"Channel 4 to screen graphic film of abortion" - Observer

monument · 04-04-2004 8:09pm #1

Originally published by the Observer
Channel 4 to screen graphic film of abortion

Programme to show banned images of dead foetuses

Kamal Ahmed, political editor
Sunday April 4, 2004
The Observer

An abortion is to be shown on British television for the first time. A Channel 4 programme will also use previously banned images of aborted foetuses in one of the most controversial television programmes broadcast in Britain

...

In the film, both pro-life and pro-choice protagonists give their views on the issue

If the images stop just one abortion I'd have to think it's right to show it.

If abortion is seen as an ok thing to do by many, and if a human at this stage in its life is only seen as “it” (and in the UK not protect by law), I don’t believe showing the images is wrong.

flogen · 04-04-2004 9:20pm

Firstly let me say this. I do not want any anti-abortion/pro-choice flame war on this thread. If this does happened, it will be edited, and possibly locked. You know the rules.
AS far as it being right or wrong to show the programme, its a tough call, however, I would probably leen towards a No on this one..
my reasons are as follows: The pro-life group would show these images to give the public a graphic portrail of what an abortion is. HOWEVER, although I have never been in a situation (thankfully) to have to make such a huge decision, I would say that anybody who is considering having an abortion, or being forced to for some reason, would not make such a decision lightly and would undoubtly under no illusion as to what happens in an abortion. I agree that the rights of the foetus should be looked at (such that it is a crime to cause harm to the foetus, such as through hitting etc.), however these images will only cause an un-needed bias in such a thorny image. You can show the graphic images of these aborted foetuses, but it is impossible to acurattly portray the feelings and so on of the person who has or is going to undergo the surgery. I think that a show would work better if it was simply a debate between both sides, which is fair and unbias, that way the viewer can decide how he or she feels about the issue without being guilted into it by images like these.

Flogen

mike65 · 04-04-2004 10:41pm

Just to flesh out the link above

My Foetus, to be screened at the end of this month, will show a woman who is four weeks pregnant having a 'vacuum pump' abortion. The results of the procedure are then placed on a petri dish and shown to viewers.

Not quite the horror show some might fear (or hope for)
only stills will show later term abortions.

I decided to include images of 10-, 11- and 21-week-old aborted foetuses in my film because, however shocking, repulsive and confrontational they are, they represent the reality,' Julia Black, the independent film-maker behind the programme, writes in today's Observer.

'Aborted foetuses from 10 weeks on look like tiny babies. Rationally, we know abortion ends the life of a potential human being, but why, when we see what they look like, are we so shocked?'

Black, who herself had an abortion at 21, said she wanted to get out of the 'lazy' debate about the issue and have an honest discussion. 'The pro-choice movement must know how difficult it is to fight back against the powerful image of what looks like a dead baby,' she said. 'So they have not engaged with these shock tactics

Interesting that the film maker notes she is using shock tactics. I'm slightly torn here between showing the reality of something and the likelyhood of the images becoming more important than the actual debate.

Mike.

monument · 04-04-2004 11:19pm

"Aborted foetuses from 10 weeks on look like tiny babies. Rationally, we know abortion ends the life of a potential human being, but why, when we see what they look like, are we so shocked?"

Yes, but I think the shock is is that it looks human.

(I wouldn’t call my self anti-abortion. Maybe "pro-life" or just anti-unnecessary-abortion)

flogen · 04-04-2004 11:40pm

after hearing a Bill Hicks sketch on the issue, I refrain from refering to anyone as pro-life...

its not a matter of why it is shocking, i think its a matter of weither the shock is necissary, and what is the point behind it? is it to (for want of a better term) humanise abortion, or destroy any doubts or myths around it, or is it to shock people into opposing it? Given the woman involved seems to be pro-choice, i would assume the former, and perhaps this is a good idea, in theory, however, it may be taken as unneccisary, perhaps there is another way of bringing the issue forward rather than shock tactics.

Flogen

alleepally · 05-04-2004 12:53am

if we extend the logic of not using shock tactics then we might as well say that Live Aid shouldn't have gone ahead and nor should Michael Buerk have shown the reality of a famine. The fact is that both those events shocked the world in a way that was never done before in showing the reality behind a famine headline. How many lives were saved by the money raised in those events. The shocking images of fully developed human beings dying is no different to me than a human being with identifiable features lying in a bucket or whatever.

