i cannot envision any way in which actual footage of an abortion can possible have a balanced reaction. it's a medical procedure, and by all accounts not a very pleasant one (as if there are any "pleasant" medical procedures) which automatically attaches a negative stigma to the process.

I don't think he's claiming that viewers will have a "balanced reaction," especially since that is impossible. I think he is claiming that the film itself is balanced, which might as well be impossible, too.

But his point of showing abortions is this: you can't accurately depict the pro-life argument without showing abortions, since their argument is commonly emotional and that is its main thrust. I think it all depends on the context.

The pro-life argument isn't "emotional", it's that we shouldn't kill people and small babies are people.

I think that's an emotional argument. I don't think that makes it a *wrong* argument.

That's not to say there can't be non-emotional pro-life arguments. Kaye talks about several people who make them, and he features them, but also adds that those people are far and few between. Most pro-lifers generate that belief from an emotional place, not from a philosophical discussion of ethics and biology.

Where I would disagree with Kaye is in thinking that pro-choice arguments are also not emotional. I think many pro-choicers did not reach that position through philosophical introspection, but through an emotional gut reaction based on gender politics. Again, that doesn't make them wrong.

Is the emotional part of the argument that we shouldn't kill people, or that fertilized eggs are people?

I think one way to think about it is this: why is it one major PR technique of the pro-life movement to show graphic photos of aborted fetuses? Is that an emotional or logical argument? If the latter, what is it addressing?

Then, the second think to look at is how the pro-choice movement markets their side of things. (I don't really know the answer to this.)

I thought the question was whether the pro-life argument was emotional, not whether the arguers use emotional tactics.

I don't believe the pro-life argument is primarily emotional, or at least not any more than the pro-choice argument is. The pictures-of-fetuses strategy is certainly designed to appeal emotionally, but the argument it underpins can be considered logical, as RumorsDaily pointed out.

To get back on topic, sort of, I recently speculated with Jon May on why we never see any trailers for movies where an unwanted pregnancy did NOT end up with a decision to keep the kid. Abortion ain't funny, but I don't see any reason why it can't be the subject of a serious drama, except that major studios are pussies. It's nice that someone is brave enough to explore this subject.

i thought of this very thing when i saw a trailer for the next girl-has-baby-and-gives-it-up-to-jennifer-garner movie. seems like "knocked up" with wannabe cred.

They should make this movie. It should be called "Aborted!" Anyway, Sarah Silverman did a whole abortion thing on her show.

Cider House Rules?

Citizen Ruth?

Abortion!?

hmm, so i guess my film would be a remake.

lots of movies do feature abortions. i think we'd just like to see a comedy starring paul rudd in which he convinces sarah michelle gellar (or winona ryder) to get an abortion. hilarity ensues!

ps. "abortion" has the greatest plot one-liner in IMDB history.