The Abortion Debate Through the Lens of Language
The current legal framing of the abortion debate is problematic because it presents the issue as a binary. In actuality, the debate outside of the legal realm reveals a more complicated terrain that is shaped by a variety of discursive ambiguities. Typical debates can be understood on a single linear spectrum. For example, the debate over whether to wear a mask during COVID-19 can be broken down into for or against wearing a mask. The abortion debate is more complicated, as it is contested in multiple realms of discourse. The group opposing pro-life does not willingly assume the position of anti-life, and the group opposing pro-choice does not see themselves as anti-choice. Each side elects to frame the debate as simply two-sided rather than deal with these complexities, placing themselves as the defenders of certain esteemed cultural values and the other side as a threat to those ideals. Both sides ground their defenses in the same linguistic terms and cultural ideas, drawing contrasting conclusions. This paper will explore how contrasting conclusions can be reached through nuanced explorations of the use of language and framing strategies. Specifically, this paper will explore how both sides incorporate scientific evidence and address protection of the rights of the vulnerable. While these ideas are not directly connected to each other, they both particularly interested me during the research period. The paper will examine the rhetorical tools used to shape the discourse, including but not limited to appeals to common sense, evocative language, and pathos driven language meant to personalize the relationship between the author and reader.
Both sides of the abortion debate appeal to science as an external, impartial authority. The Western world has established a separation between reason and emotion, elevating logic and rationality over feeling and sentimentality. Similarly, religious appeals are deemed less suitable in areas where scientific evidence can be applied. This cultural subjugation of religion incentivized the pro-life movement to shift away from morality-based arguments, and instead rely on language that Americans are familiar with (Lewis 25). Various sources supporting a pro-life position use scientific arguments to justify the assertion that human life begins at conception and thus, a fetus should be entitled to complete constitutional protection. All of the sources that rely on science to justify that “the conclusion that human life begins at sperm-egg fusion is uncontested [and] objective…,” rely on the fallacious argument that a human being and personhood are synonymous (Condic). Pro-choice advocates do not necessarily deny that human life begins at conception but argue that the few cells present in a woman’s uterus do not equate to personhood. A blog post on Americans United for Life states that, “Life in the womb, as we now know beyond serious doubt, is human life from and after the point of conception—an individual member of the species homo sapiens” (Aden). In this quote, Steven Aden uses the scientific species name for humans to substantiate his point, but in doing so, all he does is repeat his earlier point without providing evidence for the human being’s personhood. Similarly, a packet published by the National Right to Life Committee states that “science tells us that the new life [a pregnant woman] carries is a completely and fully new human” (Turner and Balch). Turner and Balch go on to argue that “This human being, as we all do, has the unalienable right to life and deserves full protection under the law” (Turner and Balch) This personification of science replaces the narrator with the authority of all scientific knowledge, developing a facade of objectivity within the debate over whether a fetus should have constitutional rights. These authors utilize definitional maneuvers, in regard to the term “human,” because the reader is accustomed to associating the term with a fully formed human out of the womb, whereas in these examples, it is used to reference a few cells.
Pro-life appeals to science are not restricted to the issue of whether a fetus is a human and are used liberally within various articles to support different pro-life claims. The Nebraska Family Alliance posted an article listing various reasons why abortion harms women. The article’s format resembles a scientific paper, as opposed to an op-ed, with its various headings and subheadings. The text uses short, concise sentences, as opposed to elaborate prose, in order to mirror the structure of scientific writing (“Abortion Harms Women”). Moreover, the Americans United for Life blog states that there is no right to abortion because “it simply runs in opposition to the facts as we know them” (Aden). In this quote, Aden uses the term “simply,” to make his statement appear self-evident when it is not, appealing to common sense as a way to avoid having to justify his claim through evidence. He goes on to align pro-life with the side of “facts” and science, and pro-choice with the side of irrationality and “myth” (Aden).
