We now dwell in a censorious culture that somehow,
illogically, decided that the most sensible way to greet
the release of supposedly offensive art is to kick up
as big a fuss about it as possible. Yet, by this ludicrous
standard, the apoplexy of our most captious and indignant
Gradgrinds merely provokes the curiosity of all but
the most hermetic souls, and thus provides the critics’
bugbears with more publicity than their creators ever
dreamed possible.
Advertisement
Witness the extraordinary “public relations”
campaign that birthed The Passion of the Christ. Few
of the film’s critics, whose prejudicial commentary
on Mel Gibson’s fascistic opus did much to elevate
public awareness of its theatrical release, can now
claim to be satisfied with the film’s subsequent
success.
As always, though, the siren song of the pre-emptive
strike proved to be too alluring. The film’s popularity
simply mirrored the extent of the critics’ agitation.
Consider, however, the current debate in Britain about
a TV program that has yet to be aired. On April 20,
Channel 4 – traditionally the home of cutting-edge
journalism and imported American comedy – will
screen a documentary containing graphic footage of a
live fetus being aborted.
The program – produced by Julia Black, whose
father set up Marie Stopes International, a family planning
clinic – also includes images of aborted fetuses
at 10, 11 and 21 weeks. It is, says Black, a pro-abortion
documentary: “The fetus has been hijacked by anti-abortion
groups,” she argues. “As someone who was,
and still is, pro-choice, I too want to engage with
the fetus over abortion.”
Right on cue, of course, was the staunchly anti-abortion
Archbishop of Birmingham, the Most Rev. Vincent Nichols:
“Any film that shows an abortion is abhorrent
to Catholics,” he thundered. “We find it
totally irresponsible of Channel 4.” That’s
odd, because the last time I checked, Channel 4’s
responsibility was to produce provocative and intelligent
television programs. Others, though, are worried that
the graphic images of aborted fetuses will have scores
of Britons waking up the following morning pro-life.
Yet, far from providing fodder for the anti-abortion
camp, Julia Black’s documentary may have quite
the opposite effect. Writing for The Guardian, Zoe Williams
argued sensibly that, “this film could trigger
one valuable shift – it could, indeed it must,
force pro-choicers to defend their position. …
Why the standard-issue terminology, where if you do
discuss abortion on a personal level at all, it has
to be in terms of guilt, and sorrow, and confusion,
and anger? … On this matter, we don’t need
sympathy or understanding – we need to be tougher-minded
and more rigorous, both on ourselves, and with each
other. … We give our opponents more power with
our shuffling evasiveness than gory footage of abortions
ever will.”
Interestingly, some anti-abortion advocates actually
echoed Williams’s comments.
Joanna Jepson, the Church of England curate planning
a legal challenge to abortions on fetuses with cleft
palates, maintained that, “If there is going to
be such a high level of abortion in this country, then
people should not hide away from the reality and what
it actually means.” And, most surprising of all,
the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England and
Wales – the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal
Cormac Murphy-O’Connor – threw his support
behind the documentary, although he did add that he
hoped it would have a “devastating” effect
on viewers and underscore the notion that abortion involves
the “deliberate destruction of human life.”
But the most intriguing reaction came from the anti-abortion
party, ProLife Alliance: “Topsy turvy,”
was how the group’s Josephine Quintavalle described
the cardinal’s comments. “The cardinal should
certainly not just say it’s great. He should be
saying that the idea is fine in principle, but that,
until we’ve seen the film, we don’t know
what the message will be.”
Now there’s a thought: withholding judgment until
you’ve heard all the evidence. But you could see
what prompted Quintavalle’s remarks: similar images
of an abortion were used in a ProLife Alliance political
broadcast before the general election in 2001, but they
were banned by Channel 4 as being “offensive.”
Quite simply, the difference between the response to
the ProLife Alliance party’s broadcast and to
Julia Black’s new documentary most likely reflects
a sea change in British attitudes towards abortion.
As The Daily Telegraph stated: “Change, if it
comes, will happen because liberals have finally grasped
the difficulty at the heart of the pro-choice position:
that is, the impossibility of reconciling an enlightened
opposition to animal experiments and unnecessarily invasive
medical procedures with a disregard for the rights of
the fetus and a willingness to subject women to a gruesome
operation. … Miss Black is one of many younger
women who, unlike the previous generation of feminists,
are troubled by the contradiction.”
What we have, then, is a nation that’s deeply
uncomfortable with the idea of openly discussing abortion.
As long as it remains a taboo subject, British pro-life
groups will find plenty of impressionable young minds
to influence and much political ground to gain. Yet,
we now have a provocative documentary that has been
welcomed by a broad spectrum of British society, from
anti-abortion groups to the liberal press. And instead
of a feverish climate of pre-emptive assaults on a program
that has yet to be aired, we have the heady anticipation
of a documentary that may well play a critical role
in amplifying Britain’s dialogue about abortion.
Most important of all, those who favor abortion should
seize this valuable opportunity to articulate the rational
justifications for the practice, and to drag the issue
out of the twilight zone and into the mainstream.
Help
us help you. Take this three-minute survey to help us
get better ads.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement