The Abortion Question: Framing and Begging it
February 4th, 2009 by Nick SaintFeministe has a terrific set of contrasting photos up today:
George Bush signs the partial-birth abortion ban into law while old white guys cackle their approval
Barack Obama does his best to become unphotogenic in solidarity with the witnesses to his signing of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
Feministe introduces these photos thus: “Two of the most important women’s-rights-related bill-signings in the past few years.” There is certainly a drastic difference in terms of politics and image control. Leaving all substance aside, it’s just plain foolish to have as the image of your anti-abortion legislation a group of smirking people for whom abortion has never been an anatomical possibility. Meanwhile, Obama’s photo - no doubt taken just before or after the singing of “Kumbaya” - is not aesthetically my cup of tea, but the politics are just about right.
On the other hand, the description of abortion as a “women’s rights issue”* is a particularly obnoxious manifestation of an odd feature of the abortion debate wherein each side frames the issue in a way that assumes the correctness of its position. There is evidence of this question begging in the very names these movements use to describe themselves. One side is “pro-choice” because a woman should have the choice to do what she wants to with her own body (except exposing it to recreational drugs or trans-fats), while the other is “pro-life” because taking lives is wrong (unless the government does it to convicts or foreigners). This is childish all around: almost everyone involved agrees killing babies should be illegal, and that having bits of ones body removed shouldn’t be. Republicans to not object to object to liposuction; Democrats don’t throw their babies to the wolves for crying too much. The difficulty is that while 99.999% of the objects we come across can easily be categorized as “human” or “other”, there are tricky cases. Most of them sort themselves out, one way or the other, within about nine months, but they cause all sorts of trouble in the meantime.
A lot of people feel very strongly about how these problem blobs should be categorized. Good for them. But assuming that everyone else agrees isn’t a helpful first step in discussing the issue.
* I realize that Feministe uses the weaker “womens’[sic]-rights-related”, which is definitely a little less controversial. Two things:
1.) I’m not really worried about this particular post. People often do call abortion a “women’s rights issue”. This post had some neat pictures and reminded me of that irritating fact.
2.) Someone who thinks that abortion is the taking of a human life might concede that the debate over its legality is related to women’s rights, but they would no doubt think it was a pretty insignificant relation. Not assuming one position or the other is the whole point of this exercise.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
There’s all kinds of things about those photos that I relate to.
Bush’s signing is on some kind of stage, apparently. And he loves the country so much, he’s got SIX flags - I guess they wear out pretty fast from all that admiration! Then, of course, the picture is from a distance - we’re not part of this decision (about abortion or about anything else in his secretive administration). And, of course, it is a bunch of old white guys, stuffed suits standing on their ‘mark’ and emoting as best they can.
And, of course, with Obama, it’s all the opposite and teh awesome!