https://www.dailywire.com/news/26931/walsh-matt-walsh#
Read this article. Matt Walsh is known for being extremely harsh, but truthful. What is his argument here? Do a rhetorical analysis of this piece. Also, find another article by Matt Walsh that in some way pertains to your bio ethics topic. Provide us with a url and give us a synopsis of the additional article in 2-5 sentences.
In The United Kingdom and many other parts of the world, it is allowed for an abortion to be performed on the child in the womb up until birth if there is a chance of that child being disabled. Many of the same people who believe this is okay also are supportive of a child with Down syndrome being the “Gerber Baby”. In the article written by Matt Walsh, he states “We want to feel good about a Gerber baby with Downs, but we don't want to actually make the sacrifice and take the step required to protect babies with Downs from being exterminated.” (Walsh, DailyWire) By saying this, he makes the reader acknowledge that it’s either one way or the other. You cannot support the Gerber Baby with Down syndrome and also support the abortion of many just like him. Walsh makes the comparison of the Gerber baby and a Jewish Baby in Nazi Germany saying that in 1941, a Nazi sympathizer would even be supportive of having a Jewish Baby as their “Gerber Baby”. In reality, the nazi sympathizers are allowing all of the Jewish children to be killed, just like today where many of us allow children with disabilities to be aborted. Walsh also states statistics saying that the population of children with Down syndrome has decreased by 30% due to the abortions being performed to “exterminate” them as a whole. Walsh’s overall point of his article is that he wants the reader to understand that they have to pick a side, whether it is to support abortion and be unhappy about a child with Down syndrome as the “Gerber Baby” or to fight abortion and support the “Gerber Baby”. There is no in between, you cannot support the abortion of children with disabilities or even abortion at all, but at the same time be supportive of a Down syndrome child as the “Gerber Baby”. Children with Down syndrome are still not being treated as human beings to this day, but they are indeed humans just like the rest of us and they deserve much more than what the world has provided them with.
ReplyDeletehttps://themattwalshblog.com/man-or-woman/
Synopsis:
This article consisted of how society has begun to believe that we are all “little gods” and can change or alter our bodies in any way we want. The argument is that we are born as we are meant to be, there was no mistake in who you were born as. The title is “You Are Born a Man or Woman, You Don’t Get To Choose”, which I think is pretty self explanatory.
Nice job with your rhetorical analysis, you explained the argument so well I knew the main idea right off the bat!
DeleteMatt Walsh has a way of fighting that is a bit unorthodox. Many writers would take a calm approach as to not offend the readers but Walsh isn’t this way. He dives right in tells you how it is and doesn’t apologize for voicing his opinion. While reading his writing you can tell that he thinks he is NOT wrong, I of course agree with him completely in this article but may not in others. I personally love this way he writes, I also tend to write aggressively in times that are not appropriate. Walsh shows he really care about children with downs because in his first sentence he calls them beautiful, and they are they give what the rest of society “normal” babies a run for their money. Walsh pulls you in when at the very beginning he tells you that Gerber has selected its first baby with Down syndrome. He gets you excited about the huge step in our society. Lucas has taken the first step in the right direction for other babies like himself. Walsh makes a very good point when he says our culture always wants it both ways. He is very correct in his statement and our society has made this an issue. We want change but we never want to deal with what it takes for the change to happen. People may say that they think there is nothing wrong with having a baby with downs but they are also pro choice and are voting to kill these happy and loving children. He calls people out repeatedly in his article and even tells them being happy about Gerber choosing a downs baby isn’t making them warm and fuzzy inside but rather they are feeling there guilt for not loving him and the rest of the Down syndrome community before today. Walsh is right it is time to “pick a side”
ReplyDeleteSynopsis
https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/1602003019832802
He does not cover my topic in any of his writings but he does share a link to a story about a baby who a hospital tried to take off life support. A hospital tried to take a baby off life support because they decided it was time for him to die. The parents however raised one million dollars so a specialist from the U.S would come take a look at him. The hospital only had to release the baby but refused because it was their belief that he should die.
