Debating abortion through choice of words

February 24, 2006

Particularly over the last week or so, there have been several national news stories about abortion, spurred by the Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday and the South Dakota legislature’s activities all week. AlterNet’s Deanna Zandt makes a good case that, at least as far as the politics goes, choice of words matter.

It’s been frustrating for many of us to see a number of progressive folks referring to the type of abortion the ban deals with using a certain phrase that won’t be repeated here. Why? Lesson #1 in sociolinguistics: using the term reinforces the frame. Sure, that’s what the Republicans named their law, but it is grotesquely misleading and skews the debate away from what this ban is about: human rights, and more specifically, reproductive rights.

A slightly better alternative to the conservative, misogynist frame that has been used by some is “late-term abortion.” Amie Newman noted in The Mix yesterday that this is also misleading, since “late” could also mean a blanket ban on whatever the speaker defines as “late.” Too much gray area here: “late” could mean anything after the first trimester, for example.

Others have suggested that progressives should refer to the actual medical procedure that conservatives are seeking to ban — without provisions accounting for a woman’s health, which is often the only circumstance under which this procedure is performed — called dilation and extraction, or D&X. My own opinion lies here, since referring to the acronym would free up linguistic context for talking about the woman’s rights. However, a quick informal poll among friends showed me a few wrinkled noses at the word “extraction,” some saying that it conjured up something just as gruesome as the forced-birth side’s frame.

I think Deanna is largely right here, but her column is open ended. A handful of conservative members of Congress and some far-right allies came up with the phrase “partial-birth abortion” because they saw political benefits to it. It’s not a medical term; it’s propoganda. Now, the phrase is ubiquitous, though most reporters at least use qualifiers such as “a procedure opponents refer to as…” or “so-called” in their news accounts.

The problem, as Deanna touched on, is that abortion-rights advocates don’t have poll-tested phrases of our own when it comes to this controversy. Anyone have any ideas?

February 24, 2006 at 1:14 pm

“Anyone have any ideas?” — CB

Yes,

Outlaw third trimester abortions except to save the woman’s life or future reproductive ability.

Pass a law that all OB/GYN’s have to tell pregnant women that abortions have to be chosen in the first trimester.

Abortions for health reasons can be provided in the second trimester.

And no one can prevent a women (or girl) from learning about their reproductive choices before the second trimester and keep their license to practice (as a doctor, nurse, minister or counselor).

It’s alright to have a choice, but choices don’t last forever.

—
Trimesters are actually kind of silly deliniations. There should be some obvious points of fetal development where we draw a more compasionate line.

Late life-saving abortions?

Mother’s Life-Saving abortion?

Mother Protection _____?

And Lance, I agree with you in general, but some of the time limits you outline might be a little short (for example, first trimester is only, what, 12 or 13 weeks, which may not be sufficient), and none of these ideas should ever be presented without pushing additional funding for sex/condom/birth control (including abstinence) education, education, education AND additional funding for significant post-birth care and assistance (if a woman decides to keep the child) and for adoption assitance programs.

I do agree with Hillary on one thing: Legal, Safe, Rare.

The “partial birth abortion” term is really horrible and I think it is a fight we have already lost. It has framed the debate. We should have forced the media to refer to this as third trimester abortions or D and E about 4 years ago.
Calling something a “life saving abortion” sounds like an oxymoron, but is actually a pretty good description of how the procedure is used; these procedures are rarely if ever elective. With the age of fetal viability getting earlier all the time, the point may be moot soon…..

I touched on this in a reply on an earlier thread. There is no good name for the procedure. In the medical field, it is known as either a dialation and extraction procedure (or d&x) or intrauterine cranial decompression. Both of these names carry the ‘icky factor’. The procedure itself is not pleasant to think about, as is the case with most medical procedures. There is no good term for the procedure, so I suggest using the abbreviation d&x. The abbreviation takes away much of the negative connotations and makes the word sound more sterile. Calling the procedure ‘partial birth’ or ‘late term’ abortion gives the impression that the fetus is viable when the decision to perform d&x is made. Most of the time, this is simply not the case.

