Tuesday, July 17, 2012

When Words Are Iffy

Why let facts get in the way of some good propaganda?


Here’s what progressives need to do: Never use the Cells Are People metaphor, even in arguing against conservative policy. Never use the term baby or unborn child to refer to a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus.

Stop using the term abortion. It has misleading properties. When we speak of “aborting a mission,” the mission was intentional and planned, and the original idea was to bring it to an end state. What happens with an unwelcome pregnancy is nothing like this. The pregnancy was not intentional, not planned, and there was never any intention of bringing it to an end state. Rather, what is desired is development prevention, keeping any development from happening. That development can be prevented at many stages, from unfertilized cells (via morning-after pills), to blastocyst to embryo, from embryo to fetus, from fetus to a non-fully-formed-human, to an unviable human (one that can’t live outside the womb). The earlier the development prevention, the better for the woman.

Never use the expression partial birth abortion. It’s a conservative political tool, not a medical reality. Here’s the Texas GOP in its 2012 platform: “We oppose partial birth abortion.” The term was invented by a hired, conservative language professional. The image is grisly, and that was the point. But no such thing exists. The medical condition it is supposed to represent is one where a potential child cannot survive, either because it has no brain, or because of some other equally awful condition. And usually, the mother’s life is at risk. This has nothing to do with either giving birth or with more common reasons for preventing development.

Whenever possible, avoid the term morning-after pill. It evokes a prototypical frame of immoral behavior, bad decision-making, the inability to “just say no” at a party or during a date. It excludes the fact that the treatment can help rape victims prevent development, be used in cases where other birth control methods failed, and so on.

Never evoke the Consumer Frame. It has been introduced to the debate by the term Pro-Choice, and is now used everywhere. For example, in the GOP’s 2012 platform, where a decision for development prevention is labeled as a woman ordering an abortion, as if she were shopping. The frame hides the fact that such decisions are never made easily and are commonly made by men and women, and often their families, together.


Yes, about all of those things....


Blastocysts:

Definition of a blastocyst:

  • An embryo which has developed to the point of having 2 different cell components and a fluid cavity
  • Human embryos from in vitro fertilization in culture in an IVF lab, or developing naturally in the body, usually reach blastocyst stage by day 5 after fertilization


(Sidebar: by the same people who make money making designer babies, too. Hhmmm...)



Embryo and fetus:


The embryonic period in humans begins at fertilization (penetration of the egg by the sperm) and continues until the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week by embryonic age). ...


The fetal period begins at the end of the 10th week of gestation (8th week of development). Since the precursors of all the major organs are created by this time, the fetal period is described both by organ and by a list of changes by weeks of gestational age.


Yes, scientific terms can be baffling if people don't look them up, like immediate postprandial upper abdominal distention . Let's hope the preferred audience is either illiterate or so dyed in the wool they wouldn't believe rain is wet, either, or that "development prevention" is an ultra-fancy word for birth control with that pesky word "birth" in there.



"Partial birth abortion" is an accurate description given that:


The abortion practitioner instrumentally reaches into the uterus, grasps the fetus' feet, and pulls the feet down into the cervix. The reason this is done is not as a medical necessity, but to avoid actually birthing the baby. If the baby were fully born, killing it would be considered murder. The fetus is then pulled down the birth canal until it has been entirely birthed except the head. Surgical scissors are forced into the base of the fetal skull while the fetus is lodged in the birth canal. This blind procedure risks maternal injury from laceration of the uterus or cervix by the scissors and could result in severe bleeding and the threat of shock or even maternal death. A suction apparatus is introduced into the hole in the base of the skull and the fetus' brains are removed through aspiration. The baby is then born dead. The entire procedure is performed on the fetus without the use of anesthesia even though it is clearly capable of feeling pain (studies have shown that the ability to feel pain begins early in the second trimester.

And:

James T. McMahon, MD, of Los Angeles, CA, in detailing for the US Congress his experience with more than 2000 partial-birth abortion procedures stated that only 9% of those involved maternal health indications (of which the most common was depression).In fact, the insertion of instruments into the uterus is not without risks, since 1 out of 6,000 of these kinds of procedures results in the death of the mother (death from childbirth is 1 out of 13,000).