I like how you ended your blog, it sums up the main argument that Matt Walsh developed. I also am very interested in the article you read, I’m going to take a look into it.
DeleteDo you feel that his aggressive writing in inappropriate? You said that you “also” do this. I don’t feel it was “inappropriate”, I thought maybe that it was a little extra. In our time of injustice, i believe we all need a strong voice to follow.
DeleteHypocrisy and complicity are the progeny of delusion. Together they are smeared across the hearts and minds of the American people, blindly accepted as unquestionable truths. The corruption propagated by this culture of deceit has gone undetected by many, but some have remained wary, guarding their hearts and minds from the litter that surrounds them. Matt Walsh, a Catholic blogger of high esteem, is one of the few who tirelessly attempts to weed through the nonsense and find clarity, truth, and perspective. Recently, Walsh released an article detailing the logic, or lack thereof, behind reactions to the announcement of Lucas Warren, a child born with Downs Syndrome, as the 2018 Gerber baby. One might wonder how something as trivial as the announcement of the latest Gerber baby could be a matter of debate. However, this year it could not be a decision further from trivial.
ReplyDeleteWalsh is consistent and brilliant in his delivery of logic and clarity of perspective. He solidifies his point from the start with a headline that is, quite unfortunately, not another ‘masterful’ piece of clickbait: “Celebrate The Downs Syndrome Gerber Baby. Then Remember We Exterminate Babies Like Him.” The tone established as early as the title never falters, and is instead tended to with constancy; the reader is to feel the jubilant reverence surrounding this child and the circumstances of his birth, and in the same moment, the reader is to remain not only aware of but focused on the grim reality concerning children like him. This quality is maintained primarily through language, with Walsh employing targeted vocabulary including words such as “excited”, “thrilled”, “deserving”, “enthusiasm”, “wonderful”, and “honor” when discussing Lucas and “violent”, “slaughter”, “guilt”, “eradicated”, “insane”, and “butchers” when discussing the effect the abortion industry has had on disabled individuals such as Lucas. And this is all rather intentional, with Walsh’s use of language remaining constant with the theme of the piece—there is no duality to embrace, there is right and there is wrong and when this is not acknowledged, we prove our own hypocrisy. Morally, Walsh proves himself with unambiguous lines from early in the article reading “...people are very excited about [Gerber’s decision], and for good reason.” and “Personally, I'm thrilled for Lucas and his family, and I doubt there was a baby more deserving of this honor in the whole country.” He is not sparing in his condemnations either with another line reading “...a certain large percentage of those applauding Gerber today still support the violent and systematic slaughter of children just like Lucas.” Of course Walsh is not just a man trying to reaffirm likeminded individuals or ‘impose his morality’ on unsuspecting readers. He is trying to point out flaws in society and flaws in logic. He does not make unfounded or unsupported claims without proper evidence and context. Walsh uses a clear Holocaust analogy to emphasize the disgusting hypocrisy of the situation. This puts the matter into a perspective or context that is meant to make the reader uncomfortable. He also uses statistics and facts to bolster his argument and further prove his point, such as the infanticide rates of children with Downs Syndrome or Gerber life’s neglect to insure and support children with Downs. Truly, Walsh’s article shows purpose and passion, never void of clarity or intent.
Walsh is decisive and determined to relay the truth. He is devoted to making clear the hypocritical rhetoric being employed by our society. Walsh and other devoted men cannot be the only one to speak the truth, however. We, too, must acknowledge our roles in the enabling of such actions. We, too, must seek out the truth. We, too, must take it upon ourselves to combat this corruption, hypocrisy, complicity, and delusion.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/23783/walsh-were-still-funding-abortion-industry-lets-matt-walsh
DeleteThe above article, in reality, has very little to do with my paper. The article discusses, as one might guess based on the title, the Trump Administration’s plan to temporarily lift a ban on big-game trophy hunting. Of course, Matt took the time to put this, too, into perspective, calling out both legislators and the public for being so deeply offended by the slaughter and sale of elephants but not of human children. While my paper on CRISPR will most likely not be shaped or affected by the content of this article, I already can identify thematic beats within the article that I was already planning on implementing such as distortion and perspective.
