Loaded language is one of those fun persuasive tools that
plays on the emotions and values of the audience in order to skew opinions in
favor or against an issue. If something is described as "pro-" then
by definition it must be positive, correct? Not really. Our brains see or hear
pro and go "Whoa, this guy's gotta be good," or "This is
positive". What about "anti-"? This word really gets under our
skins. Anti means against, and if somebody's against something, then that means
they don’t like that thing, and if someone doesn't like something, something's
gotta be wrong with it. Right? Nope.
What this
is leading up to is a discussion of the language used in two separate articles
on the same subject: Should it be legal (or allowed) for women to have
abortions in the US? One article declares itself pro-choice, the other
pro-life.
But what is
abortion? Both sides define it and redefine it so many times that it can be
hard to remember what it actually is.
Abortion,
n.: the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed
during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy.
Thank you,
Google. This definition is pretty cut and dry. Where's all that rhetoric
typically used to defend or attack abortion? Don't worry, that's the subject of
this post.
If this image cannot be read, it says "ABORTION: Never an easy choice, sometimes the right choice, and always a woman's choice".
The
pro-choice article, written by Thamiel Rosenkreuz, notes "FIVE PRO-CHOICE
ARGUMENTS TO SHUT UP ANTI-CHOICE RIGHT-WINGERS". Wow, that's… That's
pretty upfront. The rest of the article is executed in a similar tone. He
vehemently attacks "anti-choice" supporters, referring to them as
"homophobic" and claiming that "They just want to use pregnancy
to punish women". What? That's like saying that teachers give their
students low grades because they don't want them to go to college. Pro-life
activists have a secret hidden agenda that wants to punish women? Of course,
Rosenkreuz. That must be why there are so many women (with children) that
support pregnancy and giving birth. And all pro-life supporters must be
religious, or at least "there’s so much religious overlap that this works
on most of them". Sorry to burst your bubble, dude, but while religious
groups like the Catholic Church may value life so much as to oppose abortion,
they don't compose the entirety of the pro-life group, and your argument won't
work on them. Rosenkreuz also claims that the pro-life supporters are also
"armed with misinformation". I find it interesting that he claims
this, as a substantial amount of vocal women on this issue have either had
abortions and regretted them, or considered them and been glad they did not go
through with it. While I agree that a substantial amount of pro-life supporters
are just spouting slogans without regard for the women they speak for, I don't
agree with Rosenkreuz's choices of language. His entire article is one vast,
negative ocean. There is no visible positive or even neutral concept of
pro-life supporters, which gives me the idea that this article is a piece of
propaganda against "right-wingers". Rosenkreuz's diction is
attempting to portray pro-lifers as uninformed, cruel, religious freaks.
The
pro-life article, authored by Kristi Burton Brown, lists "10 reasons not
to have an abortion". I was enjoying the peaceful vibe until I read "We
do not erase a rape by killing a child". Uh… We're not attempting to erase
that event. That's not the reason why those women get abortions. That line
portrays all pregnancies as right or necessary to sustain. They aren't. That's
a total 180 from what we're trying to accomplish, which is a normal life for
those women. It is not their responsibility to keep something that is hurting
them or a relic of something that did hurt them. If they do keep the baby and
raise it as their own, more power to them. But expecting a victim of rape to
give birth? That's insensitive and inhumane. It places more value on the baby's
life, which is not yet final, than the woman's. This concept has been
perpetuated throughout the article. The list also describes abortion as "discriminatory,
inhuman, and cruel". This language is definitively slanted, to get a
negative feeling. Pregnancy is described positively, however, referring to it
as a "great gift" that parents are blessed with. Abortion becomes the
choice that is demonized under any circumstances, without consideration of the
need of women. Yes, Brown, I know that you don't feel like it is a right to
kill your child. But your body is your own, and other women's bodies are their
own. Brown's article, while less spitfire and brimstone than Rosenkreuz's, still
negatively skews the opposite side. It attempts to criminalize and turn women
away from abortion, assuming that they will feel a specific feeling that Brown
prescribes and have a straightforward situation.
Since both
Rosenkreuz and Brown play to extremes (both of which are extremely negative),
they don't really affect the population of opposite believers very much. In the
comments, most of the people are strict supporters of that viewpoint presented
in the article. They don't tend to leave their comfort zone, for fear of being
unable to truly defend themselves from the opposite side. That's why they fail.
A barrage negatives will not prove a point. Something has to be good, right,
and pleasing for people to believe. Otherwise, it can be too much to swallow or
denied immediately.
Regardless
of language, the issue is what it is. It is an ongoing discussion over two
conflicting value systems. When it comes down to it, neither side is ethical.
As was mentioned in the Pro-Life article, just because abortion is legal,
permissible, and/or perceived as necessary for a woman, doesn't mean it's
right. It still involves forcefully removing a child from the womb, which can
cause it pain. That is undeniable. But requiring women to have children that
they do not want or will not care for isn't right either. Women can die in
childbirth, or give birth to a baby that will not survive. How is this okay?
Neither extreme is right, and the only way to fix this is to sift past the
language and really look the issue in the eye. Until then, outspoken members of
both parties will do anything they can to shift the crowd in their favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment