Sykes Support Pro Choice example essay topic

The pro-choice activist Margaret Sykes' article: "Another Travesty from the House of Representatives: The "Innocent Child Protection Act" " shows how the double moral of the laws passed interfere with our society's morals. She is telling about the law that was passed that "prohibits the execution of pregnant women by any U.S. jurisdiction". She asks if it's right to take a women's life, but not the fetus inside her and argue that the woman on death row should have a choice to have an abortion. Sykes support pro-choice, but argue death penalty, which is one argument of the in her article. She also argues against the rhetoric used to demean women, not only women on death row, but all women. Through her compelling points and emotional persuasion she propose a convincing argument against the Act.

Sykes claims that the law was passed just so that the U.S. would fulfill their obligation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and not because they were thinking about either the fetus or the women. Rep. John Conyers confirms this when he says " The execution of pregnant women is already illegal under federal law and it's doubtful that the Supreme Court will uphold our edict on the state courts. This bill is likely to affect no one, but it is rushed through at lightning speed to satisfy some political need". Sykes argue first of all that a fetus is not a child and therefore the law to protect innocent children is "another piece of useless legislation". I agree in her argument, not just because a fetus is not yet a child, but the title of the bill is misleading in the sense that it make people think of the fetus as an innocent human being that not yet can defend it's human rights. Another point why the law was useless is, as mentioned before, because it's already a federal law against executions of pregnant women so the law was unnecessary.

A proof of the double morals she is trying to explain, is that the U.S. doesn't think twice about killing children under 18, but when it comes to a fetus it's another case of matter. Although she uses a lot of logical argumentation she is still jumping in to some hasty generalizations like: "Practically every woman in prison has children". She has no evidence to support that conclusion but is just assuming. Sykes doesn't give evidence for when she state that U.S. kill more children under 18 than Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen which makes the information unfair. Margaret Sykes also use a lot of emotionally loaded terms to convince the reader. Some examples she uses in her article are: "dangerous, evil killer"; redundant and describes in this article a mother, "put to death like animals" that speaks for itself.

Then women are compared to machines instead of a human beings with emotions: " [women] are incubators for a fetus", and "force" that is a word that symbolizes involuntarily action. These are all negative loaded terms that are associated with having no human rights and strengthen her argument to a big extent by affecting the reader's emotions. The topic itself is an emotionally loaded topic with different kinds of views, and Sykes use the terms especially to persuade the reader. She continues with an argument against Rep. Joseph Pitt's statement about that the reason for the bill is to: "ensure that a convicted killer doesn't kill again, namely the unborn child in her womb". She claims that if the law haven't been there, it wouldn't be the woman's fault if she got executed with a fetus inside her, it would be the supporters for death penalty's and the authority's fault.

This is a good point in her article that describes the double moral. I agree with her whenever she claims that the law is a "slam in the face for all women", because think that it is not right keeping a woman on death row alive, just to give birth to a baby that would grow up without a mother. It is also against the United States ethic to treat human being as machines or animals. Rep. Joseph Pitt uses a "dehumanizing language" and rhetoric to describe women I believe that a baby should be spared for the pain of growing up, knowing that his or her mother got executed just after's / he was born. Seen from a mother's point of view it would be horrible carrying a fetus, not knowing what future it is going to get, and that the only reason she is still alive is to give birth without getting to enjoy being a parent to that child.

Sykes claims that the whole reason most women have abortions is "because they realize that the child, if born, would not receive the love and nurture it deserves" and she asks how people think that women on death row would think even different. I would say that if the mother knew she was going to die right after her child is born, she would have even stronger argument to have an abortion. The unborn's destiny would be indistinct, and if it's going to get "the love and nurture it deserve" is also unclear, a situation a mother would not put her child in.