I understand that abortion is an emotionally charged subject, but we can’t let emotions and perceived morals rule this issue. We need to start educating ourselves and the general public (including Joe Republican) on what exactly the d&x procedure entails and why it is performed. This is a little wordy, but armed with this information, we can construct a reasonable, logical argument.

First of all, d&x is not a common procedure, nor is it a form of birth control. D&x is never performed during the 1st trimester. During this time period, more convential abortion procedures can be used. D&x is most often performed in the 2nd trimester before the fetus is viable. It is almost always performed for medical reasons. This includes a serious health problem of the mother or the fetus has died, is serverly malformed and/or suffering from a serious genetic defect. These health issues are usually not detectable until late in the 2nd trimester. D&x is very rarely performed in the 3rd trimester, usually because continued pregnancy will be fatal to the mother, or the fetus has died or is so serverly malformed it will never regain consciousness and die shortly after birth (usually hydrocephalus).

Given a case where the termination of a pregnacy is nescisary for the health of the mother, a physician is faced with 2 options this late in the pregnancy, either a d&x procedure, killing the fetus before birth, or a Caesarian section, allowing the fetus to die on it’s own. Both have the same outcome. A C-section is major surgery, and carries all of the possible complications of surgery, including a risk of infection, as well as posing it’s own risk on future pregnancies. A d&x procedure is minimally invasive. The chance of infection is much lower than open surgery, and the recovery time is much quicker.

Since most d&x procedures are done out of medical necesity, I don’t see the point of banning this procedure. At the risk of repeating myself, abortions are NEVER performed as a form of birth control. A woman who has an abortion has thought long and hard about her decision. It is not a pleasant experience. It is not taken lightly. The d&x procedure is an even less pleasant experience than more conventional abortion. Women are not having this procedure because they want to.

Lance,

Trimesters are actually kind of silly deliniations. There should be some obvious points of fetal development where we draw a more compasionate line.

In moral terms, the most logical point would be viability. At that point the conflict between the mother and the fetus can be resolved for both entities.

As a practical/policy matter, though, this is fraught with difficulties.

bubba, I think you are on the right track.

Reproductive Protection Act

From a woman’s perspective, I believe that the availability for contraception needs to be advanced as quickly as any legislature that prohibits choices. This is a “stitch in time saves one million and nine” example if there ever was one. I’m not part of the “Hillary for President…” parade, but she said somthing that was so good on this subject; it was to the effect that abortions should be legal, safe and rare.

“In moral terms, the most logical point would be viability. At that point the conflict between the mother and the fetus can be resolved for both entities.” — Edo

In English Common Law applicable when we became our own country, and thus the law as it was known to the founding fathers, abortions were not restricted in any way until a heartbeat could be heard or the fetus kicked, which happens usually in the second trimester.

Anti-abortion laws didn’t come into common practice in this country until the 1840’s.

But I don’t buy the viability standard either. You could force the delivery of a viable premature fetus rather than make the woman carry through the last month or two of the pregnancy if that was your standard. Why should an unwilling participant to a pregnancy work as an inclubator when you have a million dollar one in your post-natal ward?

Because it’s cheaper? Isn’t that just slavery?

I agree that any of my suggestions is subject to abuse by denying girls and women information about reproduction, contraception and their own current status. But we certainly should be able to set a standard decision point earlier then You want it You Take It!

This just in, hot off the wire:

PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — State lawmakers voted Friday to ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota and sent the measure to the governor, who said he is inclined to sign it.
Under the legislation, doctors in South Dakota would face up to five years in prison for performing an abortion unless it was necessary to save the woman’s life.
The bill directly targets Roe v. Wade, the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. State lawmakers believe the nation’s highest court is now more likely to reverse itself on the abortion issue because of the recent appointments of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Planned Parenthood, which operates the only clinic performing abortions in South Dakota, has pledged to challenge the measure in court.

Lance,

But I don’t buy the viability standard either. You could force the delivery of a viable premature fetus rather than make the woman carry through the last month or two of the pregnancy if that was your standard. Why should an unwilling participant to a pregnancy work as an inclubator when you have a million dollar one in your post-natal ward?

