Comparing Arguments
...r a child, but they all have one thing in common, they do not want to deliver the child that they are carrying. I found Tisdale’s opinion on abortion to be more implied because she dances around the actual issue of weather or not abortion is right and should be legal. She makes statements that would seem anti-abortion, but at the same time works in an abortion clinic and says that she “enjoys it most of the time” (270). She looks at abortion as a problem that is necessary in society. “If the human bond to a child were as primitive and unflinchingly narrow as that of other animals, there would be no abortion. There would be no abortion because there would be nothing more important than caring for the young and perpetuating the species, no reason for sex but to make babies” (274). Tisdale believes that abortion is a societal ill that will not go away because people care more about personal pleasure than the advancement of the human race. “Let Heather and her daddies stay” is an editorial that is against a bill proposed by State Representative Gerald Allen in the Alabama Legislature that will ban all books that promote homosexuality or view it as a natural or normal way to live. “Heather” takes a different route in presenting the argument. The opinions of the author are much more apparent and the author argues his side much more effectively than Tisdale. Although the author does not ever state his views on homosexuality he does state that although “It’s fine for individuals to decide that they don’t like gay people. It may not be a very progressive or enlightened attitude, but it’s certainly within the right of each person. But people need to be free to make that choice” (Heather). There is no doubt that the author is against the bill and he argues that “people need to be able to make their own decisions. When lawmakers take away the ability to make a personal decision, they cut off the people’s duty, and inherent right, to think- and a country of non-thinkers cannot be a democracy” (Heather). It is clear that the author accepts as true that censorship is detrimental to society and democracy. By arguing that people should be making their own decisions on what to read rather than it being a choice of the state legislature I believe that he is trying to spread tolerance, while not forcing his opinions on others. Banning books that have homosexual characters and themes would shelter students from many classical and influential books and plays. The author argues that “the bill is blatant and horrifyingly stupid censorship” (Heather). In addition to arguing the fact that the bill is not right, he also demonstrates that it is not practical when he asks the question of who is going to make the decisions on what is to be banned and what is to be allowed. “Who, exactly is going to sit down and read all of the hundreds of thousands of novels, textbooks, plays, journals and other literat...