Pro-choice advocates not only use scientific evidence to support their position but attempt to place pro-life on the side of fallacy and pseudo-science. An article published by the Scientific American states that “Scientists should, first and foremost, value evidence, and the evidence is clear: abortion bans cause harm” (Baran, Goldman, Zelikova). The word “clear,” signifies an appeal to common sense, presenting the conclusion as a simple truth. However, the controversial nature of the abortion debate suggests that this statement can hardly be accepted as a simple truth, despite the author’s semantic approach. Adam Gopnik’s article in The New Yorker similarly places pro-choice on the side of rationality. He states, “We have...before us the...choice between empty authority and rational argument—between divine rules made by an authority we know for certain to be nonexistent and rational ethical argument…” (Gopnik). Through his repetition of “we,” Gopnik personalizes the relationship between the narrator and the reader, establishing a connection between them. The term “we” in conjunction with the assumption that the reader already “know’[s]” God to be nonexistent paints over the depth of conflict. It presupposes that the readers are on his side, in hopes the reader will accept his conclusions despite providing no evidence. He also rephrases the separation between reason and emotion twice to emphasize the illogical nature of the pro-life movement. In an article for The Guardian, David Robert Grimes echoes Gopnik’s sentiment, stating “But despite the science simply not supporting the assertions of the anti-abortion brigade, the myth persists” (Grimes). In this quote, Grimes’ language is identical to pro-life activist Aden, but his conclusion is the opposite, placing the pro-choice opinion on the side of science and pro-life opinion on the side of “myth.” The word “brigade” also shows an attempt to paint the pro-life side as militaristic and aggressive.
Pro-choice advocates also attempt to undermine scientific arguments put forth by the pro-life movement by encouraging the reader to question their validity. Rewire News Group published an article titled “Six Facts About Abortion to Counter March for Life’s Junk Science.” The author, Laura Huss, explains that “evidence about abortion leads first. Because leading with the real science—the science backed by evidence, and supported by leading experts all over the country—is the best way to drown out the misinformation” (Huss). The repeated em dash allows the author to define and emphasize “real science,” which she aligns with the pro-choice side. The term “real science” suggests the existence of “fake science,” the umbrella category encompassing pro-life “myths.” Grimes also appeals to the notion of pseudo-science, declaring that people are entitled to their opinion but “we do not have the right to invent our own facts, and perpetuating debunked fiction helps no one” (Grimes). In this quote, his use of the first-person plural evokes a sense of unity, seemingly holding himself to the same standards as he does the reader. Both Huss and Grimes encourage the reader to doubt all science put forth by the pro-life movement, on the premise that it is fake-science or fabricated.
Additionally, each side frames itself as the protector of the rights of the vulnerable party/parties involved in an abortion. The pro-life movement historically positioned themselves as the protector of the “unborn child,” using language to humanize the fetus. For example, the National Right to Life Committee teaches pro-life advocates which phrases to say and which to avoid in conversations about abortion. They instruct their supporters to replace the phrase “prohibit abortion” with “protect unborn child from abortion” (Turner and Balch). This rephrasing shifts from prohibitive language with a negative connotation to a phrase with positive associations. Randy Alcorn, founder and director of Eternal Perspective Ministries, a Christ-centered nonprofit, also uses language that is highly associative, relying on the connotations of language to evoke an emotional response from the reader. He states that “The Jews weren’t the only suffering people in Nazi Germany, the slaves weren’t the only suffering people in America, and the unborn aren’t the only people today whose rights are violated” (Alcorn). His comparison between the unborn population and two-well known victimized groups makes an appeal to pathos and humanizes the fetus. His repetitive language and parallel sentence structure both reinforce this comparison. Charles C. Camosy, board member of Democrats for Life of America, takes this issue one step further, associating the abortion issue with a larger culture that dismisses humans as objects to benefit those in power. By framing the argument as part of a culture of discrimination, he characterizes the pro-lifers as protectors of the rights of not just the unborn, but of all vulnerable populations, including “racial minorities, people with disabilities, older people, immigrants and refugees…” (Camosy).
In the 1980s, the pro-life movement underwent a shift repositioning itself as protectors of both the vulnerable unborn and vulnerable mother. This differs significantly from its earlier fetus-centered strategy that relied on the vilification of the mother as a murderer. Pro-life advocates attempted to undermine the pro-choice side by mimicking and exploiting their “women-centered” position (Cannold 171). Chelsea Patterson Sobolik, pro-life opinion contributor for USA Today, criticizes the dichotomous nature of the abortion debate for falsely suggesting one can either support a woman or her child, but not both. She states that “car[ing] for the woman holistically… includes protecting the little life inside of her” (Sobolik). Sobolik repeats the word “little,” a term that is often used colloquially in reference to a baby, three times in the short op-ed, revealing a direct appeal to pathos. This term also underscores her continuous description of the fetus as weak and vulnerable, entangling its plight with the pregnant woman’s health. The ruling in Gonzales v. Carhart used the same pro-life “women-centered” language popularized outside of the legal realm. The decision in this case “...represents an important victory for those who have sought to reposition the anti-abortion movement as protectors, rather than critics, of women” (Armitage 20).
