Daily Kos

View Story | 212 comments

  •  I think that's off-target (none / 1)

    Let's not focus on dog-eat-dog vs. nurture.  One of the key objectives of GOP memes is to polarize and divide.  "You're with us or against us," etc.  Finding differences is easy.  The problem is that the Dems think being OPPOSITE is a good thing.  It's not.

    Take, for example, one of the most divisive issues out there:  abortion.  The GOP framed itself "pro-life" (pro-death penalty and pro-war be damned) in order to force the Dems to take the opposite stance, and I personally believe the result has been crippling.  Now we breed a group of far-left activitists who go as far as wear t-shirts bragging about their abortions (q.v. Salon.com) and insisting on "pro-choice".  Problem?  That's exactly where the GOP wants them.

    I won't say my arguments are right, but they are MODERATE, and they're all but missing from the debate.  I think abortion is something to take seriously, hardly something to flaunt, but I oppose ending abortion on PRAGMATIC grounds.  Bear in mind Roe vs. Wade hinged on the fact NOT that abortion is a right, but that enforcement of any regulation on a woman's body is an invasion of privacy.  A democratic government simply should not have the power to ask the questions necessary to enforce an anti-abortion law.  So if we're going to save babies, let's start with overhauling the hideously messed-up foster care system and drop anti-abortion laws to the bottom of a VERY long "To Do" list.

    But you won't hear that in any abortion debate, because the far right picked its stance, and the far left was stupid enough to jump to the other side.

    I could run this argument on practically every GOP talking point out there.  Simply finding new words for the "opposite field" the GOP mapped out for us is not the solution.  The author isn't talking about rhetoric, but FRAMES.

    The media is essentially bacterial, adapting to each environment to make the most of an opportunity without killing its host - penumbra (FARK)

    by Dragonchild on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:46:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Pragmatic unwanted children (none / 0)

      >but I oppose ending abortion on PRAGMATIC grounds.<

      Too bad you're not a knocked up 13 year old.
      You might not be so PRAGMATIC.

      Nobody -likes- abortion.  The main advantage is that
      it saved lives of young girls running off to Mexico to
      be butchered.

      I know a mother with two beautiful kids who wouldn't
      be here if she'd had 2 before she was ready.

      The kids would've been very abused by an immature,
      resentful single parent.

      I love people all aquiver to tell others how to run their lives -
      when they'll never have to face a situation themselves.

      I bet you're for our president's Iraq war.
      1,000 dead soldiers is fine for the cause, right?

      by checkers on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:42:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How can you weight one life against another? (none / 0)

        If all lives have equal value, the 13 year old is no more valueable than the life of a fetus.

        I'm against abortion unless the life of the 13 year old is at risk. If a 13 year old is simply pregnant then let her give the baby up for adoption to someone who can't have kids.

        Abortion is not efficient and its against my morals. I guess I'm not a true liberal. Freedom is important but until we can prove without a doubt that a fetus is not alive its unfair to kill it.

        Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:52:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sorry about that! (none / 0)

      Sorry about flaming you.
      I missed the word "ending"
      That's what I get reading half-assed before running
      off to work.

      by checkers on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 04:45:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  abortion (none / 0)

      It's interesting you bring up abortion, because I've always disagreed with the way the left has framed that argument, maybe because of my own experience. My parents had a shotgun wedding pre-Roe, and spit out a total of 3 kids in 5 years because their Catholic upbringing left them clueless about birth control. Needless to say my childhood was a mess, and it's even more tragic because my parents are both pretty good people; they just were forced to be parents too young, and with the wrong partner. I'm sad for the happy families they could have had in different circumstances.

      I wouldn't wish my childhood on anyone, and that's what fuels my pro-choice stance. I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all. It's about compassion and kids, and valuing life enough to want each one to be as positive as possible. I think that jibes very well with the framework above, and I think we should try harder to emphasize that pro-choice is pro-child and pro-family. It's too easy for the right to rally the stone-agers when we frame it as a strictly feminist issue.

      by mewsic on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 05:36:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Interesting (none / 1)

        I'd call myself a feminist, but that really doesn't figure into the abortion issue for me at all.

        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 ]

        •  that photo is frightening (none / 1)

          I remember seeing that photo the first time. Also considering myself a femanist, I didn't really see abortion as a feminist issue either. But that picture says it all. A bunch of men in power making a sweeping decision about all women, circumstances be damned. They will never  have to suffer any life altering consequences for their decision. Yet they are celebrating that they are able to impose these consequences on others.

          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

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (none / 1)

          Don't get me wrong -- I was explaining what fuels the issue for me personally. I believe wholeheartedly that the impulse to restrict access to abortion is rooted, for many people, in some kind of atavistic desire to control women's sexuality.