What does a potential child look like? How can such a being be defined? Does he have eyes, legs, arms, a stomach and jam hands?



The term "consumer frame" is rather apt description seeing as abortion is an industry. Planned Parenthood receives federal funding and pulled in $18.5 million for 2009-2010. Whatever did Planned Parenthood do with that 18.5 million, aside from lobbying and referring women elsewhere for mammograms? Could they or any other organisation have had family counseling sessions for pregnant customers?


I'm Under 18, Can I Have an Abortion Without my Parents' Consent?

The answer to this varies from state to state. Few states, including California, allow minors (people under 18) to obtain an abortion without parental consent or notification. However, most states require parental consent, notification or permission from a judge (known as "judicial bypass").

My State Requires my Parents' Consent, Can I Get an Abortion in Another State Where Parental Consent is Not Necessary?

You can go to another state where you do not live to get an abortion, but due to laws about minors crossing state lines, it is advisable to travel with an older sibling, grandparent, or aunt. ...

Do I Have to Tell the Father of the Fetus That I Want an Abortion?

The father need not be told anything at all. The decision is completely up to the pregnant teenager.

Does the Father of the Fetus Have Any Say in My Decision to Have an Abortion?

The father has no say in decision-making. The decision is completely up to the pregnant teenager. The father's consent is unnecessary and he has no right to be notified.
  




But I thought families made these decisions together.



Like I said, why let facts get in the way of some good propaganda?


10 comments:

balbulican said...

"Why let facts get in the way of some good propaganda?"

Exactly.

Some might say claiming a pro-life pamphlet had been banned in Auckland when no such ban had occurred, for example, is dishonest. But if it's useful propaganda, why let facts get in the way?

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

One might say more accurately the pro-life group- and its pamphlets- were a hairsbreadth from being banned until voted otherwise. That people have to appeal to the freedom of speech we all enjoy when that should be apparent is quite indicative of a mindset that says one group is alright but not the other.

If you've read the article from the Huffington Post, explain why the writers warned its readers NOT to use certain words. Why warn? They said quite rightly that using words and terms like 'unborn baby' and 'partial birth abortion' give very disturbing pictures of abortion's nature. The entire article was an exercise in logical obscurity.

I've read your pro-abortion position- the use of the term "anti-choice" to connote that ANY opposition to abortion is immediately robbing women (the convenient born pawns) of their rights- and your inexplicable and insufferable insistences that pro-life bloggers are disingenuous- and I know exactly how any discussion would go. Very much like your response to this post. I could give you an economic argument against abortion and you would conclude that everything was utterly wrong.

Be dyed in the wool if you want. You're the one stuck in the proverbial mud.

balbulican said...

My dear boy, no need to get huffy. Our mutual friend made a claim that turned out to be dead wrong. As a blogger with a particular fondness for demanding "proof", I'm astonished you didn't catch that yourself. I must say, I'm a bit surprised that no-one over there is thanking me for helping to prevent the spread of a falsehood. Sniff.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

This girl does not care for your smug, arrogant, dismissive and elitist tone. Can it. Now.

I know you like thinking that everyone you respond to is the intellectual equivalent of an amoeba but that's the reason why you avoid blogs and threads where people challenge you and your smarmy tone.

YOU are the one who missed the obvious intent of the Huffington Post article but seeing as you engage such dissonance yourself, it's not surprising. Any attempt to discredit anyone with whom you disagree ends up with several fingers pointing back at you asking why you would rather chew off your arm than answer questions directed at you.

balbulican said...

Darn. And I've worked so hard to perfect the smug, arrogant, dismissive elitist tone. You don't like it? (I think you missed "effete", by the way - that's definitely supposed to be part of the mix.)

Well, to respond more simply - SUZANNE published a lie, she got caught, she's furious and she's squirming, and you're throwing up enraged nonsense in her defense.

I'm not sure what site you think I'm avoiding. I usually keep a couple of conservative sites on my daily list as a kind of scratching post, but frankly, there aren't any where the blog culture supports intelligent exchange. SDA and Free Dominion are appalling echo chambers, Right Girl appears to have gone insane, Shaidle doesn't allow comments, Arnie has banned me. Suggestions?