I’m not sure I follow your objection. In the second sentence you state that a delivery could be forced. But in the third sentence you state that the unwilling participant would be forced to be an incubator. Which is it?

aside from legality/praciticality issues, I think the second sentence is spot on. If the fetus is viable and the woman wants an abortion, then I believe she has no moral right to demand that the fetus is terminated; she only has a moral right to control her body and thus that the pregnancy be terminated. She is exercising full control over her body.

Now you may reasonably ask: “but who will pay for the neonatal incubator”? That’s a good question. Morally speaking I believe that the mother (and father) have no obligation in this situation. They wanted the pregnancy to end thus they have no moral obligation to any fetus that the state believes must be kept alive. Presumably, then, the state would have the obligation to pay for the required incubation.

Ethics aside, you cannot just force the delivery of a fetus a couple of months early and stick it in an incubator. There are all sorts of other health issues involved. Keep in mind what this argument is about, though. Originally, this was about banning d&e, a procedure that is rarely, if ever, used to terminate a pregnancy because it was unwanted. This is a procedure that is mainly used in extreme circumstances. Now we’ve gone to banning virtually all abortions (post #8) and other ways to terminate an unwanted pregnacy. Most abortions are still performed during the 1st trimester. Women who continue the pregnancy after this point typically either intend to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.

“Women who continue the pregnancy after this point [1st trimester] typically either intend to keep the baby or put it up for adoption.”

Which has been a point I have tried to often make (but get beat around the head by many on the pro-choice side who claim their is ‘no compromise). Now, as we all know there is no arguing or compromising with the fanatical pro-lifers. But we should be able to discuss options with the non-fanatical pro-lifers. And I personally have no significant problem with a possible compromise of reducing unrestricted abortions to the first, say, 16 or 18 weeks of a pregnancy, because, as VT Idealist states, most women by the 12th-14th week have already decided to terminate, and have terminated, the pregnancy already or have decided to carry the baby to term to keep or to put up for adoption. The vast majority of abortions performed after this period are for “health of the mother” reasons or for certain reasons surrounding findings of genetic testing which indicate the child would be born with some horrible problems and would not really live a life. There may be the rare “I didn’t know I was pregnant” situation, but there is also an element of personal responsibility here as well. Bottom line is that if there were a way to tie significant and needed increases in funding for sex education, birth control programs, post-birth support and assistance (including day care, medical coverage and schooling options) and adoption programs with legislation that would limit unrestricted abortions to 16 weeks and that only allows abortions after this period for the “physical health of the mother” standard and for “the baby would have absolutely no life due to physical and/or mental defect” standard, I would strongly consider that compromise.

Amen bubba.

Morality aside, your statement in its entirety is reasonable and practicable. My hunch is therein lies the reason why it will never come to pass. sigh.

This is a situation where Republicans are going
to pander to their base, and there’s nothing you
can do about it, except hope that the judicial
system is objective enough to strike down any
unreasonable bans invoked by the legislature
for political reasons – this assumes that Roe vs.
Wade isn’t reversed. If it is, all bets are off.

Forty percent of the American people believe a
zygote is a human being whose soul was ignited
by God at the instant of conception, and nothing,
but nothing will ever change their minds. These
are the same people who hate gays, don’t believe
in the separation of church and state, don’t believe
in evolution, do believe in the literal word of the
Bible, and who all vote Republican. Republicans
can’t win without them. They simply can’t. You
can’t reason with these people, and you can’t
discuss abortion rationally with them, and you
can’t stop the Republicans from pandering to
them. It’s way beyond the tactics of debate here.
It’s what’s destroying our country. The tyranny
of the bigoted, ignorant, God fearing minority.

It’s akin to the right’s use of the terms, “Pro-abortion” and “Pro-Life”. This phraseology incites strong feelings by naturally demonizing those who defend abortion and sanctifying those who do not.

In fact, the appropriate terminology should be “Pro-Choice” and “Anti-Choice”. It’s about allowing the individual to make the decision for herself rather than having the government do it. Or, from the other side of the fence, it’s about NOT allowing the individual to make the decision.

