Movie Review: "Lake of Fire"

I just recently got around to renting Lake of Fire, a documentary about abortion that gives remarkably evenhanded treatment to the opposing sides of one of the most polarizing and divisive issues of our day.

If anything, Christians and pro-lifers get the negative coverage, if only because those who portray pro-lifers in a negative light are louder and their actions more outrageous than those of the majority. The actions of these misguided people are balanced, though, with footage of the more rational and Christlike champions of the pro-life movement, including coverage of a peaceful 1993 protest at the nation's Capitol. The movie pulls no punches, and shows footage of abortion procedures in all of their gut-wrenching detail. However, I also felt like it lacked many details that would have been helpful, even though it clocks in at a lengthy 2.5 hours. I would have liked to have seen a lot more about the history of abortion and especially the legal background in this country, but instead much time was spent focusing on just a few cases and personalities. This limitation makes the film more of an introductory work, in my mind—something of a jumping-off point for further investigation. Still, there is quite a lot of useful information to be had.

Oddly enough, what was to me the most poignant argument presented for the pro-life position came from the outspokenly pro-choice Noam Chomsky. He attempted to put the issue in perspective by uncovering the rhetoric as he sees it. Chomsky boils it down to an issue of how we define a "child"—more specifically, whether an unborn child is included in that definition—and how that definition affects our morality. He then goes on to [mistakenly] imply that pro-lifers often see pro-choice activists as women who are simply choosing convenience over life. No one on either side of the debate, he points out, would advocate taking the life of a 3-year-old child just because the mother didn't want to take care of it. He is absolutely and obviously correct on this presumption, but for me, following Chomsky's logic begs the question: if it's not right to take the life of a newborn child, why is it alright to take the life of one who is about to be born? And if it's not acceptable to kill a child who will be born in one month, why is it okay if she won't be born for another six? Where do we draw the line, and what criteria do we use? I see no basis—logical, moral, or otherwise—for being able to draw a distinct line between the fetus as "just a fetus" and the fetus as "an unborn child."

Lake of Fire, far from being a vehicle to push the filmmakers' agenda as I had somewhat cynically suspected, had the effect all the same of solidifying my views on abortion and pushing me further toward one end of the spectrum. As someone who, until the past several years, has been relatively lukewarm on the argument, the disturbing images, heartfelt testimonies, and emotive anecdotes forced me to contemplate the issues at hand. In being compelled to rethink and evaluate where I stand on the issue, the only conscientious "choice" I could make was on the side of "life."