Defining Life: Visual Representations of Life and the Anti-Choice Movement

I've titled this piece specifically in reference to a previous post justifying anti-choice instead of pro-life for the description of abortion right's opponents. The point of the post is to discuss a few interesting manifestations of visual rhetoric in anti-choice arguments that I've recently noticed. The visual tactics of the abortion movement have been documented well by those scholars who have come before me, especially in terms of the photographs and images of aborted and damaged fetuses as resembling born children in appearance and described action (Petchesky, 1987; Lake & Pickering, 1998; Condit, 1990). My first artifact heavily references these visual elements in equating the fetus to a baby. A new service called "3D Babies" allows for parents to upload photographs of their ultrasounds which can then be printed into a doll-like plastic sculpture.

Retrieved from 3D Babies.

These dolls reflect the argumentative tactic of representing life as starting from conception. Due to the physical resemblances of a fetus to an infant, the doll represents a visual argument for the protection of the fetus as one would protect a child. This image is described on the website as a 23-24 week old baby "measuring 8 inches from crown to rump." At 24 weeks, the fetus is nearing the end of the second trimester, so is nearly considered a viable fetus that could survive outside of the womb. Because of this, third trimester abortions are currently illegal in most countries. Consequently, abortions at this stage in the pregnancy comprise less than 1.3% of all abortions. The likelihood of a fetus looking like this doll when aborted is very low. This decision, then, is strategic in that the fetus is as far along as possible without being illegal to abort, thus appearing much like an infant. 91.8% of fetuses are aborted in the first trimester, (or less than 13 weeks) which makes their appearance closer to an embryo, only called a fetus at 12 weeks.

Retrieved from this blog

These visual choices are strategies to associate a fetus with an infant, one of the most (if not the most) vulnerable population on the planet.This is paired with cries to protect those who cannot protect themselves. The power of the visual and the associations that come from it can serve to overpower logic and the verbal by calling upon the aesthetic and the visceral. This is in part the strategy of laws that require ultrasounds before allowing access to abortions. The law provides a visual connection that the woman/mother and fetus/child share. If one sees the ultrasound images, one might be less likely to abort, directly associating the images on the screen with a potential life that cannot be avoided. The efficacy or ethics of this law could surely be debated, but the point I'm making here is the ingrained power of the visual to elicit emotion and its role as an anti-choice strategy. Facing visually one's actions is tantamount to removing agency if it clouds the judgment of agents. The intended purpose of this law is certainly to halt abortions or at least give women pause (or immense guilt). The woman, then, cannot make a personal decision of her own thought without the visual pressures of the potentially aborted fetus. The ultrasound and 3D doll images present that problem: that the fetus is a potential life, baby, and child experienced and seen as true.

The 3D doll can be purchased by whomever might want one, and I would hope that it would not be used as a persuasive tool to encroach upon agency. The larger issue for me is the laws that force the power of visuals on women making important, stressful, and life-changing decisions. Certainly images and narrative hyperbole about well developed fetuses (past the second trimester) being aborted are questionably moral actions. One cannot, however, stop them from being used in public forums, protests, and billboards. Something that should not be allowed, however, are deceptive images and unnecessary invasive practices forced upon women before receiving a potentially life-saving medical procedure.

As an informed public, scholars, and voters, we must all consider the potentially deceptive qualities of visuals and the arguments that they are making. For the ongoing abortion controversy, visuals and they employment are extremely important in helping the anti-choice movement portray women seeking abortions as murderers and masking invasive, sexist laws as protective statues. There are many intriguing documentaries about this issue, specifically as realized in America. I would particularly recommend Unborn in the USA that does directly discuss the visual strategies involved in the debate.

