WATCH SHORT FILM ILLUSTRATING CONSEQUENCES OF SOUTH DAKOTA ABORTION BAN

Check out this short film by Charlie Call, depicting a woman literally begging a male judge to allow her to take a simple step to stop an inevitable biological process that will ruin her life.

This film, of course, depicts the ultimate "good" reason for an abortion.  I support abortion in the early stages of pregnancy for any reason within the discretion of the woman without the necessity for permission from anyone else.  But it is worth remembering that South Dakota would force pregnancy in circumstances in which even many pro-lifers support abortion, even on a woman carrying the product of her rape in her body against her will.  Even in those coercive circumstances, the legislature of South Dakota would privilege the an unconscious, unfeeling, undeveloped zygote over the life, marriage, hopes, and dreams of an adult woman. 

Watch this film. My understanding is that it will only be up on You Tube a short time pre-election.

Comments

[powderblue]

Thanks for the link. I will share it.

Don’t you think part of its power is the background music? It’s by Philip Glass, from his soundtrack to Errol Morris’ 1988 documentary, Thin Blue Line, which should have won an Oscar.

[Erin]

Hi HF! I'd just like to point out that if the issue is the personhood of the fetus/baby, the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy don't logically make a difference as to whether the fetus/baby is protected life or not. It's logically contradictory to support abortion for some reasons and not others (other than life of the mother, in which case the purpose is to save a life rather than take one).

Rather than pick and choose instances where abortion is acceptable or not (which makes no sense), I would love to see law enforcement and punishment for rapists and molesters increased and carried out to the fullest extent possible. It is indeed a horrendous crime worthy of the severest punishment. In fact, I (almost) put rape on the same level as murder.

Secondly, I watched the film. I have to admit that films which seek to appeal to emotions rather than facts rather annoy me! I think a film about the political implications of an abortion ban would be more honest if the focus was on the issues underlying the various arguments rather than conjuring up emotional responses to the woman's plight. Of course it's horrible! (and should also be pointed out...this film depicts the rarest of cases. Only 2% of abortions take place because of rape, I believe) But what matters to the issue of abortion is not how various people "feel" about it, but whether or not it is the taking of life, and whether the fetus should have rights. Life or not life, rights or no rights...that is the question!:op

[Annamal]

Ok so in this admittedly 2% of cases we should take the survival of the baby over the rights of bodily autonomy of the mother.

Are you then in favour of the state compelling kidney, liver,bone marrow and blood donations from unwilling living donors(or heart, lungs etc from the recently deceased without their family's consent)?

Those who do not donate their tissue are undoubtedly denying others their right to life which as sentient living beings is unquestionable.

What difference is there between these two situations?

[mythago]

Erin, surely it's not any more emotional or irrational than "The Silent Scream".

[Erin]

Those who do not donate their tissue are undoubtedly denying others their right to life which as sentient living beings is unquestionable.

What difference is there between these two situations?

Annamal, my main point in commenting was to note the contradictory premise that abortion can be wrong in some cases and not others, when the main argument behind the pro-life movement is that the fetus is a human with rights. Well if that is so, then doesn't it extend to all fetuses regardless of how they were conceived?

I don't have an answer for you on the tissue donation thing right now. I believe there is a difference, but will have to think it through a bit before I can articulate that difference effectively.

Erin, surely it's not any more emotional or irrational than "The Silent Scream".

Never seen it, so I don't know. But it doesn't matter to me from which corner the emotional hype comes...my opinion is that it's not an honest way to argue a point.

[mythago]

Erin, I agree with you on the idea that you're either pro-life or you're not, but I don't see how you make an exception for the mother's life. If I am dying of heart disease, and my child is the only donor on the planet who is a perfect match, I am not allowed to kill my child to save my own life.

I suspect that the people who made this film realize there's no point in limiting oneself calm, honest debate when the other side specializes in emotional appeals and lies.

[Ahunt]

Erin, I've often wondered how those who assert the personhood of a fertilized egg would go about "protecting" the "rights" of the "person."

I'm going to ask this question one more time, in hopes of a coherent answer.

I train horses for a living, and find myself saddled with an unwanted pregnancy. The state has denied my petition for an abortion, but I still must earn my living. I'm stressed, miserable and angry 24/7.
Three months in, a particularly restive colt has pitched me headlong, and to my great happiness, I miscarry. If the fetus is a "person," how is this scenario any different from one where the restive colt throws me with my newborn in my arms, resuting in his/her death?

Erin, the point here is that maternal science is on a collision course with pro-life assertions of fetal personhood. Most pregnancies are flushed in the earliest stages, not due to any embryonic defect, but believed to be due to the stress hormone, cortisol preventing implantation. Post implantation, stress is now believed to be a major factor in both miscarriages and stillbirths. Indeed, there is very little a pregnant woman can do that does not potentially impact negatively on the fetus.

The question is, how far are pro-lifers willing to go to restrict and circumscribe the lives of women, in the interests of the "personhood" of the fertilized egg?

[Charlie]

Erin, you make an excellent point, one which I was very conscious of when I set out to make this short film. The core issue to the overall debate, as you say, is “life or not life, rights or not rights”- whether/when a fetus is considered a person.

