Basic Analysis of "The other Jesus"

Ethos: This story is published on newsweek, a respectable organization that publishes many current stories as well as other documents. The Author references a quote by Pope John Paul 2, to help illustrate the nature of who Christ is to many of the world's religions. It also quotes many theologians and professors, at least one for each group.

Pathos: The use of pathos in this article is difficult to determine, as this article simply seems to be a list of facts about some well known religions in the world. However, some of the uses of Pathos could be when the author references how each of these religions views the Person of Christ. All of the religions view him as a man of love, and a wise man. This article also appeals to the reader by giving them a better understanding of the world's major religions.

Logos: The Logos involved is the accounting of how Christ is viewed in the major religions, by comparing the beliefs of other groups. The author interviewed several theologians and professors for each religion and included them in the article.


Audience: I think that this article is definitely aimed at the average American public who, most likely, would not know many of these things about the major religions in the world. The author of this article most probably wanted to shed light on how the Character of Christ had an enormous impact on many of the religions in the world.

Bias: I do not believe the author really has a bias, other than trying to clarify, perhaps, how most of these other faiths view the figure of Christ. The author isn't trying to prove, or discredit any of the religions, but is simply showing some important facts about how Christ is involved in all of these faiths.

Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer

Rough Draft of Summary Strong Response, Conrad Keezer

Mandatory screening; is it selective eugenics? Or is it “smart science?” (Appel par. 1)

In an article published on the website Opposing views, Mr. Jacob Appel asserts that

Mandatory genetic testing should at least be imposed on fetuses fertilized by in vitro

fertilization. He also gives several reasons why such screening could be effective. While

he makes some interesting points in his article, he doesn’t provide enough information

to effectively persuade the audience on a highly controversial issue.

Mr. Appel begins his argument with an acknowledgement of a study done by Physicians

at the University College in London that determined that they could successfully test

unborn infants for genetic problems that could lead to breast cancer. Mr. Appel then

raises the question that “If pre-implantation genetic diagnosis during in vitro fertilization

(IVF) can successfully prevent children from developing serious illnesses, why shouldn’t

such screening be required?” (Appel, par. 3) Mr. Appel then continues on in his article

with information stating that women who have the breast cancer gene (BRCA1) have an

80 percent chance of developing breast cancer in the future. While Mr. Appel admits that

treatment for breast cancer is successful now, at eighty-eight percent for a five-year

survival rate, he does not believe this should deter the potential benefits of genetic

screening. Further on in his article, Mr. Appel continues his argument based upon some

appeals to logos, making the point that genetic screening could save taxpayer dollars, and

also makes appeals to ethos stating that laws in the United States prevent parents from

refusing life-saving treatment for their children on the basis of religious beliefs.

Mr. Appel concludes his argument by admitting that certain genetic screening could be

perceived as an attempt to create a perfect human, reminiscent of Hitler’s master race, but

concludes that mandatory genetic testing should be imposed nonetheless.

In his article, Mr. Appel’s article consists mostly of appeals to logos via an ethical

argument. He argues that if we impose mandatory genetic testing, we can prevent an

individual from living a life of suffering from a genetic disease. He states “The most

obvious advantage of mandatory screening is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of

the children who are spared the disease.” Appel, par. 6) Mr. Appel compares this idea to

child welfare laws that prohibit exposure to environmental toxins that produce an eighty

percent risk of future cancer. Another point made is that American courts compel

pediatric cancer therapy, even when parents may object. Using this point, Mr. Appel

states that the government should have the right to override parents wishes on the issue of

genetic screening, on the basis of protecting the child. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Appel

refers to how U.S. law prohibits parents from refusing life-saving treatment for their

children on the basis of religious grounds. He states “… Western Societies have long

acknowledged that parental authority cannot undermine the medical interests of a child.”

(Appel, par. 7) Later in his article, he also makes the case that mandatory genetic testing

can be used for good, as easily as it could be used for evil. However, he believes, and

argues that the benefits of using such testing, far outweigh the ethical implications of

such a decision. This belief is demonstrated in his final sentence where Mr. Appel states

that “Maybe the benefits are so clear-cut that opting out shouldn’t be an option.”

Other than an ethical argument, Mr. Appel makes, unfortunately, few other appeals to

logos. He mentions that the benefits of genetic testing could prevent the use of taxpayer’s

dollars that would be spent for treatment of individuals with these diseases. In addition to

saving public money on prevention for disease, Mr. Appel also asserts that it will save

money in the private sector as an increasing amount of insurers are having to cover the

costs of fertility therapy. He also states that “Women who carry the BRCA1 gene have an

eighty percent chance of developing breast cancer, and a forty percent chance of

developing ovarian cancer.” Using these facts, Mr. Appel believes that these statistics

support his position on genetic testing. While hard facts and statistical information in this

article may be somewhat effective for his argument, the use of logos is too few and far

between to sway an audience to agree with his position by logic alone. Now, in his use of

logos, Mr. Appel does reference findings from a University College in London, as well as

findings from British researchers. These studies lend credence to his position by

reinforcing the argument with hard facts. However, his argument with logic may have

been helped by referencing other studies by Universities from multiple regions to indicate

that a pattern, if any, exists.

In this article, Mr. Appel makes use of Pathos in a few sections. The first of

which, is the appeal to the heart of the audience, regarding the suffering lifestyle of an

individual who has a disease that could have been detected earlier during the pregnancy.

He references the story of a mother who had the screening technique used because “The

mother… opted for screening after the mutant gene had triggered malignancies in her

husband’s mother, sister, grandmother, and cousin.” (Appel, par. 4) Mr. Appel in this

scenario does use an effective appeal to the emotion of the reader, and helps make the

case for his argument. In the article, Mr. Appel frequently mentions the importance of

protecting children who may be afflicted with diseases that could have been detected

before birth. With these sections, Mr. Appel does appeal to the audience through emotion,

yet as with logos, the use of pathos is not used as strongly as his use of ethos and logos.

In conclusion, Mr. Appel's article uses a mix of ethos, pathos, and logos. Unfortunately,

his use of logos was somewhat limited in that he didn't present much hard evidence in

favor of his position. As a reader, I was disappointed that he didn't reference other studies

that produced similar results. While his overall article could be an effective argument on

this issue, his lack of using other studies on the issue don’t serve to reinforce his

argument. Also, creating an argument in favor of mandatory testing, and the removal of

certain genomes, leaves the reader with many questions as to the potential consequences

of such an action. How would this procedure affect adults later in life? Have there been

other tests that show perhaps negative results to this? If Mr. Appel had discussed these,

and other issues, then his article could have been reinforced.

The ethical dilemma of mandatory genetic testing is presented in this article. Would an

unbiased audience side with Mr. Appel, and conclude that mandatory testing is worth

the costs, both financially and ethically? Or would the audience decide that mandatory

testing is ethically questionable, and shouldn't be enforced? It is a decision that America,

and the world will have to continually grapple with in the twenty-first century.

Citation of Sources

Appel. Jacob. “Mandatory Genetic Testing Isn’t Eugenics, It’s Smart Science.”

Opposing Views. Web. 25 January, 2010.

© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.