Mostly Unbias

I thought this was a very well done movie, but like you I did notice that it did lean a little bit towards the pro-choice side. However, it did have some moments that definitely could make a pro-choice person think about things, and I am a pro-choice person saying that.

Personally I never take offense to anyone trying to convert me to pro-life, as long as they don't spout off about how I am evil and how I am going to hell. As you say, those arguments are counter-productive. I tend to fall into the camp of the guy in the movie that suggested that the reason that abortion is so big of an issue is because people on both sides are presented arguments that by themselves are "right."

I personally do not think that all pro-lifers are stupid. They believe in something and they are passionate about it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that until you pick up a gun or a bomb and start killing doctors, then you have crossed the line. However, those are a minority of the pro-life population. Saying that all pro-lifers are like that though is like saying that all muslims are terrorists, either is just a stupid and ignorant statement.

I applaud you for presenting your argument intelligently and not just blasting pro-choicers about how they are going to hell.

------------
My EAC Profile: http://everyonesacritic.net/userprofile.asp?userid=3575

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My issue is that these people are very passionate about this topic, but don't appear/show passionate about the genocide of adults/babies/women/children in other nations. Or support a government which causes thousands of deaths for made up reasons. You should be as equally passionate about those.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

My only critique would be that used many highly notarized pro-choice intellects (such as Noam Choamsky[sic]), whereas he used mostly Extreme right-winged pro-life hicks...

...I do appluad[sic] him for having the guts to show an abortion, and the bits of unborn babies. The way is showed how human the fetus is, was in my mind the strongest case the pro-life had.

Why would you need an intellectual? The anti-abortionist's "strongest case" is to show "bits of" fetuses to show "how human" (whatever that means) it is. It's unstandable to feel emotion because a fetus has human features, most of us feel empathy towards others. As an argument it is complete fallacy, it is dishonest, and pathetic.

reply share

add reply

formatting help

[deleted]

I think given the challenging nature of the images in this film, it would be difficult to say that it is biased one way or the other. If there is a lack of representation of supposed intellectuals on the anti-abortion side, I would say that bias is present in mainstream media as well because I've certainly never seen them presented anywhere.

As an innate advocate of choice, I felt obliged to endure this film as I have others that have been shown recently in the UK (Dispatches, Abortion: What We Need To Know aired on C4 last October). I think what I find insulting about these films and their use of often harrowing imagery - which, make no mistake, is perfectly legitimate here - would be the implication that advocates of choice, people who believe in a woman's right to control her own body, those who believe in the primacy of the host body, etc., are somehow ignorant to the visceral reality of a surgical procedure. As if a person could actually advocate a woman's right to proper medical care without any clue as to what that might actually require. Or even the idea that any surgical procedure - even a long, laborious birth itself - could be made to look pretty. The termination depicted at the beginning of the film is at five months, halfway through the second trimester; the termination at the end of the film is very early in the first trimester. Of course, the only difference, primarily, is visual. The truth of both situations and others like them is that yes, our actions have consequences; and like any actions that stem from interaction with others, whether the interaction is sexual or criminal in nature (to name just two possibilities), when the consequences are challenging or difficult to endure they often give pause for thought, reflection and, hopefully, emotional release. Lake of Fire, as is fitting of its subject matter, is an intense film; the idea that the procedures depicted should be any less intense than they are is just naive. No one - except those who are anti-abortion - thinks that abortion should be a more pleasant procedure than what it is, however, the acknowledgement that it is, by its very nature, an intense experience is certainly not reason enough to abolish its availability as a legitimate medical procedure in women's health care. Open heart surgery, even most plastic surgery and birth itself is intense.

Far more shocking are the stills from the execution-like crime scenes - one wonders if the supposed intellectuals on the anti-abortion side were willing to comment on this events or, as other contributers stated, were more than willing to turn a blind eye to these appalling murders because they furthered their cause. It's hard to imagine that intellectuals actually exist who could support the opposition's argument since even outside of Kaye's film the anti-abortion argument has always been full of fire, brimstone and total propaganda right down to a basic dishonesty of purpose.

Kaye's film and others like it are well worth seeing; anyone who claims to have a p.o.v. on the issue should at least have the conviction to investigate the issue thoroughly. Viewers, like the one who wrote the two-star "clever propaganda" review featured on the main page, who come away from this feeling a heavy bias ought to more thoughtfully consider who it is they're keeping company with.

reply share

add reply

formatting help