Matt Walsh builds up in argument by getting right to the point. He mainly directs his argument to the fact the you are either with or against the idea of abortion. Although he uses much harsher words than abortion such as “exterminate”, “murder”, and “ kill”. Even though he his harsh he has a point. One can not be with the idea that it is wonderful to have a baby with downs as this years Gerber child and be in support of the killing of these children with disabilities. Matt Walsh then develops the argument that people want to change but do not want to take on the challenge or responsibility along with it. That goes for many things in life, so I completely agree with his argument. People want to be smart but they aren’t willing to study, he says the same thing. He says people support the idea of giving people with disabilities a chance to have life but do not want the responsibility to take care of them. Matt Walsh also backs up his argument by connecting this situation in today’s world to the world of the 1940s. He says, “Imagine if some baby food company in Germany had selected a Jewish child as their "Gerber baby" in 1941, and even the Nazi sympathizers gushed about how warm and fuzzy it made them feel inside. One would be justified — even, I think, morally obliged — to remind those folks that it's not warmth and fuzziness they ought to be feeling; it's guilt.” This makes you think about the point a lot differently. Right now someone may feel like it’s justified to exterminate disabled babies because their life will not be good, they are hard to take care of, or they scare people. Walsh makes it clear that this is not justified by making this comparison.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-if-you-want-to-fight-nazism-in-america-fight-the-abortion-industry
So the writing from Matt Walsh that we just did are blog about closely resembles what my paper is based off of. However I was able to find this one which compares abortion to Nazism. Matt Walsh supports it with facts such as 60 million HUMAN BEINGS have been aborted since 1973, majority of them disabled.
I disagree that his language was “harsh”. Those words convey a great amount of truth. Have you ever seen a video or read something that explains how an abortion is preformed? They physically tear apart the baby inside of the mother. The words that he uses aren’t harsh at all, they are extremely truthful.
DeleteI agree with Rena that harsh words might have been necessary, but I also don’t know if was completely necessary. You just need to back up this point.
DeleteThe Gerber baby has been a hard position to fill, and an extreme honor to be named. When I first saw a commercial showing Lucas, I was happy to see that the world would accept people like him. After reading this article, I can see how gross and hypocritical the world can be. Although the abortion rate in our country has decreased dramatically, the abortions that still go on are usually babies with disabilities. The first thing that Matt Walsh does is establish his authority by talking about his own child, by doing this he shows that he loves his family and shows goodwill. He appeals to emotions by using graphic adjectives such as slaughter, butcher, and slay. Using such graphic terms when talking about a human life really makes you think about things. So not only is Walsh pointing out the disgusting behavior of Americans today, but is also strengthening the argument against abortion. Another thing he does is talk about the holocaust in relation to this case. This is a really good way to Appeal to emotions because almost everyone in the world knows that it was wrong. Killing hundreds of thousands of people that were already born, definitely makes you wonder what is going on inside of a planned parenthood. Walsh uses percentages and statics to inaugurate his logic. He lectures that the support of abortion is the reason why children with Down syndrome are down thirty percent in recent years. In this example, Walsh is suiting to logic, but also to emotion. His tone throughout this whole article shows he is passionate. If you go to the hospital, and your doctor is boring and angry, you really do t want to be there and it makes you nervous. Although, when you go to the hospital, and your doctor is passionate, excited, and explains everything he is doing, you don’t mind being there. The same thing applies when some one is arguing something. He doesn’t just spat out facts, he engages in the situation and makes it interesting by accusing people and using violent vocabulary. Walsh did a very good job explaining why this amazing thing was actually not so amazing.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theblaze.com/contributions/birth-control-pills-men-get-free-sex-women-get-cancer
DeleteAlthough this artical about Lucas is kind of linked to my paper, I decides to talk about a different one. The blog that Matt Walsh writes on artificial birth control is very good. He address the fact that it is comtriversal, and he explains why. He talks about the physical dangers of the pill, and also the strings it can have on family life. He lists 5 major reasons why people should hate it.