Look at Iraq this week. Shocking images of 4 mutilated bodies being dragged on the streets. Should those shocking images not have been shown? Maybe by showing those shocking images we all can get a better understanding of what war really means. What drove those Iraqis to kill in that way was the well understood reasons that behind the headlines of "collateral damage" during the war itself were heartbreaking stories of innocent people being killed.

Media has the power to change the course of history and the fact of the matter is that to have an informed debate one needs shock tactics sometimes to enable an informed decision on where one stands on a particular issue.

flogen · 05-04-2004 1:03am

it is true that shock media is often needed to bring a certain subject to the fore, and get it dealt with, but we must ask ourselves here, and at all instances, what benefit will this have to the debate? and where will it go from here?

The idea is to move it on from its stagnate position, but will it? I am not saying it will not, but where do you see this debate going once the images are shown? I cant imagine either side changing its views, compromising, or anything like that. Sure, the general public will get a better view of the issue, but any mildy informed person would have a good idea of what happens in an abortion, and seeing the result rather than reading about it wont change how they feel about it.
While it worked in Live Aid, where an enitre continent was being ignored and had to be force fed the images before they did anything about it, there is no real benefactor here like there was there (in the sense that this is a political debate, rather than an atrocity, and any sway in public opinion will mean a rise in funding for one side or the other, but not for a needy people as was in Live Aid)

Flogen

monument · 05-04-2004 2:03pm

If the truth shocks people, and it is ok to shock people when human life is endanger, and if you can accept the unborn is early human life, one can they only conclude this shock is acceptable.

Originally posted by flogen
(in the sense that this is a political debate, rather than an atrocity,

Again if you can accept the unborn is early human life, is an abortion of a health life from a health mother “the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane” (an atrocity)?

flogen · 05-04-2004 2:29pm

grouping it as a political debate rather than an atrocity was simply a way of distancing it from the likes of Live Aid (or any form of charity for the starving and needy). There is no two ways about famine, people are starving, they need help, we can help them, so we should. However, the abortion issue is not as clear-cut as this, there are arguments for and against it.

as an atrocity is an "appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior" I would not apply it to this situation. My reason being I would need alot of convincing and evidence that women who have abortions do so out of evil, or in an attempt to commit an appalling act. Abortions (excusing the issues of rape, incest and a threat to life, which I feel should always be exceptions no matter what the law states) are not taken lightly, and would not be something a person would do on a whim or without consequence.

the debate regarding whether a foetus is truely a person is also for another forum, and should not be delved into too deeply here, however it must be addressed as it is a factor in deciding if this show is right or wrong.
Whether you or I feel that a foetus is a real living person or not, Im sure that all involved in this debate understand what an abortion is, and what the result and consequence is (while I have made no decision on the 'classification' of a foetus, I understand that if unaborted it would almost certainly be born, and I understand what the abortion entails etc.). I am sceptical that people need to see this, and that it will further the debate positivly. Will this convince anyone to change their views? and if so, wouldnt hard facts through debate be a stronger basis for a change in beliefs rather than a reaction to an image that doesnt portray the entire situation of each case??
I believe that the abortion debate has stagnated, but only because it is such a devisive topic. There is no real middle ground here, IMO anyway, you either oppose abortions (remembering the above about rape, incest etc) or you are for a freedom of choice for each person. I do not think that these images will bring the debate anywhere, and they are shocking for the sake of being shocking.
As I said before, these images can and will create a bias, they are most certainly quite shocking, and i can see more people going towards an anti abortion stance once seeing them, but this is because the pictures fail to give the whole story behind abortion, and why people have them

Flogen

leeroybrown · 05-04-2004 2:45pm

We were bound to see this on TV sooner or later. Medical documentaries have given us everything from open heart surgery to both male and female cosmetic surgery televised in gory detail. While an abortion (and aborted foetus) is quite different in terms of public opinion, it was only a matter of time before some program maker gave it the shock treatment.

The only reservation I would have about a programme like this it might tend towards sensationalising (a second cousin of trivialising) the subject. Hopefully this doesn't happen in the programme.

I definitely agree that the abortion debate has very little middle ground. I sit to the left at the back of the grandstand in a big comfortable chair.

