In “Can I Live? And Other Questions That Reveal How Anti-Woman Anti-Choicers Can Be,” feminist blogger Chloe of the blogging website “Feministing” discusses the 2005 Nick Cannon song “Can I Live?” In the song, Cannon reveals that his mother considered an abortion during her pregnancy with him. The lyrics are very direct and specific, including such lines as:
“300 Dollars that’s the price of living, what?
Mommy, I don’t like this clinic.
Hopefully, you'll make the right decision,
And don’t go through with the knife incision.”
Chloe takes a sarcastic tone in her analysis of Cannon’s song, and argues that the lyrics call on women to make the same decision his mother made, despite their own situations. “If your baby could speak, it would beg you not to have an abortion.” Since the release of the song, Cannon has insisted that it is not about passing judgment, but Chloe argues the lyrics leave only one decision as acceptable. She asserts that Cannon’s anti-abortion reasoning is because “that baby might end up being a C-grade celebrity who will thank you for your strength and sacrifice years later, in the form of a poorly-written rap with a barely-concealed political agenda!” Clearly, this argument is embedded with sarcasm, an attempt at humor to draw supporters in and charge opponents with faulty reasoning, laughable reasoning.
She concedes that the focus on the potential of the fetus is clever, but Chloe argues that this focus is the exact thing that makes anti-choicers anti-feminist. The potential of the fetus is considered above the potential of the pregnant woman.
Chloe uses sarcasm as her most evoked rhetorical device. She makes statements that, if considered out of context, may sound as if she was actually opposed to the pro-choice movement. But within the context, it is clear that she is attempting to ridicule and expose folly in the logic of Cannon’s song, and thus the anti-choice argument. However, aside from calling an affront to the other side, Chloe does very little to advance her own argument. There is little specific support in her blog for the pro-choice case. The blog is reminiscent of politicians who attack their opponents’ stances without making a case for their own stances.
This blog is emotional and satirical. The humorous edge may draw some in, but the extremity with little consideration to the opposition may drive away those with moderate views on the matter. However, the audience must be considered. Most of the readers of this blog, like other feminist blogs, are probably other feminists. Chloe may realize that most of her audience already shares her pro-choice sentiments. In which case, her purpose may be to ignite anger or passion in fellow feminists against the song and similar claims, and her use of sarcasm serves that purpose well.
**BEST EXAMPLE OF BLOG**
ReplyDeleteGreat use of rhetorical terms. Good writing, Good critical eye that demonstrates that you understand her points but also understand her shortcomings.
I am not sure what the entire song consists of, but this, to me, seems like a personal outburst more than a pro-choice/pro-life stance. I also believe that because of this, Nick Cannon would be pro-life. However, I think he is just trying to let some emotions out about what almost never became of Nick Cannon. Granted I doubt this song is a good one as I believe Cannon is not a good rapper at all, but the lyrics could have been blown out of proportion. Great write up of what the blogger expressed. Sarcasm can be an ignition to something huge and controversial, or it could be a realization of society on some view. I would find it that Cannon has every right to proclaim to all women not to have an abortion. This subject is very sensitive and controversial. Who should be the subject of each abortion decision, the woman and her rights, or the baby and the life that he/she hasn't lived yet? Overall, great job on the blog!
ReplyDelete