And in light of this, the idea of an exception could seem to move toward irrelevance: if you think a fertilized egg is a person, you couldn’t endorse abortion under any circumstances. I saw a woman interviewed in South Dakota, one of the legislators who passed the law, and she stated that she believed a person was created at conception, and to her it didn’t matter what the crime of the father was, and I basically paraphrased that legislator in the film, having the judge echo her statements. I think this is in line with your very accurate statement that it doesn’t make sense to pick and choose when abortion is and is not acceptable. So then the idea of arguing for an “exception” almost seems off-point, right?

Almost, but I don’t think entirely, because once someone has opened their mind to the idea of an exception, then I think on some very basic level, they have agreed in principal that a fertilized egg is not in fact the same as a born infant. Pro-lifers can’t have it both ways (wanting to ban abortion because ‘it’s a person’, but with exceptions), and when politicians pander to the right with their anti-abortion voting record, but then say they favor exceptions for this and that, I think they expose themselves as having questionable motives for supporting any type of ban at all.

I disagree with your statement that using an emotional scene to illustrate a point is not an honest way to argue a point. I think the honesty has to be within the piece itself, and I went to great lengths to avoid being overly manipulative. There’s nothing false in the film conceptually in terms of the woman’s plight; all of that could happen. The text at the beginning and end simply states the facts surrounding the law, without any editorial slant at all. I intentionally made sure that the judge, who represents the pro-life voice, is not a menacing caricature, but rather a calm, rational spokesman who simply states the law. I intentionally wanted the woman to be strong rather than sobbing and falling apart. I could easily have put a 14 year-old girl in the film, and had the judge tormenting her, but then I think you begin to lose the people you most want to reach. So I think you can do an emotional piece and be responsible, and of course it’s easy to be irresponsible.

If someone who has consistently voted “pro-life” watches the film and has to stop and think, then I would consider the film a success. And I think emotion is where that instinct to “stop and think” is going to start. If someone can empathize with the woman in the film, and with her husband, and say to themselves, “Wow, that woman looks like she could be me or someone in my family, and that’s a horrible situation, how do I really feel about ‘when life begins’? Am I just voting for these people because they lowered my taxes? Would I fly to Sweden if the constitutional ban were to pass and I found myself in this situation?”

So in a way, asking someone to watch an emotional piece about an exception to this law is something of a detour – if people are going to close their minds when you try to argue an issue head-on (‘when does life begin?’), then I think it’s worth trying to try to reach them in an indirect way that hits home. I really do believe that many people who vote for pro-life politicians would be on a plane out of the country in a second if they found themselves needing an abortion that was banned.

I think you’re correct to be wary of pieces which use emotion, but hopefully you might consider that this piece was done with restraint and a sincere effort to be fair to the pro-life position. Thanks for taking the time to watch and for caring enough to post.

[Erin]

Erin, I agree with you on the idea that you're either pro-life or you're not, but I don't see how you make an exception for the mother's life. If I am dying of heart disease, and my child is the only donor on the planet who is a perfect match, I am not allowed to kill my child to save my own life.

Of course not! I don't claim to know more than the average citizen about medical procedures and so forth. But I do believe that in many cases, when the mother's life is stake (such as an ectopic pregnancy) the fetus will not survive anyhow. In such a case, it is certainly better to save one than neither. If at all possible, both should be saved. I realize that there are probably delicate situations, fine lines and gray areas to consider, and I don't have enough medical information to speak to all of these. But the overriding principle is that life should be spared to whatever extent possible.

If the fetus is a "person," how is this scenario any different from one where the restive colt throws me with my newborn in my arms, resuting in his/her death?

It's not essentially different, if the fetus is indeed a "person". Though it may be emotionally different for the people who love the born baby and have gotten to "know" him/her. (However, I've witnessed that the grief of miscarriage is very often devestating--for the mother in particular.)

Most pregnancies are flushed in the earliest stages, not due to any embryonic defect, but believed to be due to the stress hormone, cortisol preventing implantation. Post implantation, stress is now believed to be a major factor in both miscarriages and stillbirths. Indeed, there is very little a pregnant woman can do that does not potentially impact negatively on the fetus.

Well that's life, very true. Deaths happen. Unsuccessful pregnancies happen. The question is, is the fetus a person with rights? If not...there is no problem with abortion. If so, than regardless of what God or nature doles out, we have no right to purposefully end that "person's" life and disregard those rights.

The question is, how far are pro-lifers willing to go to restrict and circumscribe the lives of women, in the interests of the "personhood" of the fertilized egg?

I don't know how far others are "willing to go." I prefer to side with the precedent...women live their normal lives with reasonable care to avoid things that will harm the unborn fetus/child, and the state leaves that responsibility in her hands. We don't need to regulate beyond the most extreme examples of disregard (such as purposeful death to fetus, if that is seen to be unlawful infringement upon the rights of another person). The truth is that I'm rather libertarian in many things, and think people shouldn't get law-happy. (Nothing against you, HF!;o)

[Erin]

BTW, what I just wrote is in the same vein as how the state regulates "born" children. It protects against abuse (as defined by an agreed-upon standard), but leaves the methods of child-raising up to the parents. As it should be. I believe in a large degree of personal responsibility.