View Story | 212 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
For a long time I felt the same way, but in talking to friends and colleagues (and seeing photos like this one) I've come to believe that the abortion issue really is a gender issue in the classic sense. Or, to paraphrase many a feminist: If men could get pregnant, abortion AND maternity leave would be covered under a decades-old socialized, nation health plan.
As for the rest, agreed wholeheartedly. Marriage and reproductive freedom are areas where the framing concept should be highly applicable and can help win the argument. I've had separate discussions recently with relatives who were anti-gay marriage and anti-abortion where I've tried to employ this strategy, as well as coming at the argument from a conservative point of view (for instance: "haven't we [in church, etc.] always encouraged couples who are having sex to get married?") I've had a surprising amount of success; not exactly 'converting' folks, but getting them to broaden their point of view.
On abortion, another relative was upset that advocates for reproductive freedom have co-opted the word "choice." I pointed out that if you feel that way, certainly you have to agree that "pro-life" isn't a fair framing of the anti-abortion argument.
I've felt extremely aware of Lakoff's framing concept for a long time, particularly in the last two presidential elections. In some ways it strikes me as a "duh!" kind of argument - or just a re-packaging of what we all should have learned from Orwell - but I'm excited to see someone tackling it in a systematic way; establishing a theory of how it works, so to speak, and explaining how it can be applied ethically to help market progressive causes.
by ryan b on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 06:50:04 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Feminism is about women having the power of self-determination. No man is ever going to be raped and then saddled with a lifetime responsibility as a reminder of that horrid event. No man will ever lose his life in childbirth. No man should have the right to force these unasked for situations on 50% of the population.
Personally, I can't imagine having an abortion. But I've never experienced the above situations or any other situation that would put me in a position of having to make such a decision. How painful a decision it must be. How dare they think it is their decision to make.
Netroots Nation...mmmmhmmm.
by gina on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:14:30 AM PDT
But here's what those people have done. They've hidden themselves behind people like my next-door neighbor, a really kind, sweet Catholic lady who in her heart of hearts sees abortion as depriving life to a child. The frothing misogynists have appropriated that framework (though espousing violence against doctors doesn't do much for their credibility).
I think pro-choicers have the advantage of being fairly unanimous about several frameworks: most of us are committed to feminism, and most of us are committed to children's welfare. That being the case, we can choose which one to emphasize. The feminist framework might rally the troops, but I don't think it'll win that many converts. But the children's-best-interests framework appeals to a nearly universal moral imperative -- while also forcing the right to really look at some of the situations they're so gung-ho to bring kids into, and explain how that jibes with wanting to cut welfare.
by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:30:49 PM PDT
And Abortion in my opinion is a medical not political issue and should be decided by the doctors and medical community in my opinion not politicians.
Where you won't win with abortion is the moral debate, you cannot convince someone its morally right to kill unless they already believe this and its the same as trying to convince people of the death penalty.
Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking
by Lucian on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:44:14 AM PDT
My ex-wife has a police record from being arrested while engaging in protest for Operation Rescue. She had to serve community service. She was very involved in the San Pedro evangelical community at the time. Even made TV appearances.
After we became married, she changed her views. I'd like to say that it's because I'm such a persuasive speaker, but, actually, I tried to respect her views while just expressing my disagreement.
I think what made the difference was the loss of her peer group. Religious groups have very strong peer-reinforcement of beliefs among their members. When that becomes extended to political views, it can be a mighty force.
Her church, by the way, was headed by the brother of Bush 41's INS department head, Harold Ezell.
by Dumbo on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 04:58:16 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 212 comments