Along with reframing the women-centered narrative, the pro-life side uses the language of rights to outrightly reject the pro-choice stance as a defender of women’s rights. Multiple sources make similar arguments acknowledging that while an unwanted pregnancy causes a woman to confront difficult decisions, “these decisions can never include the right to kill her baby” (Turner and Balch). In this quote, the authors reframe the right to abortion as the right to kill. Ultimately, the pro-life’s repositioning of women as a vulnerable population only reenforces their subjugation, as opposed to pro-choice strategy which supports a woman’s autonomy. In the pro-life movement, women are depicted as “guilt-ridden, self-hating, grief- stricken, [and] victimized,” (Cannold 173). Thus, they are poised as incapable of making rational decisions, a strategy to undermine their individual agency.
Unlike the pro-life side which reframed their position, the pro-choice side has consistently represented themselves as protectors of the rights of vulnerable pregnant women, who have been victimized by obtrusive legislation. The ACLU published an article arguing that any discourse regarding fetal rights threatens the rights of women. It argues that “simply because [a woman is] pregnant, [she will be] subject[ed]...to standards that do not apply to anyone else” (“What's Wrong…”). The term “subjected” establishes the woman as a target of unjust legislation which would jeopardize any possibility of gender equality. Similarly, in an article published by the Human Rights Watch, Amy Braunschweiger states that “Ohio’s women deserve state laws that defend their rights. The proposed ban does the opposite, and Ohio lawmakers should stand with women and girls by opposing it” (Braunschweiger). She positions the proposed legislation in opposition to women and suggests that lawmakers who support women will reject the law. An article written in the Lincoln Journal Star and a two-part episode of the TV sitcom Maude encapsulate the primary difference between the pro-choice and pro-life framing of women’s vulnerability. Susan Foster, the author of the pro-choice article, states that “we should trust women to make the right choices for themselves and their families” (Foster). As demonstrated in other examples, the word “we” fosters a sense of unity between the reader and the author. By holding herself accountable, she comes across as less self-righteous, making the reader more likely to agree with her conclusions. This idea is underscored in Maude’s Dilemma, which aired in 1972, two months before Roe v. Wade was issued. After much apprehension, Maude decides to go through with an abortion and her husband tells her “for you Maude, for me, in the privacy of our own lives you’re doing the right thing,” alluding to both the right to privacy and a woman’s ability to know what is best for herself and her family (MaudeTVSeries). The terms “for you,” for me,” and “our own,” emphasize Maude and her husband’s privacy as a domain separate from legal intervention. Whereas the pro-life side deems women as emotionally incapacitated and thus, unable to make their own decisions, the pro-choice position argues women must be trusted to make this decision without government interference.
A variety of pro-life articles claiming that abortions are physically unsafe employ language and sentence structures which simplify the argument and make the conclusion appear indisputable. The National Right to Life Committee questions “How can there be any real safety in an environment where the main concern is to perform as many abortions as possible in order to increase the abortionist's profit margin?” (Turner and Balch). By addressing this issue as a rhetorical question, the authors want the reader to accept as fact their premise about abortionists concerned only in profit. They go on to directly state, “Common sense would also suggest that it has never been in the abortion industry's self-interest to report all the deaths from legal abortion” (Turner and Balch). The authors’ decision to appeal to common sense enables them to avoid having to provide evidence to justify their claim. The Nebraska Family Alliance Article employs a similar syntactic strategy asserting, “The simple truth remains: Abortion Harms Women” (“Abortion Harms Women”). This sentence is located at the end of the article, as a supposedly logical conclusion. This sentence structure is almost identical to the one addressed earlier from the Scientific American article that says “abortion bans cause harm,” but presents the opposite conclusion (Baran, Goldman, Zelikova). Both sentences employ simple sentence structure to mirror the supposed simplicity of the claim. The similar use of colons enables them to provide their readers with a short, memorable takeaway, appearing to sum up a much more complicated argument.
