Ideographic usage of "choice" in contemporary abortion rhetoric

Abstract

This work explores the emergence and evolution of the rhetoric choice rhetoric as it pertains to contemporary American abortion politics. <Choice> is explored from an ideographic perspective, borrowing from the theoretical framework for ideographic rhetorical criticism established by Michael Calvin McGee. The analysis begins with a diachronic analysis of the emergence of the ideograph of <choice> within the law with an investigation of the written decisions in four Supreme Court cases central to the construction of the right to choose: Roe v. Wade (1973), Maher v. Roe (1977), Harris v. McRae (1980), and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). This investigation reveals a synchronic relationship between <choice> and another higher order ideograph, <liberty>. The criticism continues with an investigation of the usage of <choice> by pro-choice advocates in two documents published by NARAL Pro-Choice America, Choices: Women Speak About Abortion is a collection of women's narratives about their experiences obtaining an abortion, and Breaking Barriers, a guide for the development and implementation of proactive policy campaigns for pro-choice advocates. McGee's method is employed to investigate the ideographic usage of <choice> within these documents, revealing the ideographic abstraction that associates the alleged idea content of ideographs. This ideographic analysis reveals the inability of <choice> to live up to its alleged idea content as a result of the limitations inherent in the grounding of <choice> within the higher order ideograph of <liberty> and the impact of these limitations on particular populations, mainly indigent women in the United States.