Culture,  Entertainment,  Politics

Lake of Fire

I’ve been reading some of the reviews and reactions from the media to the new abortion documentary “Lake of Fire.” The film is directed by Tony Kaye, and it alleges to present an unbiased look at abortion in America. If you are interested in seeing a trailer of the movie, you can view one here: Trailer of “Lake of Fire”. I must warn you, however, that the trailer itself should probably be rated PG-13 or R.

Manohla Dargis’ review of the film in the New York Times reveals the typical moral confusion that most people have when it comes to their thinking about abortion. Actually, “moral confusion” is probably too generous. What the review actually reveals is not so much “moral confusion” but “moral suppression.”

Dargis does not want to think about what actually takes place in an abortion—the killing of innocent human life. Like most people, she just doesn’t want to let her mind go there. That is why pro-choicers often cry “foul” when pro-lifers show pictures of abortions or aborted babies. All of the sudden the killing has a face, a human face (and legs, arms, eyes, ears, and a mouth), and the pictures do more to unravel pro-abortion arguments than any other kind of polemic. Pro-choicers cannot stand the pictures.

“The Lake of Fire” has footage of a doctor performing a second trimester abortion. Dargis acts almost surprised that the maker of “Lake of Fire” is not a pro-lifer because the film in fact shows the ugly pictures. The scene is too macabre for me to describe in my own words. Here are Dargis’:

“Not everyone will agree about the abortion visuals, including, perhaps, those who worry that such explicit imagery can speak louder than any pro-abortion-rights argument. It’s an understandable concern. Because they are filmed . . ., the abortions are unnerving, which is why I suggest that the faint of heart skip the rest of this paragraph. After the first operation, a second-trimester abortion, the doctor sorts through a tray of fetal parts, including a perfect-looking tiny hand and a foot, to make sure that nothing has been left inside the patient, which might lead to poisoning or even death. The doctor then holds up the severed fetal head. One eerily bulging eye looks as if it’s staring into the camera and somehow at us.”

Dargis tries as hard as she can to suppress the humanity that is staring her in the face. She won’t call it a dead baby. For her, it’s “fetal parts.” At one point you can see the conflict within Dargis. The pictures are suggesting something to her conscience that she desperately wants to suppress. The “fetal parts” begin to appear to her as more than mere discarded tissue. She writes,

“Abortion does end the life of something. The fight, of course, is over what that something is — an embryo, a baby, God’s creation, a blob of cells — and who has dominion over it and the fully formed human being carrying that something inside her body.”

Dargis can acknowledge the full humanity of the mother, but she chooses to leave a question mark over her evaluation of the unborn.

Would that the seared conscience of our culture might be overcome by the truth of what abortion really is. Perhaps this film, even unwittingly, might help people to see. There is so much at stake, and it seems fewer and fewer are willing to take the stand for the babies. I hope and pray that God would be pleased to turn back the culture of death.


  • MatthewS


    Thanks for the well-written reference to this film. I will try to get up my nerve to watch the trailer later today. It’s too early yet to ruin the day.

    Over at scriptoriumdaily,, JP Moreland makes a similar case. He argues for the need of the public to see these sort of pictures, and at the hypocrisy of those who are in favor of showing graphic video of dogs being abused (Michael Vick) or of the Holocaust (Schindler’s List), but are not willing to present pictures of this currently controversial activity.

  • Jesica

    It’s heartbreaking to me. I grew up in a cult that called itself a church, that taught that abortion was fine.

    The false teacher of our cult, whom we called the pastor, taught that a fetus was not a human being until it took it’s first breath of life, because (he taught) that is when Spirit life is breathed into it.

    What rubbish! How contrary to God’s Word!

    I wonder how many women in his cult following chose abortion as a route, because their “right pastor” (as he liked to call himself) taught them contrary to God’s Word.

  • Jeff Lash

    What an interesting day. I just happened to listen to Focus on the Family today (I hardly ever listen to it) on the way to work and caught the testimony of a 30 year old woman who survived a saline abortion at 7 months. She has cerebral palsy as a result but the only effect is a limp. Seriously…I was nearly in tears I was so moved. And to hear her talk about the issue from her perspective was amazing. She goes around the world telling groups of people her story. As she put,”The Lord has blessed her with this.” Really good stuff.

    I wholeheartedly agree. You have to remove the personal element of the issue in order to stand firm on the pro-choice position.

  • David Hamilton

    I regret to say that I once thought that abortion was a decision that the government should not regulate.
    I read a Hillary Clinton speech, and at the time agreed with her that it was a private decision that should be made by the pregnant mother and her loved ones and that government has no right to interfere with that decision.

    Now, after realizing and accepting the personal element by way of some graphic pictures and information about the effects of abortions on the woman who aborts, I compare that type of thinking to a parent “not interfering” with their child as the child plays with a large knife or near a street or a cliff.

    There are times when a parent must “interfere”, and there are also times when government must “interfere”.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.