Edit: And no one in the UK other than channel4 would even have tentatively considered screening this.

monument · 05-04-2004 7:10pm

Originally posted by flogen
as an atrocity is an "appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior" I would not apply it to this situation. My reason being I would need alot of convincing and evidence that women who have abortions do so out of evil, or in an attempt to commit an appalling act.

People have and will continue to commit evil acts with out feeling or thinking the act is evil or appalling.

Originally posted by flogen
(excusing the issues of rape, incest and a threat to life, which I feel should always be exceptions no matter what the law states)

I total agree.

Originally posted by flogen
Abortions… are not taken lightly, and would not be something a person would do on a whim or without consequence.

Maybe not, but it is something done when the mother is not of sound mind and/or when the mother is forced to so by other people, or pressured by norms.

And once more about the shock factor – I’m not quite sure if the makers are out to shock people, but rather the truth will shock people (in this case the truth is that “it” looks human).

flogen · 05-04-2004 7:28pm

to assume that women whom are considering abortion are not of sound mind is a very wild generalisation, and most certainly not one I would agree with.

And my point is that the pictures will shock, there is little doubt in that, however it will only set the debate back rather than further it, as a gruesome picture doesnt tell you the whole story (the reasons for the abortion etc). I would say that the ordeal of abortion is not a nice one (understatement) and it is most certainly something I would never want to have to experience, and hope i never will, however, there are situations where people feel it is the best solution, for various reasons. Pictures dont show this.
a comparison would be the killings in Falluja. If you saw a picture of it (the bodies at the bridge etc) you would think that these people are inhumane and evil. However, the picture does not tell you why they feel so hostile to Americans and why they were so compelled to attack them. I am by no means saying these people were right, or supporting this fundamentalism, however I am just pointing out how a story can quite easily only give one side of the argument, and ignore the other.

that is why I am sceptical as to these pictures being aired, however I cannot say how bias the show is in its entirety until I watch it.

The only reservation I would have about a programme like this it might tend towards sensationalising (a second cousin of trivialising) the subject. Hopefully this doesn't happen in the programme.

i totally agree.

also, C4 must be comended in wanting to further this debate (if thats what it really does want) however, Im not sure if this is the best way to do that.

Flogen

(may I remind posters that this is not a debate on the issues of abortion being right or wrong. I understand that with this issue it is near impossible not to give a personal view when discussing the show, and I have done so myself in some posts, however please do your best to avoid the abortion debate where you can, and please focus on the rights and wrongs of the show being aired.)

monument · 05-04-2004 7:55pm

Originally posted by flogen
My reason being I would need alot of convincing and evidence that women who have abortions do so out of evil, or in an attempt to commit an appalling act.

Originally posted by monument
Maybe not, but it is sometimes done when the mother is (1)not of sound mind and/or (2.)when the mother is forced to so by (2. a)other people, (2. b)or pressured by norms.

(Correction sometimes, not something)

Edited: sorry about that.

Edited #2: 'not of sound mind' is what I've heard woman who have had abortions and later turned anti-abortion say on TV.

flogen · 05-04-2004 8:37pm

Edited: sorry about that.

tis ok

however this is not part of the issue, unless it is obvious at that time that they were not of sound mind but the procedure was carried out anyway.

What reaction do you think these images will have on the public (besides being shocked... as in, will they change their views?) and do you think that such a change, in either direction, would be an educated one or a reactionary one? For my previous reasons, I would believe any change in opinion would be a reactionary one, and as such would make this shock TV (in the bad sense) as it is does not give a fair and balanced case for and against abortion.

Flogen

monument · 05-04-2004 10:58pm

The images are the reality - according to the article even an abortion agency welcomed the program.

I’ll have to agree to disagree with you, and agree with the Observer’s comment “Abortion is one of the final taboos of TV. Programmes have already shown a person dying, an autopsy, and images of medical procedures that 10 years ago would have been judged unacceptable”.

Originally posted by flogen
change in opinion would be a reactionary one

I’d have to think more of an instinctive reaction, where the foetuses “looks like a dead baby” which make us remember that it’s wrong to kill another human.

Originally posted by flogen
as such would make this shock TV (in the bad sense) as it is does not give a fair and balanced case for and against abortion.

