Critical Response A013- Aime Lonsdorf

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/110321

“Don’t give your heart away- know the facts about vital organ transplantation” by Randy Engal

The title makes several claims: First, by saying “don’t give your heart away,” the title assumes that all organ donors are going to be donating their heart. This claim also makes the assumption that all donations are by choice. Many organs are donated after a person dies; people are enabled to donate organs after death through an organ donation card. Second, the headline makes the claim that her article will demonstrate and discuss the facts that many people do not know about vital organ transplantation. The second claim asserts that the author knows a suffiecent amount more about donation facts than the reader does. This last claim then assumes that all donations are going to be vital organs that a person, both the donor and the reviever cannot live without. Vital organs are organs that are needed for survival; just like the human heart as she first claimed. This ignores the fact that people are able to donate one of their kidneys: although a kidney is a vital organ, people are able to donate one kidney as opposed to two and still live. So, the donation of one kidney, while still a vital organ to the organ receiver, is not nesicarilly vital to the donator as assumed by the headline.

The author assumes that all Renew America readers are familiar with her prior works and standpoints on controversial issues by starting her article off by stating, “Many Renew America readers, I think, are acquainted with my pro-life credentials.” Her claim also assumes that she shares a more republican viewpoint on these same issues.

She continues to say that she was “privillaged” to come across the prolife movement with an interest in “federal domestic and foreign population control programs and later eugenic abortion, sex initiation programs in public and parochial schools, human embryo and fetal experimentation, and euthanasia.” From her admittance that she is clearly prolife, the reader can assume that she does not favor programs that favor controception such as birth control and condoms as a method for population control. Although it could be assumed that her favored method of controception is to be selibet, what method she favors is not made clear so the reader could potentionaly assume that she does not favor population control in general and would prefer there to be unwanted births in underserved areas of the USA and in third world nations. Her statement about eugenic abortion, the recently popular movement in science that advocates for aborting children who were pre-established by an ultrasound to have developed a birth defect while in the womb, asserts that she is also against this. Her involvement with sex education in schools  examplifies her prolife claim by further elaborating on her abstinant viewpoint for unmarried men and women. She clearly also disagrees with human embryo and fetal experimentation which asserts that she does not

This entry was posted in X Archive 2012. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Critical Response A013- Aime Lonsdorf

  1. davidbdale says:

    Your analysis is entertaining, Aime, but you make far too many of your own unsubstantiated claims for it to be considered at all fair to the original.
    Grade Recorded.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s