Donning Sackcloth and Ashes: Webster v. reproductive health services and moral agony in abortion rights rhetoric

This essay argues that the topos of moral agony adopted by some abortion rights rhetors in the wake of Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services to allay public discomfort with abortion is rhetorically and politically self‐defeating. Resembling Kenneth Burke's purifying concept of mortification, the strategy lends tacit support to the opposition premise that women recognize abortion terminates the life of a human being. Moreover, to mitigate the guilty cast of the topos' reluctant testimony, these rhetors couched moral anguish in atypical tales of tragic circumstances and unattainable motherhood. Such framing likewise legitimizes important opposition premises regarding women's roles and promotes serious compromises to legal abortion.

Key concepts:

• Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services
• abortion rights rhetoric
• antiabortion rhetoric
• Kenneth Burke
• mortification
• moral agony
• order
• guilt
• entelechy