The fair and balanced part should come from the views of both sides as apparently will be aired - but I think we'll have to wait until we see the program till we know if it is actually fair and balanced.

flogen · 06-04-2004 1:03pm

I guess we will have to wait and see if the show is biased in any way, however I think that the cases made by each side would stand better on their own, and there is no need for these images. Just because it is a taboo that has been previously avoided, doesnt mean it is a good idea to show it. I would only agree with the airing if I could see a real progression coming from it.

and any kind of instant reaction that comes from viewing these images, instinctive or not, is still a reaction, and these images do not tell the whole story of abortion, or the reasons, I only hope the rest of the show does.
I think any change in opinion by the public should be an informed one, and not the result of a disturbing picture.

As i said, my view on it is, I dont see any constructive reasoning for showing the pictures, if the anti-abortion side want to plead their case, then they can do so through argument, and the same for the pro-choice side.

Flogen

monument · 20-04-2004 9:12pm

This is on TONIGHT at 23:05

http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/M/my_foetus/index.html

alleepally · 20-04-2004 9:17pm

For anyone in S4C land, its on at 23:55.

simu · 20-04-2004 11:13pm

I don't know if it'll have that much impact. They show plastic surgery ops on TV all the time and ppl are still queueing up to get it done.

monument · 21-04-2004 12:03am

Even thought I'm against abortion and was expecting baby like images, it’s wasn’t the images of the early abortion, or the foetus images currently used the pro-life side. But the images of the 3D scan of a 21 week old unborn baby. It sucked its thumb. Then I thought “this is accepted” as it’s ok to kill this.

flogen · 21-04-2004 4:13pm

I saw a fair amount of this show, and must admit it was much more balanced than I expected it to be.

My beliefs on abortion, as stated above, are the same as ever. I would not be sure if I myself would be keen on having an abortion, I have not had to make that decision ever, and I hope that whenever I do become a perspective father, I will be in a position where I wont have to even consider it. However, I have absolutely no right to tell someone else how to live their lives. Abortion is a huge life changing decision, no matter what path you take, and I have no right at all to have such a huge influence on anyone elses life, They will have to live with their decision, and they may regret it for the rest of their lives, or they may not.
I think that there are many situations in which I would sadly be forced to consider such an act, and I think that we should all individually be able to make our own minds up on it and not have to follow the will of other people.

Flogen

monument · 21-04-2004 5:50pm

I would take that view, if I did not share the view of the abortion doctor on the program – in that “it” is human life. However, unlike the doctor I do not think he, or any one, should have the right to take that life.

alleepally · 21-04-2004 6:01pm

Those 3d images were incredible. It was a challenging programme but I felt although the presenter made out that she was open to having her views challenged, she really was of one mindset - i.e. "pro choice". It started to grate on me, the interchanging of the words foetus and baby. One revealing aspect of the whole programme was when she looked at the 3d image and said, you can't really call that a foetus, it's a baby.

I know this isn't meant to be an abortion debate but I just still cannot get my head around how a life inside the womb is somehow considering different to a life outside the womb.

flogen · 21-04-2004 10:27pm

ok, this is turning into an abortion debate (and Im as guilty of that as the rest) so I will ask everyone to focus on the show and its merits or otherwise as much as they can.

I feel that the show seemed somewhat balanced, although Im not sure just how much it brought the argument forward as it suggested it would. It did bring the 'operation' out from behind closed doors and so stopped either side from embelishing on what really goes on. My views are unchanged after seeing the show, and the abortion, I would like to hear from someone who changed their view on abortion after seeing this, and why

Flogen

monument · 21-04-2004 11:19pm

I *think* everyone was talking about it in the context of the program. But back to the program...

If anything I'd say it was unbalanced to the anti-abortion side. As I feel it didn’t really give the views of the pro-choice side, it was more like a program for pro-choice people wanting to see the anti-abortion side. Or maybe it’s just that I can’t see beyond my views?

flogen · 21-04-2004 11:31pm

not saying that it has become a full grown debate, but it was getting there.

I agree with you monument, as it was made by a pro-choice woman who was spending alot of time trying to get into the mindset of the anti-abortion people,. however on the whole I think it was well balanced, but not really something to bring things forward

Flogen

"Channel 4 to screen graphic film of abortion" - Observer

Comments