Rhetoric Analysis of the Essays “Unspeakable Conversations” and “Poor Teeth”

Name
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date
Analysis of a Pattern of Rhetoric and Underlying Ideas Discussed in“Unspeakable Conversations” and “Poor Teeth”
Both “Unspeakable Conversations and Poor Teeth,” are breathtaking essays that were authored by Harriet McBryde Johnson and Sarah Smash respectively. Although these two essays were written at different times and by different authors, they are both addressing some form of disability and the negative perception that people who are considered to be normal have had towards them for a long time in the United States and the rest of the world. The Unspeakable Conversations presents an argument between two philosophers: Peter Singer and Martha Nussbaum who have both rhetorically theorized the relationship between animals and humans while arguing about the rights and justice for humankind and non-humans living with a disability. Harriet’s essay is mainly focused on a series of both publicly and privately discussions between the author herself and Peter Singer (Schaler,10). There are some ideas and arguments that one could ponder about when reading Harriet Johnson’s article.
On the other hand, Poor Teeth by Sarah Smarsh is about the stigmatization that people with not-sparkling teeth are subjected to in the United States. Smarsh has meticulously delved into the social stigma people have about poor bad looking teeth. This paper would, therefore, provide an insightful analysis of rhetoric and other underlying ideas that have been discussed in these two articles to bring out the deeper implications of contents discussed inUnspeakable Conversations and Poor Teeth essays.
Rhetoric Analysis of Unspeakable Conversations by Harriet McBryde Johnson
Harriet McBryde Johnson in her article named Unspeakable Conversations has covered different topics that are perceived to be controversial in society. The essay presents the conversation that took place between the author and lawyer Peter Singer who are both philosophers. These two scholars are debating on the argument that those individuals who are born with a disability or have become disabled at some stage in their lives ought to be assisted to go through euthanasia. John and Singer first debated with one another over email exchanges before they later met at Princeton University for a face-to-face conversation. They first debated the ideas harbored by the national organization called Not Dead Yet trying to maintain the idea of assisted suicide and killing disabled persons to be illegal. John begins the conversation by stating that she is against the idea of euthanasia by branding it as a devil idea. Conversely, Peter Singer is for the idea of assisted suicide to those who are very sick and those living with a disability (Johnson, Par. 4). It is worth noting that even though Johnson and Singer had opposing views on the topic, they respectfully disagreed with one another, and they supported their views with valid points.
Other than Singer, Johnson also had other conversations with other people in the street as well as her sister. Johnson has used her own body to bring out her views in the essay. She writes in detail about her own experience of her disabled body. While critically reading the Unspeakable Conversations, which is basically about whether the killing of an unborn disabled child could be acceptable in today’s society (Johnson, Par. 6). For many years, there have been debates as to whether infanticide could be a good thing or not. In her Essay, Harriet McBryde Johnson who is a disability activist and the attorney was able to express her on the issue of infanticide. Johnson was able to express her point of view via the use of Rogerian argument, and also the rhetorical essentials of ethos and pathos. By apply the Rogerian model to express her opinion on the issue; the sole intention of Johnson was to provide her audience with her position in a manner that is quite respectful. According to Bozarth, Rogerian is a technique that is used for solving conflicts that is aimed at finding common ground rather than a polarizing debate (101).
Use of Rogerian model in the article by the author who is also the narrator can be witnessed on how she engaged Singer while debating; although Singer harbored different opinion to hers, she was able to show empathy towards Singer’s thoughts. In defending her opinion of being against the infanticide, Johnson pointed out that there are some disabled people through a few years of experience have been able to depend on themselves, and managed to live a good life without depending on other people. Furthermore, for some unclear reasons probably out of empathy; when the disabled individuals are out there in public everyone would want to help them without being asked to do so. Ho...