Ethos, Pathos and Logos: A Deep Dive into Abortion Debate

Radhika Pawar

COM 1001: College Writing

Section 024

Ms. Amy Murre

Milwaukee School of Engineering

8th December 2023

 “I am pro-life, don’t call me anti-abortion”

Charles C. Camosy is a bioethicist and theologian who specializes in ethical issues

surrounding human life and dignity. He earned his Ph.D. in theology from the University of
Notre Dame and currently serves as a professor of theological and social Ethics at Fordham
University. Camosy has published extensively on topics such as abortion, euthanasia, and ethics
in healthcare. (Camosy, 2023)

In his work Camosy takes a multidisciplinary approach, drawing on theology,

philosophy, and social science to examine the ethical implications of various bioethical issues.
He is known for his pro-life stance and has authored several books advocating for the protection
of prenatal human life. Some of his notable works include “Beyond the abortion wars: A Way
Forward for a New Generation” and “Resisting Throwaway Culture: how a consistent ethic can
unite a Fractured People” (Camosy, 2023).

In Charles C. Camosy’s essay on the abortion debate, he contends that the struggle over
language is central to the discourse, challenging the conventional terminology used by abortion–
rights supporters. Through meticulous analysis, this academic essay explores how Camosy’s
choice of language and the elements of rhetoric he used serve to underscore the broader issue of
dehumanization in the abortion debate. Additionally, this essay examines the implications of
language choices beyond the abortion discourse, particularly in the context of immigration,
revealing a shared thread of dehumanizing language in social issues.

The abortion debate has been a contentious and emotionally charged issue for decades. It
is a struggle over not only differing moral and ethical perspectives but also, interestingly, a
struggle over language. The Essay by Charles C. Camosy, titled “I Am pro-life. Don’t call be
antiabortion” (Camosy, 2019), reveals the use of persuasive techniques such as emotional
appeals, and framing, and additionally presents a compelling argument regarding the use of
language in the abortion debate. He shows how language plays a significant role in shaping and
influencing public perception and understanding. He begins by making a clear distinction
between the terms “pro-life “and “anti-abortion”. Camosy focuses on the use of language as a
tool to shape public perception and dismiss the pro-life perspective as mere single-issue
obsessiveness. He highlights the importance of accurate and inclusive representation of thoughts
and the use of words. The language used to describe prenatal children in the context of abortion,

2
particularly in referring to the unborn child as a “prenatal child” rather than a “fetus” is the
central theme in Camosy’s essay rhetorical analysis (Camosy, 2019).

Camosy’s argument can be analyzed through the framework of rhetoric analysis, which
involves examining how language and rhetoric are used to support and persuade the audience.
rhetoric analysis refers to the process of uncovering the methods that speakers (Nordquist, 2019).
In this case, Camosy used to support their arguments and the underlying mechanism of the
persuasive techniques used by him in his pro-life argument and explore how language and
rhetoric contribute to shaping public perception on the issue of abortion. Rhetoric analysis allows
us to delve beyond the surface-level arguments put forth by Camosy and examine the deeper
persuasive strategies he employs. Both sides of the debate, pro-life and pro-choice employ
rhetorical strategies to advance their arguments and gain support for their positions.

One key aspect of rhetoric analysis is recognizing that arguments are not solely based on
logical reasoning but also rely on emotional appeals. Emotional appeals are employed to evoke
empathy and sympathy (Barron, 2021). In the case of Camosy’s essay, his argument is also
evident in his appeal to ethos and pathos. The use of emotive words and language is prevalent in
shaping both the pro-life and pro-choice political agendas (Pro-Life, 2022). Emotion is a
significant factor in framing the abortion debate and garnering support for positions. Studies
have shown that the characterization of abortion as psychologically damaging is a prominent
feature of anti-abortion argumentation. (Andrusko, 1989). Comosy strategically employs ethos
and pathos to influence his audience and make a persuasive argument. This argumentation
appeals to emotions and evokes empathy for the unborn, as well as concerns about the potential
psychological impact on women who undergo abortions. Furthermore, the way language is
framed can often lead to demonization of those who support abortion rights. (Stark, 2018).

Firstly, Comosy uses ethos to establish his credibility as a pro-life advocate. (Andrusko,
1989). He strategically positions himself as being pro-life rather than anti-abortionist to avoid
being dismissed as a single-issue obsessive. The choice of language allows Camosy to present
himself as someone who supports the rights and protections of mothers and children, including
prenatal children, thereby framing his arguments in a more inclusive and compassionate light.

Such language is a tactic employed by abortion-right supporters to shift the narrative

toward a more stigma-defying framing. (Han Schmidt et al., 2016). Comosy challenges the

3
language used by abortion rights supporters such as “abortion care”. He argues that by using the
term “abortion care” and positioning abortion as a “family value”, opponents attempt to
downplay the moral complexities inherent in the issue. (Camosy, 2023). This linguistic strategy
attempts to shift the conversation away from the sanctity of life and the right of the prenatal child
to focus on personal choice and family values. This analysis brings to light the subtle yet
powerful ways in which language can be leveraged for persuasion and manipulation.

Furthermore, Camosy argues that the use of certain terms in discussions about abortion
seeks to obscure the reality of prenatal development. Words like “tissue”, “part of the mother”,
‘parasite”, “potential life” and even “fetus” are described as dehumanizing. (Camosy, 2019). he
argues that shifting the language away from these more humanizing terms attempts to hide the
dignity of the vulnerable, undermining the value of a prenatal child. He employs defensive
rhetoric to undermine the veracity of opposing arguments. He seeks to discredit arguments that
may label pro-life as single-sided by presenting his stance as one that encompasses a broader
range of concerns and values. (Stark, 2018).

