 |
| Plourde, Mathieu "Contexts" 2/9/2013 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
Reading the Context of Your Public Debate
What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?
The schools of thought are fairly simple in my controversy. Though there are many deeper levels of the controversy, the main groups are either for or against circumcision in neonates.
What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?
The major points of contention are as follows: Is it ethical to circumcise an infant according to the will of his parents? Does circumcision truly aid in preventing sicknesses such as HIV and aids? Is religion really a good justification in today's society?What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?
The common ground is providing for the neonate. Circumcision hasn't yet been fully discredited, so its continuance isn't truly harmful. The question is whether it is ethical to perform such a life-altering procedure on an infant who cannot make the decision for themselves.
What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?
The main difference in ideologies is in the form of religion - more specifically, religion vs. medicine. Circumcision for centuries has been a mandate of religion (multiple different religions). As god(s) were the highest form of power, sickness was seen in terms of fate/karma and not medicine. Science today contradicts this view.
What specific action do their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
At the very least, these perspectives (moreso that against circumcision) ask that their audience be aware that there must be a change in thinking with modern medicine and age-old practices. More emphatic pieces (like the one I analyzed in Project 2) urge their audience to action, sometimes in verbose ways.
What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?
Both medical and historical perspectives will be best in supporting my argument. I chose to argue against circumcision, in large part because I have a good idea in how I could format such an argument (in all reality, I have no opinions on circumcision). Pointing out the flaws that have come from religious/historical thinking and then supporting this with medical facts, I believe I can pose a very argument against circumcision in neonates.
What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?
Medical perspectives can be equally beneficial and harmful to my argument. Plenty evidence still exists supporting circumcision. My goal will be to either discredit this by providing counter-evidence, or use a method that dismisses this evidence altogether.
In my reflection, I read Morgan and Isabel's posts.
I found both Morgan and Isabel's answers to the questions very interesting. Morgan and I, though we have a similar topic in that they both involve the well-being of children, had very different approaches to the argument. She emphasized the fact that personal experience seems to one of the best sources of information in her argument. With my argument on circumcision, personal experience isn't really a viable source as the age at which most males are circumcised in one that they can not remember. It will be interesting to see how both our arguments develop.
In Isabel's blog, she mentioned how she was going to use her own personal experience to bring a new light to her argument. I think this will be very beneficial for her in his Project, as I am already struggling with the idea of how I'm going to bring something new to the argument considering I am no professional and also have no experience with circumcision.
Reflection
In my reflection, I read Morgan and Isabel's posts.
I found both Morgan and Isabel's answers to the questions very interesting. Morgan and I, though we have a similar topic in that they both involve the well-being of children, had very different approaches to the argument. She emphasized the fact that personal experience seems to one of the best sources of information in her argument. With my argument on circumcision, personal experience isn't really a viable source as the age at which most males are circumcised in one that they can not remember. It will be interesting to see how both our arguments develop.
In Isabel's blog, she mentioned how she was going to use her own personal experience to bring a new light to her argument. I think this will be very beneficial for her in his Project, as I am already struggling with the idea of how I'm going to bring something new to the argument considering I am no professional and also have no experience with circumcision.
Our arguments are similar in the sense that aside from the actual medical procedure, there are other aspects to consider when deciding to circumcise neonates. For my argument as well there are cultural factors that prevent some people from participating. I arguing your point from the historical and medical/fact based side the argument will be very effective because the reader can't argue against fact. I plan on doing the same thing for my argument. Nice job on this!
ReplyDeleteOur contexts are a little different. Your controversy deals more with religion and mine deals with individual's rights. However, we are both going to use scientific evidence to support our arguments, which I think is the most effective means of presenting an argument. Also, I will not be using personal narratives because my project does not personally affect me, just like yours.
ReplyDeleteI first want to state that I enjoyed viewing your diagram for your main points on the issue at hand. Although our controversies differ greatly, I believe your standings on the topic can be very supportive with additional information. To point out, our contexts for our arguments are going to be very different in the technical aspects. I wish you luck in your future argument.
ReplyDelete