Your example of the doctor being mean or nice was a great way to parallel how Walsh writes. You make a good point about how he engages with his readers and doesn’t just spit out facts.
DeleteDo you mean that the only way to get a point across is to use harsh language? Is there no way to reason with someone about a point like this?
DeleteI definitely think it’s the best way to handle something like this, although that’s just my opinion.
DeleteThe news has been blowing up about the new Gerber baby, Lucas, and I think we’ve all heard why. He is the first Gerber baby with Downs, which so many American people are celebrating, but Matt Walsh has a different view on these Americans than most. Sure, don’t get me wrong, Lucas is a wonderful gift of life to be celebrated, but that is just Matt’s point. Lucas represents a much larger population who isn’t being celebrated. He states this when he talks about all the other “Lucases” who are being aborted today. Rather than celebrating Gerber, Walsh uses this opportunity to be happy for this family, but also condemn the nation. He brings up this point, how can a people love and praise this child while also praising the abortion industry who kills these children. To show how cruel the companies these people support are, Walsh uses words such as butcher and slaughter. He shows us how our society wants to be able to be on both sides of an argument. We want to support Lucas and say he’s a beautiful example for Gerber to use, but we also want to say it is okay to get rid of babies just like him when in the womb. So what’s our justification between the new face of Gerber and those in the womb? The answer being, absolutely nothing. We try to have it both ways but it simply doesn’t work. So Walsh’s answer, pick a side, and hopefully it’s the right one. Hopefully we choose life.
ReplyDeleteSynopsis:
https://www.facebook.com/MattWalshBlog/posts/1602003019832802
While this article doesn’t exactly match the topic of PVS, there is a major underlying theme between the two, while their life isn’t easy it is still worth it. The doctors at this hospital decided it was the baby’s time to die, and not just because they couldn’t care him. When they family tried to move him they said no, and the child was forced to die. This can sometimes be an issue for people in a vegetative state, where people decide their life is just no longer worth it. Dead, however, is when your lungs and heart stop working completely. If your brain is working, so is your heart and lungs. So what these people did is completely wrong.
There is a culture of death that pervades life today. People in support of abortion tend to have a double standard; when deciding whether an unborn child will live or die, proponents of abortion will - if the baby is “undesirable” - kill it. When presented with a baby with the same “undesirable” traits, proponents of abortion will put up a display, a meaningless facade of love and acceptance. Walsh appropriately compares these people to self-proclaimed Nazis in the 1940s. Although not in this paper, Walsh has similarly asserted that “if you want to fight Nazism in America, fight the abortion industry.” Walsh highlights his paper with strong language, “violent and systematic slaughter,” “Nazi,” and “butcher” give an idea of how inhumane and evil the practice of abortion is. Gerber embodies the general idealism abortionists support. Gerber glorifies down-syndrome babies, perhaps in order to rectify and, in doing so, mask its own clear prejudices against the disabled. This is best exemplified by their unwillingness to provide life insurance to these babies, or any “undesirable” babies with pre-existing conditions. This is blatant hypocrisy, explained by Walsh. Those in support of the living must not be complacent, but fight this abortion epidemic.
ReplyDeleteWith relation to my topic on healthcare, Matt Walsh has his own stance. In this particular article titled “Right Wing Obamacare Myths DEBUNKED,” Walsh is in NO WAY a proponent of Obamacare, but instead writes in the perspective of a slightly delirious left-winger, lacing his text with completely illogical assumptions and generalizations, disregarding any opposing views, labeling them all as “false.” He lays out some of the general principles leftists adhere to with a comedic tone, highlighting blatant instances of hypocrisy. I completely agree with Walsh; perhaps this is not a good source for information, but certainly a candid explanation of the delirium surrounding Obamacare.
https://themattwalshblog.com/right-wing-obamacare-myths-debunked/