I've waited some time to weight in on the "RU486" debacle, mostly because I've had far too much real life to get on with. But it came up in the news again yesterday, so it stirred up a few thoughts I had a while ago.
My opinion isn't really what I'm here to talk about; what was striking around the time of the debate was how rapidly people opposed to the drug moved to reframe the argument in their own terms. Change the playing field, so to speak. You didn't have to listen very carefully to notice that those in opposition to the drug quickly moved the argument from whether or not a particular drug for a legal procedure (abortion) should be allowed, into whether or not abortion was "right".
Let's get this straight out in the open. I'm going to admit all editorial bias; I'm in favour of the blanket veto being removed, and the drug being assessed by a suitable medical committee.
There are two points to remember;
1) Abortion is legal.
2) This drug provides a way for making abortion less physically and emotionally traumatic for women.
Given these points, it is difficult to argue against. However, if we reframe the argument, we are left with;
1) Should abortion be legal?
2) Will this drug make abortion "too easy"?
The reframed argument removes or questions the assumptions made previously, as if there is little or no truth to them. Presented as questions they engage the audience, whereas statements (earlier) often feel like orders. If you can reframe the argument in your own terms then you can significantly skew the playing field, which goes a long way to explaining how a seemingly obvious resolution took so long to acheive.
1 comment:
You are spot on: the issue should not be over the legitimacy of abortion but over the efficacy of this particular drug. So long as the legitimation of RU486 is in the hands of clerics and other non-medical professionals, we can be assured that a valid consensus will never be reached.
Post a Comment