An issue of semantics. Answer this question about abortion...

[independentchristian]

Which is more important to you?

A woman's right to choose or not having the government make the decision for her?

And if you think about it, there is a difference between the two.

[Warpy]

1. The former is more important, of course.

Her body, her decision, and not that of the government, the church, the courts, her husband, her father, or anybody else.

Remember, a government that thinks it has the right to forbid medical procedures also thinks it will have the right to compel them in the future. The same goes for each other entity listed.

[murray hill farm]

2. How is it different?

if she didnt have the right to choose, then someone would chose for her because it would not be her choice....in which case..she would still not have the choice as her own...sooooooo...i say, the womans right to choose.

[independentchristian]

6. Because it is "slightly" different and should understand that...

...for the debate.

Most here support "the choice." You say, "oh, she chose, x, y, or z, great, because she chose it," but you'll never be able to win over single-issue voters who think it is a "bad choice" if the debate is only about "the choice." Because they view it as a "bad choice" for whatever reason, they think that the women who make "the choice" and the people who support "the choice" are immoral, irresponsible, and inconsiderate of the potential person. Sure, they don't understand the economic, personal, and internal factors that led to "the choice" being made to not have a child, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

One can be against the government "taking away the right to choose" and still be against abortion, but they understand what taking away a safe and legal abortion will create, so it's not about "supporting choice" to them as much as it is supporting "safety."

This is why you have the country split over abortion, but you have most people saying that they don't think that abortions are "right." They don't "support abortions", and by extension, they don't support "the choice", but they don't want the government making the situation worse by outlawing it.

I'm trying to give you some information to consider when you frame the issues.

[Bunny]

3. Sorry, not meaning to offend, but this question sounds like a

setup. What are you hoping to hear? :shrug:

[independentchristian]

7. Oh get real

What in the heck would I want to "setup" anyone for.

Just think, and answer the question, or don't.

The issue involves more factors than the current discourse contains, and I'm trying to bring them up.

[Bunny]

8. Well, maybe you should get real.

I've been around here for years, and I've seen all kinds of angles on this abortion situation. Call me a skeptic, or not. But think about it from another perspective, if you can manage that.

[independentchristian]

10. Did you not see my post above?

How in the world can anyone read that and not understand where I'm coming from?

There is a difference between being against the government taking away the right to a "safe and legal abortion" and supporting a woman's right to choose.

There is a difference.

[Bunny]

13. Actually, I didn't read your post above. I just responded to your

post to me.

I am not arguing whether there is a difference or not. I haven't given it any thought at all.

All I'm trying to say is that over the years I've seen any number of cutesy attempts to bring up the abortion issue here, and I've participated in tons of flame wars over it. The phrasing of your initial post seemed like another effort to "lead" the discussion into a particular direction. My apologies if that is not the case.

Why in the world is this so hard to understand?

[Warren DeMontague]

4. No, I've thought about it, and the two are the same. nt

[eallen]

5. You're right: they're not the same. The right to choose is more important.

In my view, the issue is one of freedom and civil liberty. The woman isn't free if someone else can require her to carry a pregnancy to term. The original poster is correct that that "someone else" could be someone other than the government: father, husband, church, etc. To me, those are no better alternatives to the government deciding. The freedom to choose is what I hold important.

[cestpaspossible]

9. Obviously the former.

[Vickers]

11. The right to choose is more important

The government *IS* all those women. Or it's supposed to be.

Got Constitution?

[suigeneris]

12. I don't like either formulation

The issue is not a woman's right to choose abortion, that is a fruit of her basic liberty.

The issue is a woman's right to control her own life. Period.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson 1819

[independentchristian]

14. That won't work as an argument

You have to "scare people" by telling them the truth about what would happen if abortions were made illegal, and come to some kind of position on how to decrease the amount of "unwanted pregnacies" because no one has ever had an abortion without being "pregnant."

Abortions are caused by unwanted pregnacies, or fears about the pregnacy whether it's hostility from spouses or parents or not being economically able to support another child. But still if you just say something about "control her own life," the detractors are just going to say, okay then, just have the child and put it up for adoption. She can still "control her life" after having the child.

Why doesn't this side "explain" more about what would happen if abortions were made illegal and enlighten shortsighted people in this country about why Roe v. Wade was ruled the way that it was in the first place. If they know the whole story, most people will realize that "outlawing it" will not solve the problem, but just make it worse.

