Please first watch this 5 minute video of this rather articulate 12 year old girl, Lia, on the issue of abortion.
Lia is a 12 year old girl who entered a speech competition in the 7th grade with some corageous determination to tackle the topic of abortion. Lia was almost disqualified from the competition for bias in her topic of choice, but her eloquency won her teacher over. Lia’s speech even brought debate among the judges of the competition and once again they almost disqualified her, but she ended up being the winner overall.
I want to analyze Lia’s speech through the method of Ideology and framework. I believe that Lia is using her own personal ideologies to persuade her audience. I want to first point out all of the beliefs, ideas, concepts, assumptions, and arguments Lia presents in her speech. Because of her young age there are a few different ways these ideologies could have presented themselves to Lia. Her parents could have subjected or overwhelmed Lia with their own thoughts and beliefs about abortion, or perhaps Lia was curious at a young age and engaged herself in the topic. However, it is evident that her ideologies control her thought process and decision making.
Let’s start with deciphering the rhetorical elements (images, terms, metaphors, examples):
someone else chooses
life vs. death
Not based on actions
fetus = uncapable/hopeless
image of 115,000 unborn fetuses a day
mother = decision maker
choice = abortion
lives gone, potential gone, future gone
unjust actions
our business
rights – responsibility
unprotected sex is bad
abortion is bad
rape abortions are uncommon
abortion is an easy way out
abortion causes mood disorders/suicide
abortion = lost/uncertainty
abortion causes alcohol and drug abuse
Rhetorical elements presented that focus on PRO Choice:
abortion NOT = killing
fetus NOT = a child
talking/thinking = human being
5 months = not human
humans = wanted individuals
Abortion is legal
abortion = the cure all
We can then categorize these presented elements into suggested themes, allusions, or concepts. Foss says that at this step “you can identify the meanings suggested by the elements that will serve as the basis for ideological tenets.”
Suggested Elements:
*Life starts at conception
*Abortion is harmful and not an easy way out
*There are consequences for our actions
*Responsibility
*A bad life is better than no life
*unborn fetuses are usually unwanted
*There should be NO choice
*Unborn child has no voice
*Life is a treasure
*Abortion is killing
*Those who have abortions are killers
The third step as presented by Foss is taking these elements both presented and suggested and organizing them into a coherent framework for this particular ideology. Where are there major clusters of ideas or characteristics. This is where you can start to answer some questions about the ideology framework by using the suggested elements.
The ultimate value that informs this movement (anti-abortion movement) is the value of life. Those who do not support abortion believe that any life is better than no life at all, and that life should be protected by us as a people and by our government. Those who value life and are against abortion usually suggest that they value abstinence or at the very least protected sex. However, abstinence is a concept that has dwindled to a very small group of people. Thus, I would suspect that most people who value life and whose beliefs are that abortion is a sin do not wait to have sex after marriage.
Additionally, this video and the anti-abortion movement do not take into account the values or interests of the other group. Pro-abortionist are rejected and marginalized in this video. The little girl presents those who have abortions and support abortions as all being “bad” people, who make “bad” choices, and who are essentially murders.
The little girl tries to rely on religious ideals and social responsibility to inform the movement. It is God’s child that you kill when having an abortion and getting pregnant is a consequence of being irresponsible.
She is implementing the idea that it is not necessarily the government’s role to alter the legalization of abortion, but our duty as human beings to not kill other human beings.
She also employs a narrative in her speech to inform her position. She presents the narrative of a young woman who had an abortion at 17, who then had a difficult time getting pregnant later in life. This young woman is an example of the “regret” many feel for having an abortion. Lia uses this narrative to support her ideology that abortions are mistakes that can’t be undone. However, we can learn from these narratives and stop/lower the rate of abortions.
I have many questions concerning this video, as well. I am really interested in how this video would come across if it was an adult speaking and not a child. Does the child appeal more emotionally to us than an adult would? I think so. I think the fact that it is a child speaking about her “beliefs” on such a serious topic probably makes each viewer take a step back and rethink their ideologies. Because if this young girl who is so passionate about this holds these ideologies, why don’t I? There is a problem with this though. If the speaker were an adult, would we have more respect for them? Thus, would an adult speaker (and even a step further – a politician) give a higher level of ethos to the speech being given? Does the fact that this little girl is speaking turn viewers off because it seems unrealistic, childish, less thought out, or ill-researched? All questions i think would be interesting to discuss.