The abortion debate occasionally flares up at this debate (and it has recently), so I want to make a documentary recommendation. Go rent/find “Lake of Fire.” Below is the trailer:
This is arguably the definitive documentary about abortion. Its approach to the issue is sensitive and balanced. You’ll probably walk away from the movie with increased respect for the other side (though you wouldn’t guess it from the trailer). I hope you check it out, but a warning: The film is two-and-a-half hours long and very graphic.
Indeed, a great documentary, pretty much exhausts the spectrum of positions on abortion, while judiciously refraining from any tendentious directorial editorializing.
It is a worthwhile documentary to see. But I am not convinced that it exhausts the spectrum of ideas or is the definitive documentary on the subject. My chief complaint: While pro-lifers got more than their fair share of screen time, the Christians were typically painted as crazed fundie Christian terrorists while the liberal point of view got cool headed and bright (even if wrong) intellectuals like Singer and Chomsky. I don’t think either characterization is fair – I don’t think most pro-choicers are anywhere near as thoughtful about it as these philosophers, and not all pro-lifers are zealots who pray for (or participate in!) the execution of abortionists.
To be fair, perhaps Kaye (the director) was simply showing what he found. In a way, the film is more about people than principles. If Christianity and religious pro-lifers look bad in the film (and for the most part, they do) it is because they make themselves look bad. Still, it would not have been hard for Kaye to find some intellectually astute pro-lifers (Richard John Neuhaus would have been a great candidate for it). If you didn’t know any better, you might watch this film and think that the pro-life movement is just a part of a radical theocratic fundamentalism. I rather suspect that some readers of this blog think that this is all the pro-life movement is, but they are wrong. It is too bad that Kaye chose to not work against that stereotype by presenting thoughtful and moderate Christians, or even better someone who could intelligently articulate the non-sectarian moral philosophy that underpins the pro-life argument for many who identify with that position.
But, despite what I just said, I do not think the film is radically biased. While Kaye does not give much screen time to a thoughtful and non-theocratic pro-life view, it is very hard for pro-choicers to leave the film unaffected or all that emboldened about their own position. The film makes clear that abortion is not what the easy pro-choice argument would make it seem. It is not a mere “medical procedure”. It is the ending of something, and an event in a woman’s life that is difficult and which has complex and often tragic emotional consequences. The final sequence in the film really drives this home. Despite being emotionally exhausted by the end, I felt incredible compassion for the woman in that final sequence.
Anyway, it is certainly worth seeing. Sometimes the film strains itself a bit, what with some of the cheapy horror movie overtones. But I applaud him for not flinching from extremely uncomfortable images (on both sides). The documentary is visually very impressive.
I just think that the subtler positions that are indeed available but not covered in the film can pretty easily be inferred from what is canvassed in it. In other words, I can’t imagine anyone who’s watched the film and thought about the range of attitudes it documents being surprised or deeply enlightened by any further, more subtle positions.
The same, I believe, holds for the (lack of any substantial) impact state-of-the-art philosophical apologetics has on anyone — believers or atheists — who’ve already given serious thought to religious matters (such as comes from the stimulation of literature).
This recent NY Times Magazine piece, “The New Abortion Providers” may be of interest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/magazine/18abortion-t.html?_r=2&ref=magazine
First Things comments on that article here:
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/07/you-canrsquot-take-the-back-alley-out-of-abortion
kleiner said:
“The film makes clear that abortion is not what the easy pro-choice argument would make it seem. It is not a mere “medical procedure”. It is the ending of something, and an event in a woman’s life that is difficult and which has complex and often tragic emotional consequences. The final sequence in the film really drives this home. Despite being emotionally exhausted by the end, I felt incredible compassion for the woman in that final sequence.”
Look. Pro-choice is not pro-abortion. I’ve never argued that abortions should be made more common or more blasé, and that is not the pro-choice position. It very definitely is a complex and emotional event for a woman, and the consequences she faces are difficult and painful. That’s why it should be her choice alone on whether or not to obtain an abortion. I think both sides of this debate really do want to reduce the number of abortions that are happening.
That means reducing the number of unwanted babies, whether due to being unprepared (teen pregnancy) or economic difficulties that would come from raising a baby (usually those come hand-in-hand). That means comprehensive sex education including contraception methods, increased economic power and equality for women (who are more likely to be below the poverty line) and so forth.
But you’re against contraception as well, which I really can’t square at all with a goal of “reduce the number of abortions that are occurring”.
I never said that the pro-choice argument is pro-abortion. I was just pointing out that that standard pro-choice argument insists that the unborn has no moral value because it is not yet a person, so abortion is simply a “medical procedure”. But the experience of women who have abortions demonstrates that it is not just another “medical procedure” (the NYTimes had a very good article on this a while back, how the inside the PP clinic position has to be so much different than the public argument).
