schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions

Background The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative s... Full description

Journal Title: Reproductive Health 2017, Vol.14
Main Author: Mustonen, Anne-Mari
Other Authors: Paakkonen, Tommi , Ryökäs, Esko , Nieminen, Petteri
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language:
Subjects:
ID: E-ISSN: 1742-4755 ; DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0418-y ; PMCID: 5712170 ; PMID: 29197399
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: pubmed_central5712170
title: Abortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions
format: Article
creator:
  • Mustonen, Anne-Mari
  • Paakkonen, Tommi
  • Ryökäs, Esko
  • Nieminen, Petteri
subjects:
  • Research
  • Argumentation
  • Confirmation Bias
  • Experiential Thinking
  • Fallacy
  • Induced Abortion
  • Narrative
  • Political Rhetoric
  • Testimonial
ispartof: Reproductive Health, 2017, Vol.14
description: Background The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion. Methods The content of Finnish and Irish texts ( n  = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates. Results The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences. Conclusions The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.
language:
source:
identifier: E-ISSN: 1742-4755 ; DOI: 10.1186/s12978-017-0418-y ; PMCID: 5712170 ; PMID: 29197399
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 1742-4755
  • 17424755
url: Link


@attributes
ID10350523
RANK0.07
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourcerecordid5712170
sourceidpubmed_central
recordidTN_pubmed_central5712170
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
pqid1972305175
galeid517090870
display
typearticle
titleAbortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions
creatorMustonen, Anne-Mari ; Paakkonen, Tommi ; Ryökäs, Esko ; Nieminen, Petteri
ispartofReproductive Health, 2017, Vol.14
identifier
subjectResearch ; Argumentation ; Confirmation Bias ; Experiential Thinking ; Fallacy ; Induced Abortion ; Narrative ; Political Rhetoric ; Testimonial
descriptionBackground The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion. Methods The content of Finnish and Irish texts ( n  = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates. Results The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences. Conclusions The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.
source
version6
lds50peer_reviewed
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
search
creatorcontrib
0Mustonen, Anne-Mari
1Paakkonen, Tommi
2Ryökäs, Esko
3Nieminen, Petteri
titleAbortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions
descriptionBackground The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion. Methods The content of Finnish and Irish texts ( n  = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates. Results The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences. Conclusions The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.
subject
0Research
1Argumentation
2Confirmation bias
3Experiential thinking
4Fallacy
5Induced abortion
6Narrative
7Political rhetoric
8Testimonial
general
029197399
15712170
210.1186/s12978-017-0418-y
3PMC (PubMed Central)
sourceidpubmed_central
recordidpubmed_central5712170
issn
01742-4755
117424755
rsrctypearticle
creationdate2017
addtitleReproductive Health
searchscopepubmed_central
scopepubmed_central
lsr30VSR-Enriched:[pqid, pages, galeid, issue]
sort
titleAbortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions
authorMustonen, Anne-Mari ; Paakkonen, Tommi ; Ryökäs, Esko ; Nieminen, Petteri
creationdate20171202
facets
frbrgroupid2278720349015835151
frbrtype5
newrecords20171213
creationdate2017
topic
0Research
1Argumentation
2Confirmation Bias
3Experiential Thinking
4Fallacy
5Induced Abortion
6Narrative
7Political Rhetoric
8Testimonial
collectionPMC (PubMed Central)
prefilterarticles
rsrctypearticles
creatorcontrib
0Mustonen, Anne-Mari
1Paakkonen, Tommi
2Ryökäs, Esko
3Nieminen, Petteri
jtitleReproductive Health
toplevelpeer_reviewed
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
aulast
0Mustonen
1Paakkonen
2Ryökäs
3Nieminen
aufirst
0Anne-Mari
1Tommi
2Esko
3Petteri
au
0Mustonen, Anne-Mari
1Paakkonen, Tommi
2Ryökäs, Esko
3Nieminen, Petteri
atitleAbortion debates in Finland and the Republic of Ireland: textual analysis of experiential thinking and argumentation in parliamentary and layperson discussions
jtitleReproductive Health
risdate20171202
volume14
eissn1742-4755
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
abstractBackground The ethical discussion about abortion has been polarized in Finland and the Republic of Ireland, two European countries with very different abortion legislation (liberal vs. highly restrictive). The aim of the present study was to analyze experiential thinking patterns and argumentative strategies in political and layperson debates regarding induced abortion. Methods The content of Finnish and Irish texts ( n  = 493), consisting of transcripts of parliamentary debates and online texts, such as blogs, was analyzed systematically. The texts were investigated for the aspects of experiential thinking, for selected argumentative moves and for any differences in the prevalence of these features between countries or between political vs. layperson debates. Results The Finnish and Irish discussions about induced abortion relied heavily on experiential thinking patterns and emotionally laden arguments instead of objective research data. This was evident in the very high prevalence of testimonials, narratives, loaded language and appeals to emotion in both political and layperson debates regardless of the country or the debater's position on abortion issue. Research data that did not support the position of the debater were relatively often omitted by confirmation bias. The Irish debaters appealed to popularity more often than the Finnish ones, while magical/religious thinking was mainly observed in the Finnish layperson discussion. The national history and the prevailing cultural and religious atmosphere of the two countries could explain these differences. Conclusions The abortion debate mostly reinforces the opinions of one's peer group rather than convinces the opposite party to change their position. The stalemate and continuation of the same arguments being repeated could be associated with experiential thinking and emotional argumentative strategies in both political and layperson debates.
pubBioMed Central
doi10.1186/s12978-017-0418-y
pmid29197399
pages163
issue1
oafree_for_read
date2017-12-02