The right has been able to frame the discussion as Pro-abortion vs. Pro-life, which is inaccurate. I don’t think anyone really WANTS abortions, per se, and everyone wants to support the general concept of life. But when it comes to this specific medical procedure, it should be the individual’s CHOICE whether to have an abortion or not, depending on her personal beliefs and particular circumstances.

It’s Pro-choice vs. Anti-choice.

Accelerating advances in medical technology makes “viability” a moving target, and “health of the mother” an endangered phenomenon.

If we don’t base our argument on basic individual freedom, equal rights and right to self-determination–then we are basing our argument on quicksand.

The real problem is that all objections to abortion are based on religious, irrational arguments, no matter how couched they are in pseudo-rational terminology, and everyone is afraid to touch the religious third-rail in rebuttal.

The only leg to stand on as small-d democrats and enlightened thinkers is individual freedom and right to self-determination, with an honest recognition that individual rights are often are in conflict with one another, and that common sense and rational law provides us with a basis for arbitrating between competing rights. With most abortions, rationally viewed, as a choice between the rights of an adult citizen and a ball of cells with potential, it becomes a much less controversial issue than if it is a choice between an eternal soul blessed by a god and the “convenience” of a “mere” woman.

That is not to say that all or even most of those of us who are pro-choice are atheists. with 90% of the American population theists, that it clearly not the case. Rather, this is a struggle between those who view faith as a personal matter, and the commons as the realm of reason, and those who would impose theocracy on America and have their faith determine everyone’s rights.

We have to expose the theocratic basis for the anti-choice movement and present a rational alternative to it. Dismissing their sincere distress, irrational as it is, or pretending that all opponents to abortion are insincere women-haters is neither helpful nor honest. It is merely a contortion to avoid confronting the religious root of the problem.

This is the great taboo in contemporary American political culture, the incompatibility of reason and religion in the public sphere, and is the greatest threat to our democracy. Ironically, it was the central focus of discussion leading to the founding of our democratic republic, and yet, even when it colors and determines debates such as this one, no one is willing to face it head-on.

We either are a free society governed by reason, tolerating personal faith, or we are a theocracy.

Simple, just call laws like these “forced childbirth” laws. That’s exactly what they are and reinforce the point that people who defend the right to choose are trying to make.

Here’s an idea. Cut the nonsense and admit the real force behind either abortion or banning abortion. It’s 100% emotional, what one feels in one’s own heart. The “woman’s right to choose” group are displaying their hearts desire to keep people out of each other’s private lives, keep whatever happens at any level a decision between the woman with the problem, an unwanted pregnancy and competent medical advisor(s). The contraries are jus that, contrary. It’s their hearts desire to probe aound into everyone else’s problems. The unwanted pregnancy is one person’s problem that they feel the need to stick their unwanted and unwarranted noses. That psychological enigma has a source and they tell us what it is.

That’s the church going group. This tells us that their nose problem originates in church. They say it’s God’s law they are abiding which takes all arguments beyond compromise. God never compromises. But is that the real reason?

What else do they learn at Sunday school? But of course, they are “saved” while all others are lost. Some even make odd exceptions to the lost set saying that if by some accident they do everything God expects of them then they too are saved. That’s rare to say the least.

What they learn at church is that they are better than other people. By definition, those in God’s favor are better than those that are not. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy problem is just one of several sets of people they can hold their heads high above and declare to be immoiral, not qualified to enter the kingdom of God whil they are qualified. It’s the church goer’s need to be better than others inherent in all religions that is the real abortion issue.

The religion thing is being addressed. Their “better than thou” attitude is up for review. A researcher has uncovered the real source of their holy book, the Bible and proved that it’s a hoax. It’s easy to understand their position once one understands where they are coming from, the need to be better than other people.

http://www.hoax-buster.org has proof the Bible is a hoax. The real history of the sacred scriptures is now being reviewed by the multitudes. When in time the number of the knowing reaches critical mass and the thing explodes is not known but readily predictable as a significant future event that will cause a rebirth of the freedoms promised by the constitution. A woman’s right to choose is just one of many freedoms on which the religious claim a patent.

Comments are closed.