The other side does the same thing, through its choice of words. If you side with them, you don't value human life.' People are essentially told that 'if you value human life, you must side with us. but that is the connotation implied when those opposed to abortion use the term. You won't find many people in the general public who are 'against' life. Weaver had a somewhat traditional view of rhetoric - ' addressing itself to the most important of all ends, the persuading of human beings to adopt right attitudes and act in response to them.' The sort of attitude generated by the particular use of 'ultimate words' by opposing parties in the abortion debate is not very helpful to understanding the arguments in regards to the issue.Ĭertainly nearly everybody is 'pro-life' in most circumstances.
More pointedly, there is a positive association with words like 'life' and 'choice,' and a negative with 'killing babies' and 'forced pregnancy/childbirth.' In America, there is a positive association with words like 'progress,' 'democracy,' 'freedom' and 'justice,' and a negative connotation with 'reactionary,' 'fascist' and 'militant.' Weaver's discussion of 'ultimate words' distinguishes between 'god' terms and 'devil' terms. 'Ultimate words' are used to direct our passions toward favoring one side or another to shape the way we look at the subject.īoth sides of the abortion debate use loaded language, which doesn't help to move our passions in the way that a responsible rhetorician should. These terms are 'ultimate words,' according to Richard Weaver, one of the preeminent rhetorical ethicists of the century. Abortion rights is the battle between 'pro-life' vs 'pro-choice.' In only one contemporary debate is there a situation where one issue has two conflicting 'pro' sides. When two sides are in direct dispute over a topic, their stance is often labeled appropriately: pro-war vs anti-war pro-gay marriage vs anti-gay marriage.
0 kommentar(er)