Levels of Visual Framing: A New Method for a New Paradigm

Framing as a theory of communication in the news media has received much attention and coverage from scholars since its inception by Erving Goffman (1974). A paradigm shift in framing studies has only recently occurred, however, as scholars are increasingly looking at the importance, salience, and enduring-power of visuals to complement and amplify the effects of verbal statements. Though there have been scholars engaged in visual framing studies (i.e., Abraham & Appiah, 2006; Borah, 2009; Brantner, Lobinger, & Wetzstein, 2011; Frosh, 2011; Geske & Brown, 2008; Lake & Pickering, 1998; Mullen, 1997; Parry, 2011), an article published last year highlights the disjointed nature of these inquiries and proposes a systematic method for analyzing and interpreting such use of visuals as a framing device (Rodriguez & Dimitrova, 2011). My review of this article will highlight the usefulness of the proposed method as evidenced by my use of the method for my final paper in Media and Politics at USC with Dr. Tom Hollihan analyzing the covers of TIME Magazine and their representation of international leaders and domestic figures during times of global conflict.

Rodriguez and Dimitrova (2011) begin by outlining modern framing literature and the steps that scholars have taken to incorporate visual framing into their analyses. Describing current visual framing studies as lacking “conceptual and methodological consistency, Rodriguez and Dimitrova outline a four-step process which I have adopted to test its benefits and drawbacks (2011). For the sake of brevity, I have included here one image to illustrate the process.

Here is an image of General MacArthur during World War II which is included in my larger paper analysis and will be the example for this post. The first step of the process is to describe in full what is in the image from the foreground, background, large items, and small detail. The second step is to describe stylistic features such as the use of color, size, camera angle, visual effects, and manipulation within the image. Level three interprets symbols and objects in the image for meanings. The final level creates an overarching and coherent narrative and interpretation of the image by combining description, stylistic elements, and symbolism.

Though this is a simple process, its clear outline and distinctive steps provides more comparative analysis between scholars than merely a description of the image or another interpretation with less structure. Although I believe this simplicity might leave some important aspects of the visual framing process lacking, this process was sufficient in providing the framework for the analysis of the TIME Magazine covers for my paper. Before I outline some possible areas of improvement, here is the analysis of General MacArthur's cover as interpreted using Rodriguez and Drimitrova's process (2011).

The cover image shows a drawn picture of General MacArthur in full military attire from the shoulders up looking off to the left. MacArthur is standing before a flag, which has a blue background with a red circle in the middle with white stars circling it and slightly puncturing its edges. His expression is one of determination and focus as he is framed by the large background of the flag. The image color scheme is that of red, white, and blue, patriotic colors framing the large and centrally featured military figure. MacArthur's flag symbolizes America with its blue background and white stars wounding and attacking the red dot of the Japanese flag in its center. His appearance in the front of the image from the shoulders up may symbolize his disposition as a statue, unwavering and strong. MacArthur is represented as a powerful, patriotic American leader and military commander who has surrounded Japan with American military might and has damaged the enemy, perhaps to the point of incapacitation. Unworried about the scene behind him, MacArthur is looking towards the future, perhaps to the next battle to be won or foe to be defeated.

This process provides a consistent description as featured above to which I compared all of the cover images selected for the paper across various conflicts, time periods, and geographic representations. One benefit of this model is thus the ability to compare images across different spaces and with different origins to one another to elicit overall patterns and schema of portrayal. Although I used only TIME covers, this process could be used to compare images from different publications, media, and sources.

The detriment I find to this method is the lack of what I believe is a necessary fifth stage. The description focuses solely on the image itself and loses much symbolic and interpretive value that could be gleaned from contextualization. I would add a fifth layer to this process by also encouraging scholars to contextualize the image, interrogate its source and purpose for being used, as well as possible historical significance, temporal events relevance, and the creator's background and agenda. Included in this fifth stage would also be insights into the political economy of the news media and how that influences image selection and manipulation.

For example, pro-life and pro-choice groups may use the same image of pregnant woman to advocate for their position, but without contextualizing the group and its message, the interpretations would be the same from Rodriguez and Dimitrova's process. Additionally, viewing an image of George W. Bush's “mission accomplished” picture may be interpreted as a patriotic, military celebration of a war's success. But knowledge of the Iraq War and its specific staging as a propaganda device (Hollihan, 2008) creates a more accurate and inclusion interpretation of the image as a comical public relations attempt to commemorate a failed invasion based on fabrication that led to scandal and mockery in the media.

These are just a few examples of when an image's source can be just as important as the image content, which is why I would offer its inclusion in importance to contemporary scholars who are interested in studying the power of visual framing.