          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

          [ Parent ]

          •  You can't convert (none / 0)


            Abortion is the type of issue that you cannot convert  someone to. If someone believes its wrong to kill and believes a fetus is alive theres not much you can say to get them to support your agenda.

            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

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, it's not always that hard. (none / 0)

              You'd be surprised how many people take a position because of their peer group rather than deep philosophical thought.  

              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

              [ Parent ]

      •  It's still wrong (none / 0)


        Just because you wish you werent born does not mean the rest of us agree with you. I was raised under difficult circumstances and I value my life along with all life in general.

        This has nothing to do with how a persons raised it has to do with how much you value life. Abortion is wrong because it decreases the value of life, its wrong for the same reason the death penalty is wrong.

        Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 12:57:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Pro-privacy (none / 1)

      You're right.  We should reframe the abortion debate.  We are pro-privacy.  We think this should be a private decision between a woman and a doctor.  Not an easy decision, not something to take lightly, but each person has the right to privacy.

      By extension, the GOP is anti-privacy.

      The same could be said of the Patriot Act.

      It all comes down to the 50-state strategy...

      by Katydid on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:15:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not a bad idea (none / 0)

        The Japanese have a similar ethos, insofar as no one questions either a woman's right to an abortion or the fact that abortion involves matters of life or death.  But could Americans deal with the subtlety of mourning unborn children (as the Japanese do, with special shrines no less) while at the same time remaining committed to women's sovereignty over their own bodies?  I doubt it.

        by oodja on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 08:44:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Because we need proof (none / 0)

          That a fetus cannot survive outside of THAT womans specific body.

          If you can prove this then we can claim its a part of the womans body. However even if it is a part of the womans body and proven with science it still is wrong in most situations to kill a lifeform.

          It should not be something the woman decides on her own, she should get permission from an authority or doctor.

          I'm against abortion unless its authorized by someone qualified to make decisions like this and not all women have the sense to make decisions like these just like not all people have enough sense not to use gun and shoot people.

          Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

          by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:00:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  This is something I can agree with but (none / 0)


        The key is to have this not just be words but the actual policy. The policy of the government should be a policy of letting the medical community decide.

        Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

        by Lucian on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 05:46:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You're right, Dragon (none / 0)

      ...and just watch for the knee-jerk responses.  Those who oppose your kind of thinking are those who have fallen, deep, into the trap the GOP has set and  have themselves set back the progressive cause by miles and votes and support.   One of the marks of the progressive left is independent thinking and that means ungluing yourself from the popular kids in the class and making up your own mind. A plea to those who jump all over DragonChild and others who understand framing and the damage we do when we cooperate with it:  think for yourself.

      by Frijol on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 07:48:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Re. I think that is off-target (none / 0)

      I agree with you, but one problem is the the Catholic Church and other religious institutions have decided that life begins at conception. Therefore any action to end that life is murder.

      Opposing murder is an ultimate moral imperative. So in this case, from the standpoint of framing the debate, the pro-choice side is already screwed with a good portion of the public.

      by mysteve on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 09:13:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  When does life actually begin? (none / 0)

        I think this is very important. If it actually does begin at conception what right do we have to put a value on the life of the fetus? I'm against all killing unless in self defense. I don't care how uncomfortable or painful it is to have labor, if a woman can physically have labor and give birth she should. What happens to the baby after giving birth is up to the mother but I believe life is priceless and valueable. The next president could be killed, Jesus himself could be killed because of abortion. So anyone with any religious beliefs or spirtual beliefs should consider the possible consequences of every action or policy. Abortion is a slippery slope just like the death penalty.

        Peer2Peer Distributed Social Networking

        by Lucian on Mon Sep 20, 2004 at 01:04:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yeah. Well. (none / 0)

          You'd sure as hell care about pain if it were you giving birth to a 11 lb breech baby, via natural childbirth.

          The point is NOBODY has the right to say that a woman has to give birth if it's not her will. Period.  

          I don't care what your beliefs are; if you don't believe in killing, don't kill. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But don't take away everyone else's right to their own particular beliefs.

          Lucian is a man's name, right?

          -7.13, -7.64
          Support the New Media: ePluribusMedia

          by stellans on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 02:59:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  weird (none / 0)

      I've always considered abortion an issue that progressives have generally done a good job of framing.

      The "pro-life" framing attempts to create a debate on the value of life, and that is a debate in which abortion rights supporters and the Democratic Party have (rightly) refused to participate. The "pro-choice" terminology reframes the debate in terms of self-ownership and privacy rights. The effectiveness of this is evident in anti-abortion slogans that attempt to dispute the framing directly ("it's a life, not a choice").

      Of course, the progressive frame has failed to dominate the issue, but so has the conservative one. The debate has become one between competing frames, which is very different from allowing Republicans to frame the debate and then taking an opposite stance within that framework.

      by tps12 on Tue Sep 21, 2004 at 12:53:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

View Story | 212 comments