The problem is "unwanted pregnacies" and the democrats have to be proactive and out front in proposing ways to reduce the cause of abortions.

That is where the debate should be focused on. I have always felt this way, but I also read it in a Rockridge Institute article.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/projects/reprod/littmanabortion

[suigeneris]

16. It works as an argument and it is true.

Using the term abortion is ceding the language to the other side. Arguing on their ground. They get the frame for the debate. At a max we should talk about ending an unwamted pregnancy.

Recasting chosing an abortion as controling one's own life is a higher level and more powerful argument because everyone will agree that we should all control our own lives, not government.

Once that agreement is fostered it is easier to correctly portray the personal choice of ending an unwanted pregnancy as part of controling one's own life.

[independentchristian]

18. You just don't get it do you?

Controlling "one's own life" is going to get you no where.

In fact that will make you lose ground because people who are on the fence over the abortion issue will be driven to the other side by your language because they want to believe that the decision is not one that you are happy about, but when you say that you want to defend the choice by using the language controlling "your own life" when you are in fact preventing "another life" from occuring, that would come off as selfish, cold and malicious, like the only thing that matters is you and what you want.

If you want to lose more votes, adopt the language you just suggested.

[suigeneris]

21. I "don't get it"?

What an incredibly arrogant thing to say. I got this bit of language from none other than Lakoff himself in his DVD on How Democrats and Progressives Can Win. http://www.winwithlanguage.com/ Buy it and learn something.

While you're at it why don't you tell him he doesn't get it?

[Malva Zebrina]

15. Every pregnancy is a risk

and any woman who does not want to be a revered mother, honored on Mother's Day with Hallmark greeting cards and pastel wrapped gifts, simply because she has fulfilled her normal biological function, is perfectly within her rights to NOT want to be a mother.

Every pregnancy carries risks--every single one.

Forcing pregnancy on any woman who does not want to be a mother, or who does not want to go through another pregnancy for whatever reason,and those are her own to determine, is immoral in this day and age.

Inability to recognize a mistake and inability to recognize that as humans we make mistakes, is equally immoral and patently uncompromising, black and white, religious thinking that is wrong, as far as human beings go and as far as women go.

Handing over, by force, her body and her life, her risks and her health to the state is also immoral and on the part of other women, church women mostly under the influence of woman hating clerics, is cruel and is punishement meted out by the self righteous women and the fat bloviating men who would, in fear of their loss of control over women and fear of women's blood and their sexuality, also do the same.

[independentchristian]

17. Forcing???

Unless she was raped, no one is forcing anything on her.

Pregnacy is a "result" of something.

Unless that "something" was forced, no one is forcing anything on her, she's just making a choice whether to continue a pregnacy or not.

And you are never going to win the debate or most of the votes from the other side if you want to keep the debate about "choice," like anytime that someone makes a "choice", it's a good thing.

This country "chose" to go to Iraq and kill a bunch of people.

Was that a good "choice"?

Serial killers "choose" to kill other people. Is that a good "choice"?

If it's just about "choice" you will get no where because every choice is not a good one, whether it's yours to make or not. The argument needs to be framed around "safe, legal, rare, and decreasing the amount of unwanted pregnacies," not choice.

As long as you are debating "choice" and "life" you are playing on the other side's turf because that is the language they have established, duh.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

19. Ah! Thanks for finally clarifying your agenda...

... it would have saved people a few precious minutes of their lives if you had done this earlier in response to Bunny's post.

[independentchristian]

20. Tell me, what is my "agenda"

To get you to "think" and realize that you need to change your language if you want to get people to side with you? You should have realized that from the beginning when I said it was an issue of "semantics," duh. I have no "agenda" other than getting people to think deeper about issues than they normally do.

[BlueInRed]

22. It's not a question of importance, but how you sell it

In the South at least, freedom from government interference is an effective way to sell privacy rights. If you ask people down here if they think abortion is right or wrong, many will say wrong. But if you ask them if the government should have the right to make decisions about your private life, they'll say no (or actually hell no).

I think it's important to have the govt out of all sorts of private, personal decisions, including the right to choose. So if I had to choose one, I'd choose the privacy route because it encompasses more freedoms than just the right to choose.

[Moderator]

23. Locking.

This thread is inflammator.