And I might add that if there is nothing morally problematic about abortion, I don’t see why we should try to reduce their numbers. Is there a national campaign to reduce the number of wisdom tooth removals? No, because the wisdom tooth is just a blob of cells. So this was my only point — we agree (I think we all have to agree because the evidence is there) that abortion is an emotionally complex, difficult, and painful decision for women. This implies that there is something more going on with abortion (we need not yet specify what that is) than is going on with other “medical procedures”. Abortion is NOT just another medical procedure.
On the contraception point. I know, at first glance, it would seem logical that contraception would reduce abortion rates. And people seem to take delight in the apparent “gotcha” moment with Catholics on this. But people throw this idea idea out as if it was obviously true, but usually with little actual evidence to back up the claim. Fact is, there is no consensus on the matter. What we see here is a case where scientists are willing to run way ahead of the evidence because they hold their sexual dogmas more closely than their commitment to evidence.
I am of the opinion that contraception actually increases the rate of abortion (probably not in the short term, but in the long term). Why? In a contraceptive society, more and more people will have intercourse (at younger ages) with less and less feeling of responsibility and restraint. We have plenty of evidence of this, just compare sexual activity pre and post 1960s. But we all know that contraception is not 100%, and people are not always careful about using it. (This is the same reason why condoms have not reduced AIDs rates in most countries in Africa, but that is another case where so many people ignore the evidence in favor of their dogmas).
But let’s look at some studies on contraception and abortion. First of all, contraception use is already widespread. A Guttmacher Institute study showed that 89% of sexually active women of reproductive age use contraception, and among teenagers who are sexually active and wish to avoid pregnancy, 93% use contraception. 48% of women with unintended pregnancies and 54% of women seeking abortions were using contraception in the month of their last menstrual period (also Guttmacher, which is a pro-choice and pro-contraception lobby!). A Cornell study showed that 38% of women put on oral contraceptives were pregnant within 15 months. This study is dated, but let’s let Planned Parenthood speak for itself on the issue. At a 1958 PP conference they issued this statement: “’It was recognized by the conference participants that no scientific evidence has been developed to support the claim that increased availability of contraceptive services will clearly result in a decreased illegal abortion rate.’” Even emergency contraception has not been shown to reduce rates of pregnancy or abortion (see study by Glasier in British Medical Journal). Real world failure rates for contraceptives range from 9% (pill) to 17% (condom) – again according to Guttmacher.
I know people on the left of this issue think they have Catholics trapped in a corner here – ‘you want to reduce abortions but are against contraception, so that makes no sense!’ But the evidence is not there to justify the view that contraception use is some kind of a panacea for the abortion issue.
I promote a rethinking of the meaning of sexuality, and a whole cultural shift in sexual habits and attitudes.
From 1965 to 1995, contraceptive use / availability and rates of abortion simultaneously rose in the United States (overall trend).
And even Planned Parenthood does not attribute the recent reduction in abortions (1995 on) in this country to contraceptive availability. Rather, PP argues that the reduction in the abortion rate occurred because of “cuts in abortion funding, restricted access to clinics and a lack of trained doctors” (2002 Washington Times story). So apparently the number of unwanted pregnancies has not diminished and the demand for abortion is just as high (despite wider use of improved contraceptives), but people just can’t get to the clinics or there are not enough abortionists.
A related abortion story. George Will (an agnostic) here unpacks the “intellectual chaos” of some pro-choice positions, this time by taking Senator Barbara Boxer to task.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/31/barbara-boxer-in-context.html
What we see here is that, quite often, the “right to choose” really means a right to a dead baby. Check out the video. Santorum is asking pretty plain and straight-forward questions, and it is just incredible how incoherent Sen Boxer is in response.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoTjb9rzyEo
Here is an excerpt of the discussion, taken from the Will article:
In the 1999 colloquy, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said: Suppose during this procedure the baby slips entirely from the mother’s birth canal. “You agree, once a child is born, is separated from the mother, that that child is protected by the Constitution and cannot be killed? Do you agree with that?” Boxer: “I think when you bring your baby home, when your baby is born … the baby belongs to your family and has all the rights.” Santorum persisted: “Obviously, you don’t mean they have to take the baby out of the hospital for it to be protected by the Constitution. Once the baby is separated from the mother, you would agree—completely separated from the mother—you would agree that the baby is entitled to constitutional protection?” She would not say “yes.” Instead, she said, understandably: “I don’t want to engage in this.” …
As Will says, “It is theoretically impossible to fashion an abortion position significantly more extreme than Boxer’s, which is slightly modified infanticide.”
Notice here that the baby has a right to life only when the mother or the state confers that right on the baby.