Skip to main content

View Diary: "If you do the crime, pay the time" A Pro-life View of Abortion (293 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  because we lost the naming/framing battle (13+ / 0-)

    It was marketing, really.  Our side dropped the ball on that one, many years ago.  Issue should have always been framed as pro-choice, anti-choice.

    •  I Disagree (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kyril, Mindful Nature, Ophelia, Matt Z

      Ricki Solinger and others have argued convincingly that one of the worst "branding" decisions that the reproductive rights movement ever made was to cast the abortion question in the consumerist language of "choice."  

      You should check out her work.

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 06:16:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It might have been the nomenclature (0+ / 0-)

        but I tend to think it was more a lack of effort on our part. Although, back then, framing an issue the way we understand it now didn't get a lot of focus.  We were kind of blindsided by the term "pro-life" taking hold.

        •  It's Not Nomenclature (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Ms Citizen

          It's the thinking behind the idea of "choice" when it comes to reproductive rights that's the problem.  Again, I highly recommend reading the work she has done.  As a pro-choice social historian, she's done a lot of research on this.

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 06:53:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think the framing matters a damn (0+ / 0-)

        It's an emotionally charged issues. Calling people Pro-abortion or anti-choice, depending upon your view isn't goign to change many mings.

        •  It's not "Framing" (0+ / 0-)

          Framing is the manipulation of language to generate psychological reaction/response.  It is about how we THINK about the question of reproductive rights.

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 06:53:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So how should we think about the issue? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dave in Northridge

            Simply telling me to go read somebody's work isn't helping here.  

            Framing the way Frank Luntz does it is manipulation because it is based in dishonesty and obfuscation.  But framing isn't always inherently manipulative - words are powerful things.

            •  Oh yes it is (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You are ascribing a value judgment to the word "manipulation", i.e. it's manipulative when our political enemy purposefully chooses language because of its psychological impact, but not when our side does it.

              I'm not willing to play games like that.  Framing is what it is, and it is manipulative, no matter the worth of the cause for which it is being utilized.  I don't think that any of the proponents of the theory of framing would say differently.

              BTW I referred you to the work of others because they cannot be reduced to a soundbite.  A person who really wants to understand why in the hell 4 decades after Roe and 4 1/2 decades after Griswold we are still having the fight we are having will take the time.

              If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

              by shanikka on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 08:18:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  the right frame (7+ / 0-)

      pro-government-interference vs pro-privacy

      The issue is about whether the government has the right to determine which medical risk a person will face. It should be framed in a way that has nothing to do with the procedure itself, rather what power the government should have over its citizens' medical choices.

      We did lose the framing battle, and we continue to lose it until we ourselves understand the fundamental point of the Roe v Wade decision, and that is the role of government in our medical choices.

      "Every Pootie is a masterpiece." - Da Vinci

      by mdsiamese on Thu Feb 23, 2012 at 08:35:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What? Liberals lost... (8+ / 0-)

      ...a naming/framing battle? I'm shocked, shocked to hear this!

    •  No, it's not what it's called (0+ / 0-)

      it's the fact that this was a decision made by unelected judges pushing the envelope judge-made law...even if you agree with the result of Roe v. Wade, the Constitutional justification it was based on could only be called a stretch. Unlike the civil rights decisions, which forced the federal and state governments to live up to the guarantees of equal rights embodied in the Reconstruction Amendments, Roe v. Wade created a new right...almost out of thin air.

      The sudden change created an unprecedented backlash. At one and the same time it was a great victory and a severe blow to the women's movement.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 09:01:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  There IS a Ninth Amendment in the Bill of Rights (3+ / 0-)

        and it DOES say exactly this:

        The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
        That's not exactly "thin air".

        Somewhere along the way - probably quite early on - we lost sight of what it quite plainly said, and have spent two centuries denying, obfuscating and ignoring it.

        If it's
        Not your body,
        Then it's
        Not your choice
        And it's
        None of your damn business!

        by TheOtherMaven on Fri Feb 24, 2012 at 09:58:31 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site