a declaration of how lazy and self-absorbed humans have become." I would hesitate to call busy mothers 'lazy and self-absorbed' when motherhood is not something I have been through myself as yet. You don't know the demands individual parents have on their time. Maybe they are using the time they would have spent washing nappies to care for their babies in other ways, look after other children, cook meals, clean their homes, or do paid work. "It is a waste of money that should be used to end hunger and poverty." It's pretty naieve to think that people will use the money saved by not using disposables to help end hunger and poverty. It's also a bit patronising and ill advised to tell people how they ought to be spending their personal household money. That was well written essay over all.
the coffee fiend 2007-06-26 ch 2,	abuseI'll just say: I started out a diaper agnostic, but am now thinking about converting to cloth diapers when (or if) I have children. It was very persuasive :) the coffee fiend

Return to Top