Disparate Framing of Political Debate on Sensitive Issues

When I hear various political issues brought up in the media, the two main opposing sides of the debate will usually frame it in entirely different ways.  Often the two sides will engage in a verbal dance of sorts, with neither side coming to grips with what the other is actually saying.  One such recurring pattern to political debates is what I call the "rights vs. funding" argument.  Take an issue in which one side, usually on the political left (but not always), is pushing for what it perceives as a basic right to be promoted and recognized by society and law.  Without necessarily attacking the issue head-on, I often see the opponents of such efforts (usually on the political right) instead attacking the notion that, once a "right" has been established, then the party whose "right" needs to be respected has the "right" to expect others in society to subsidize their exercise of it...through government mandates and taxation.  This is especially true regarding anything that falls under the umbrella of "medical" or "health" care.  If you have a certain "right" that involves going to the doctor or pharmacy, then for some reason everyone in society is now obligated to collectively pay for your exercise of said "right", even if what you are doing is an elective choice and not medically necessary. From what I see, the main justification for the argument of government (and, ultimately, the taxpayer) stepping in to pay is that by not doing so, those in society who don't have enough money are in a disadvantageous position and that this makes things unfair...so we all have to pitch in.
   
So with issues like abortion or birth control, the left will argue about the right of people, especially women, to be able to freely make reproductive choices in their lives...which they say is none of the government's business, much less anyone else.  At the same time, the right will counter-argue that just because someone has a choice, that doesn't give them the right to make everyone else pay for it through the government.

Naturally, there are some very serious ethical, moral, and religious issues concerning abortion and birth control.  Those supporting choice and open access to birth control will argue that it is a matter of privacy and others should mind their own business while at the same time use the "inequality" issue to argue that the very same people who are supposed to mind their own business and respect their private choices have to fund those choices.  But the left will argue about restrictive laws and the closing of abortion clinics while the right will argue about making people pay through the government for what many of them see as the immoral behavior of others.

I see a similar pattern of argumentation when it comes to the issue of illegal immigration.  Proponents of the more liberal reform measures will argue that this is both a human and civil rights issue, while the more conservative viewpoints stress that others (namely, those already legally here) should not have to pay for what was obviously an elective, willful choice of people to flout the law and cross the border illegally.  Here again is the disparate framing.

I think I'm going to keep a separate little journal along my side whenever I watch C-Span (showing US House of Representatives proceedings) or C-Span2 (showing the US Senate) during the next year.  It will be interesting to see the different angles of the debates going on regarding various issues that the two sides take...along with their justifying arguments...and see how many of them focus on "rights" vs "funding"...