By utilizing defensive rhetoric, Camosy aims to dismantle the criticism and stereotypes
often associated with the pro-life movement. the analysis also emphasizes the need for pro-life
advocates to carefully consider their language and messaging to effectively communicate their
positions. It further suggests that pro-life advocates should strive to frame the debate in terms of
the rights of the unborn, rather than using messages about women that could be perceived as
sexist. it should include arguments that can meet the concerns of an unborn child and the mother
instead of leaning more towards any side.

In his essay, He aligns himself with the socially accepted norms of protecting the
vulnerable and advocating for the rights of mothers and children, which appeals to the emotions
and values of his audience. Additionally, Camosy’s use of pathos is evident in his choice to use
the phrase “prenatal child” instead of “fetus’, emphasizing the emotional connection and
humanity of the unborn (kieper,2019). Through his rhetorical choices, Camosy attempts to
establish credibility and evoke emotional resonance to persuade his audience. The rhetorical
analysis of Camosy’s essay reveals how he strategically employs various rhetorical strategies to
shape and advance his arguments.

4
 He appeals to logic and reason by highlighting his viewpoint as pro-life, which he
believes encompasses a broader spectrum of rights and protections for mothers and children he
argues that by using the phrase prenatal child emphasizes the humanity and parenthood of the
unborn child (Stark, 2018).

Comosy aims to broaden the conversation beyond abortion and address a broader
spectrum of issues affecting mothers, children, and other vulnerable populations. His argument
extends beyond the abortion debate and delves into the broader implications of dehumanizing
language. He introduces the concept of “throwaway culture”, a term coined by Pope Francis
(Brown, 2023), to describe a society that discards human beings as objects when their dignity
becomes inconvenient. By transcending the boundaries of the abortion debate Camosy used
“ethos” to target a broader group and to seek confidence in his position.

Dehumanizing language permeated various social issues, and perhaps one of the most
glaring instances is found in the context surrounding immigration. Language here acts as a
powerful tool that shapes public perception, and when applied in the context of immigration, it
can foster an environment of prejudice and discrimination. Bishop Daniel E. Flores’s assertion
that “children are not instruments of deterrence. They are children” underscores the profound
impact of language and rhetoric on policy decisions and the treatment of vulnerable populations.
(Camosy, 2019)

The analysis of Camosy’s essay from a rhetorical perspective highlight how he

strategically shapes and advances his argument in the abortion debate. Through the analysis of
Camosy's essay using rhetoric principles, it is evident that he strategically employs defensive
rhetoric to subvert the arguments. In conclusion Charles C. Camosy’s essay, “I Am pro-life Don’t
Call Me Anti-abortion”, offers a compelling rhetorical analysis of the role of language in shaping
the abortion debate and its broader implications. Camosy demonstrates how the choice of proper
rhetorical methods, art of persuasion, and language can be a powerful tool for persuasion and
shaping people’s opinions, especially in contentious issues like abortion. He argues that the
terminology used to describe the two different positions in this debate, such as “pro-life” and
“anti-abortion”, significantly influences how these positions are understood. Language, as
Camosy’s essay demonstrates, is far from a neutral or passive tool of communication. It carries
immense power, capable of influencing perceptions, attitudes, and ultimately societal values. The

5
power of rhetoric to shape public discourse, policy, and treatment of various groups should not
be underestimated. This analysis serves as a compelling reminder of the profound impact of
rhetoric on our understanding of complex issues and our approach to ethical and moral questions.

6
References
Camosy, Charles C. (2023). American Magazine.
https://www.americamagazine.org/voices/charles-c-camosy.

Camosy, Charles C. Catholic Information Center. https://cicdc.org/speakers/charles-c-camosy/.

Camosy, Charles C. (2019). I am pro-life, don’t call me anti-abortion. C%20Comosy%20Im

%20Pro%20Life%20Dont%20(1).

Nordquist, Richard. (2019, July 15). Rhetorical analysis definition and examples. ThoughtsCo.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rhetorical-analysis-1691916.

Pro-life: Political opinions and Ideology. (2022, February 10). Grades Fixer.
https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/pro-life-political-opinions-and-ideology/.

Andrusko D. (1989). The Abortion Ethos: pervasive but not persuasive. National Library of
Medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10294688/.

Stark, Paul. (2018, December 12). Pro-Life persuasion: How to discuss abortion with logic and
grace. MCCL. https://www.mccl.org/post/2018/12/12/pro-life-persuasion-how-to-discuss-
abortion-with-logic-and-grace.

Hanschmidt, F. , Linde, K., Hilbert, A., Riedel-Heller, S.G., & Kersting, A. (2016). Abortion
Stigma: A systematic review, perspective on sexual and reproductive Health.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48576829.

Barron, K. (2021, August 10). What is ethos? Definition, examples, and techniques. TCK
publishing. https://www.tckpublishing.com/ethos/.

Kieper, Sarah M. (2019 March 6). Pathos in the abortion debate.

https://medium.com/@smaepakeiper/in-the-abortion-debate-arguments-often-rely-strongly-on-
pathos-due-to-the-debate-being-based-459e4335cd92.

Brown, Laurette. (2023 March 17). Abortion and the ‘throwaway Culture’: a decade of Pope
Francis on the life issues. National Catholic Register. https://www.ncregister.com/news/pope-
francis-throwaway-culture-abortion.