Louise Melling describes the new movie “Obvious Child” as a romantic comedy that tries to make abortion sympathetic and funny (view trailer here). Melling writes:
In it, main character Donna has an abortion after a drunken one-night stand. But unlike most other characters who grapple with this question, Donna doesn’t torture herself. She makes the decision without angst, guilt, or extenuating circumstances. And like millions of American women, Donna follows through, then moves on with her life.
A movie about an experience this common – nearly one in three American women will have an abortion in their lifetime — shouldn’t feel so revolutionary. But it does.
Melling goes on to opine on the continuing stigma attached to abortion. Melling seems perplexed that after decades of feminist propaganda, people continue to feel an inexplicable moral repugnance towards abortion. Melling thinks that this is a sad state of affairs—given our post-modern enlightenment—and that movies like “Obvious Child” help folks to see that abortion really should not be a big deal at all. In fact, we might do well to laugh about it.
Finally, Melling argues that “abortion stigma causes real harm” and “hurts women” seeking abortions. Thus anyone with a moral objection to killing unborn children is doing real psychological damage to women and may even be complicit in denying them proper “healthcare.”
The irony of this piece is the usual one that we get from abortion rights proponents. Melling gives no attention whatsoever to the life-destroying harm perpetrated against human babies in every abortion. She can’t do that and won’t do that as it would undermine the abortion license she seeks to defend. Nevertheless, the issue just won’t go away. And that’s why so many in our wayward country still feel pangs of conscience when it comes to abortion. My hope and prayer is that those consciences will stay intact in spite of propaganda like “Obvious Child.”
Here’s the last sentence of Melling’s article “It [the movie] deftly reflects the experience of millions of women across the country – that we sometimes get pregnant when we didn’t want to and decide to have an abortion because it’s the right decision for our lives.”
She’s doesn’t say, “it’s a legal decision” or “a permissible decision” or a “socially acceptable decision.” No: “it’s the right decision.” Based on what standard?
This shows that moral arguments (even perverse, unfounded ones) are inescapable. We all make moral arguments. This question should follow: What is basis for one’s moral argument?
Further, the author states, “…we shouldn’t judge a woman unless we’ve walked in her shoes. Life, after all, is messy. And decisions aren’t always black and white.” How does this logically fit with the description of the movie: “…main character Donna has an abortion after a drunken one-night stand”? No matter where someone stands on the abortion issue, this isn’t “messy” life or someone put in an unfortunate situation due to a series of unfortunate events; this is an adult being irresponsible and reckless, then deciding to end a human life.
If she’d had a chemical abortion by using the morning-after-pill, she wouldn’t have even known if an unborn child were killed, even though the effect would have been the same. The day is going to come where something more advanced than an ultrasound can tell us the moment an egg is fertilized. That is, women will know the instant their pregnant, and even detect an unborn child before it implants. Once women see and experience how high the spontaneous abortion rate is, it’s going to be really hard to stigmatize elective abortion.
I do not follow your logic….if you believe that life begins at inception, sperm implanting into the egg, then this new technology will change nothing. If a lady has a miscarriage, it is tragic and can cause much emotional pain for the women, but in no ways is it equaited with abortion of any kind. A natural process is not the same a one intensionally murdering an innocent life. It will not make elective abortion any less horrible to those committed to the sanctity of life that God is sovereign over.
I of course agree that the beginning of life is conception. So according to the NIH, around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Now, imagine a world where the woman actually *knows* when these unborn child are spontaneously aborted, which means she will know how *many* babies she had aborted. Abortion thus becomes extremely commonplace (as it already is, but people don’t know it.) Every woman who becomes a mother will know she’s had at least 1 abortion (and probably a lot more). And when it’s extremely common, abortion will probably cease to be as big of a deal. And this scenario may not be far off. For all we know, in the future there could be an app on your iphone that detects a signal from a zygote and alerts the owner that she is pregnant. So what does that mean for us as pro-lifers? We will need to convince women that all those spontaneous abortions that caused an unborn baby to end up in a toilet are just a natural part of life, but if women do the same thing by purposely causing the abortion, then it’s a monstrosity. So what do I think? I think we need to teach people scripture and how God opens and closes the womb, and is the author of life. Always bring the conversation back to Jesus.
My take on this is that is that “family planning” would be less controversial in such a world. Studies have shown that teen pregnancy rates have dropped in recent years as the usage of contraceptives has increased.
I see your poiint now and maybe I didn’t fully understand where you were coming from in the first post. I also think that abortion is dealt with in far too cavalier a matter today so it would be hard to thing it could get worse, but I see you point.
I also agree to always bring it back to Jesus and the Gospel as that is the only thing that will truely help/guide them.
Here’s a movie on our side you might want to promote: http://voicelessthemovie.com/