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Yes, I know you've worked hard for your tone, the very one that gets you hammered in "echo chambers" like Small Dead Animals and the like. You can ask Blazing Cat Fur for mercy- I mean- comments but you won't.

Suzanne published what she published. She could publish a post that rain is wet and you would still find a problem with it. You didn't tell me why the university would take an anonymous phone call more seriously than a pamphlet freely handed out but whatever. It was over a pamphlet and without the group, no pamphlet. That math was easy.

You're attempting to deride Suzanne at every turn. She isn't a journalist but just a 'silly housewife' (that's exactly what you, Janus, Aging Hippy Chick et al think). That she ISN'T a journalist makes her ten million times more credible than anyone working at the CBC.

You could always stop trolling at her blog if her lack of credentials bother you so much.

balbulican said...

"the very one that gets you hammered in "echo chambers" like Small Dead Animals and the like."

Heh. I think the degree to which I get "hammered" depends on how the observer judges the quality of an exchange on a blog discussion. For some, the criterion is quality of information and degree of reason used in the support of position. To others, it's the loudest yelling or the ability to pull a discussion off topic.

I've had my facts challenged by a few conservative bloggers who were correct, and when that happens, I try to acknowledge it.

As for the tone - we're bloggers. I assume in real life you're not the perpetual rage and distraction machine your blogging persona adopts, and I'm not the perpetually snotty asshole represented by "balbulican".

"You can ask Blazing Cat Fur for mercy- I mean- comments but you won't."

No, I won't. As a blogger he has about three ideas, endlessly recycled, and his rebuttals, when I was still commenting there, were without substance or interest. Shaidle's site would be fun to post on - she's a better writer and thinker, with a wider range of interests - but she doesn't allow comments.

"Suzanne published what she published."

Yep, she did, and got called on misstatement. That's the nature of blogging.

"She could publish a post that rain is wet and you would still find a problem with it."

Wrong, but I can see why it might look that way. Fact is, she seems like a perfectly nice person, and I usually don't comment when I agree with what she's saying. Maybe I should.

"You didn't tell me... That math was easy."

Once again, I made no statement of any kind about the phone call you keep talking about. If the person had a beef with the pamphlet, they were right to call: the University appears to have investigated and mandated the organization to continue, and that seems to have been the right decision as well (based on my limited knowledge of their activities). I think you must be asking me to respond to something I didn't say: what I did say was quite simple.

'She isn't a journalist but just a 'silly housewife' (that's exactly what you, Janus, Aging Hippy Chick et al think)."

I can't speak for the others you cite (I don't know them) but I don't think of her as a "silly housewife" - I think you're making assumptions about me based on some of your own preconceptions about leftists. My mom and two of my sisters were/are housewives and homemakers full time. It's an honourable profession, one of the most honourable, and I have never mocked it.

I've noted that ideologues on the right AND on the left don't like journalists very much, and love to proclaim blogdom as the "new journalism". In my opinion, the thread about Auckland exemplifies quite perfectly the difference between the profession of journalism and the practice of propaganda.

"You could always stop trolling at her blog if her lack of credentials bother you so much."

Her lack of credentials bothers me not at all, although when people who have never practiced journalism claim to be authorities on the subject, I will comment for sure. AS for my "trolling" - it's regrettable that you're using that as a synonym for disagreement.

Anyway, if you step down the truculence a little, I'll try to step down the arrogance. It might make for better discussion.

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

Why exactly are you flooding this thread with endless diatribe? It's long-winded, riddled with redundant verbiage and is saying the same things over again.

balbulican said...

Now, now. Civility begets civility. Perhaps your diet of blogs has numbed your literary palate to the subtleties of discursive nuance?

But if you're truly concerned about repetitiveness, may I note that your phrase "riddled with redundant verbiage and saying the same things over and over" commits precisely the error of which it complains?

Osumashi Kinyobe said...

That tone is precisely why this thread is closed.

Come back when you're not a jerk.