Rhetoric of Social Issues

I’ve always found it rather unique the way conservatives and liberals respectively present their views on very sensitive social issues. The two ideological groups certainly talking about different things, but they present the issue in completely different ways to appeal to the voters.

Regardless of political persuasion, there is no denying that one of the most hot-button social issue of the day is birth control coupled with abortion. I’m a little nervous about coupling birth control and abortion because I think it’s easy for people to simply view abortion as a means of birth control, and ignored the multitude of reasons women or couples may seek this option.   In many ways, when I consider the differences in the way conservatives and liberal present their views on these issues, I find it relatively hard to remember they’re the discussing the same topic.

To begin, conservative views of social issues are usually swayed by largely traditional religious influence. The same religious and traditionalist argument is used to validate the conservative notion in deny gays equal rights. In turn, conservatives view the use of birth control or abortion as a means of defying God’s will, and in both circumstances denying or taking life. Regarding birth control specifically, conservatives use the rhetoric that conveys the idea that family planning and means of restricting birth are defying the almighty. This of course largely appeals to the pathos and logos of individuals of a similar conviction. It is never seen that a staunchly conservative figure concedes on the fact that birth control is widely used to prevent disease, as abstinence is widely supported. In many ways, you can’t argue with the fact that if you’re not having sex you won’t catch something, or you won’t get knocked up, but realistically, abstinence is hardly the answer. The Guttmacher Institute regards premarital sex universal in the US, and has been for numerous decades. It is also rarely mentioned that women might use birth control to simply regulate biological functions, regardless of sexual activity. Of course, this religiously fueled rhetoric directly resonates with religious Americans that agree that birth control denies God’s will, and should not be left up to mere mortals to decide the fate of a life.

Liberals, on the other hand, capitalize largely on the fact that denying individual the right to use birth control is directly an impedance of personal freedom. Much like the rhetorical appeal of the conservative argument, this resonates with a sympathetic voter’s pathos and logos. This would largely resonate with men and women that are sexually active that hope to protect themselves from diseases and prevent unwanted pregnancy. It also resonates with advocates for women’s rights that argue the right to choose to regulate one’s own body should be unquestionable.

In case you couldn’t tell I’m extremely liberal in my political views on social issues, and I’m of the belief that denying people the right to birth control is a direct attack on personal freedom. I just can’t reconcile my views on the necessity of separation of church and state to be sympathetic of the conservatives’ justification of denying rights because it flies in the face of a certain groups’ religious beliefs. However, I can also recognize that the liberal view on birth control could be difficult for the majority to align with, because it fails to address religious beliefs, and in being honest with ourselves, the majority of people are dedicated to some kind of religious belief.  Again, I am of the opinion that our government has the duty to protect minority interests, and the moral majority certainly doesn’t have the right to dictate actions of the individual based on a religious conviction.

Again, it seems to me that the two ideological groups use such different justifications in their arguments and use such different tactics to appeal to voters that it creates a sort of no-man’s-land for more moderate voters, as there’s no rhetoric that targets the middle ground.