Pro-choice advocates also frame themselves as the protectors of the physical safety of women. There are many stories about women receiving unsafe abortion procedures prior to Roe v. Wade. In a blog post published on My Abortion My Life, the anonymous author describes traveling to Mexico, where catheters could be purchased without prescriptions, in order to perform a self-induced abortion. She describes the horror of the process, as “...the bleeding did begin. Heavy, heavy bleeding. Heavy cramping and pain” (Roche). Her short, concise sentences capture the reader’s attention, while the repetition of “heavy” emphasizes the intensity of the pain. The evocative language focuses the reader on her victimhood, rather than the fetus inside of her. Episode 4 of the My Abortion My Life Podcast emphasizes the idea that a “...pregnant person’s safety is paramount” and abortion bans will leave women with no choice but to perform self-managed abortions, and in turn, jeopardize their safety (“The way things…”). Braunschweiger echoes this sentiment, asserting that if abortion is prohibited “women [will] simply have abortions clandestinely, often risking their own health, and sometimes their lives” (Braunschweiger). Here, she asserts that banning abortions will not prevent them; it will just make them less safe. The word “simply” reflects her appeal to common sense, suggesting the pro-life side would be irrational to believe otherwise.
As part of the women-centered shift, not only does the pro-life side oppose abortion on the grounds of protecting a woman’s physical health, but on the grounds of protecting her mental health. In the Nebraska Family Alliance article, the author states that “The physical and mental consequences of abortion are clear,” again appealing to common sense to frame a controversial topic as clear-cut (“Abortion Harms Women”). The article cites studies that tie abortion to a myriad of psychological issues, such as alcoholism, relationship problems and child abuse, such as “more frequent slapping, hitting, kicking or biting, beating, and use of physical punishment” (“Abortion Harms Women”). The list structure of the sentence allows the author to incorporate various forms of violence, meant to overwhelm and subsequently discourage the reader from abortion and more generally, a pro-choice stance. The pro-life camp often argues that societal forces pressure women into getting abortions, often resulting in “regret as well as shock, grief, guilt, trauma, anguish, self-hatred….,” a few of the many supposed mental health issues listed, meant to dissuade women from getting abortions (Cannold 173). Further, post-abortion counseling centers established by the pro-life movement aid in convincing women that any emotional issues that emerge post-abortion are a result of the procedure (Cannold 174).
Unlike the pro-life side, which views psychological protection for women in terms of the emotional effects of undergoing an abortion, the pro-choice side often refers to psychological protection of a woman in terms of the stigma that surrounds abortion. In episode 4 of My Abortion My Life Podcast, the host and interviewee discuss the tendency for people to send in anonymous abortion stories because they don’t feel safe sharing their names. The host explains the importance of articulating what it means to “feel safe emotionally and psychologically, and the ways that “abortion stigma...prevents people from feeling safe” (“The way things...). She criticizes prohibitive legislation and anti-choice culture for contributing to the stigma, highlighting the detrimental effects on women. She ends the podcast wishing the listener “safety on this day no matter whats going on in your life” (“The way things…”). Her language makes it seem as if she is invested in the well-being of her listener, and the broadcast nature of a podcast allows her to employ an empathetic tone, mirroring her compassionate word choice. By doing this, she places the pro-choice movement on the side of safety more generally, while attempting to directly relate to the reader.
In an anonymous abortion story shared by a pro-choice woman from Ireland, the author recalls traveling to England to undergo an abortion due to restrictions in Ireland. She said that women in her position are forced “to go overseas to get their bodies back” (Madera, “It’s not just me”). This metaphor articulates the extent to which abortion bans negatively affect ones sense of self, as she describes feeling literally detached from her body. While recounting her abortion, she describes the fetus as “cells growing inside of her,” which simultaneously dehumanizes the fetus and makes her the victim of the story, as opposed to the unborn child (Madera, “It’s not just me”). She ends the story by stating that she never felt comfortable telling her friends about her abortion, highlighting the prevailing influence of abortion stigma. An interview with Leah Coplan, program director at Maine Family planning, underscores the same ideas of psychological safety, but from the position of a nurse within the reproductive healthcare industry. She explains that her clinic often serves patients from marginalized groups, who often encounter stigma when they share their desires to have an abortion. The clinicians treat the clients with dignity and respect, which she argues, is necessary for them to feel psychologically safe (Madera,“We care so much...). Her discussion of marginalized groups employs the same language as Camosy, the pro-life advocate discussed above, who both frame themselves as protectors of various vulnerable populations, beyond just the abortion debate.
Ultimately, the abortion controversy is just as much, if not more, a linguistic debate as it is a conceptual one. The language used to define the debate constructs the specific realms of negotiation within the overall argument. Both camps claim that science is on their side, and that they are advocates for the vulnerable. Similar linguistic strategies are employed on both sides in order to frame the issue in their favor. The ability to popularize certain discourse can force the opposition to accept a framework that undermines their position. This discourse which developed outside of the legal realm often pervades into court cases and directly affects the decision, shaping legal precedent and social attitudes.