By An NBC drama called Friday Night Lights covers the issue of abortion in a recent episode and it’s rousing delight in the pro-abortion lobby. In the episode a tenth grader gets pregnant and decides to have an abortion. The reason for delight amidst the pro-abortion lobby is of course, because she has the child killed.
Here’s a link to a pro-choice op-ed and the full episode. I watched it this morning and while I was moved by the writer’s depiction of the grief, the hardship, and the pressures that confront a young woman in this situation, the episode functioned on a premise I believe to be a lie.
What’s the premise? That children destroy our futures. There is an underlying assumption in this episode that tells the viewer that this young woman’s life is over if she chooses to have and raise her baby. This is a lie. The option of adoption is never mentioned and the veil is pulled over the viewers eyes from the start. All peer pressure in the episode is arrayed against the life of this pre-born child and the Texas law that requires an abortionist to describe the child and inform the woman of what happens during an abortion is vilified.
The episode ends in a curious way. The father of the child calls and tells her he will be there for her to help raise the child no matter what. She informs him that she has “taken care of it.” She hangs up and cries. The viewer is left, I suppose, to decide whether she regrets her decision or not, but only after a thorough pro-choice flogging. Of course she’s sad, but now she has her life back.
Does she?
Can we identify when we’re being fed a premise? I’m feeding my readers one right now. My premise is that pre-born children are humans deserving protection from humans and an opportunity to live.
We should out-rightly reject the premise behind this show. We should also take careful notes. These are the arguments that grease the machine that is the abortion industry in the United States of America. We have now a powerful, one-sided, pop-culture depiction of the abortion issue being praised for it’s compassionate approach to the issue. With this, we can be confident there is more to come.
Seth,
Thanks for writing this piece. As you said, the one-sided pop culture depiction of abortion, does not allow for the view that a pre-born child to be seen as valuable.
It is hard to fathom in one’s mind that there is actually an industry that gains revenue from the termination of children in their most vulnerable stages of life.
Facts such as an infant has a heart beat 18 days after conception are lost to the view that a child that is ‘unwanted’ will take away from the quality of life of the child’s mother.
I appreciated your response, because it is important to constantly reject this gross evil in our global society.
Thanks Jaison! Look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
Thanks for writing this. It hits me quite personally, as my mother was quite quite young, unmarried, and my father left. I was a very likely “candidate” to be in that same situation. My mother elected not to kill me, because she knew better.
Laws like this are critical for education purposes. They save lives. There are many innocent women out there who genuinely believe they aren’t doing anything wrong. A good percentage of this country has simply been tricked so thoroughly that they see no issue. They are rarely the ones who are suffering, either inside the womb or as a desperate woman.
The editorial talks about the law as “written mainly by men,” but if the author wants to wonder why someone want to make abortion a harder experience, maybe he should talk to a woman who wishes she might have had that information first.
I’ll never know the pain and desperation of being an unwed pregnant woman, but that doesn’t stop me from recognizing that despite the agony, a child’s life has to come first, or from being aware that the guilt that comes from taking your own child’s life will always be worse.
Thanks to you too David! Really grateful you guys are out there.
I am thinking the other shoe might drop on this. Besides repercussions for the baby’s parents, it would seem the coach might have some thoughts on this that do not align with his wife.
So hold off your judgment.
Thank You, You articulated My position exactly.Do The pro-choice crowed understand where they would be if their mothers practiced abortion?
Did you watch the same episode I watched? To say that the episode was one-sided to the pro-abortion lobby is to say that the episode had no mention of the possibilities for giving birth to the child and raising it (which it did) and no mention of the possibility of adoption (which it did).
Also, the only person pressuring her to get an abortion (besides herself and her poor assumption, which you’ve already mentioned) is her mother. The pressure her mother put on her was far above any peer pressure which might have been applied to the daughter. The fact that the only teenager who knew she was pregnant was offering to support her in raising the child should show what kind of pressure meant more to the character.
Finally, the most recent episode is continuing the discussion around the abortion issue, with the boy’s mother accusing the Dillon High principle of advising the girl to get an abortion. The show is still discussing the issue, and you do an injustice to judge the discussion before it is complete.
Yes, the character made a poor assumption, and made her choice because of it. But to say that this was the only picture offered during the episode does more to discredit your point than it does to discredit the show.
I don’t agree with your premise that “to say the episode was one-sided to the pro-abortion lobby is to say that the episode had no mention of the possibilities for giving birth to the child and raising it etc…” I think the show did mention the possibility of giving birth but it was still clearly in favor of the pro-abortion position.
I missed the mention of adoption. I’ll watch it again. At what point was adoption mentioned and by who? Again, I do think the episode was clearly favorable to the pro-choice (which I consider to be pro-abortion) position. I’m glad to hear they are still discussing the issue. I do think it’s on a pro-choice trajectory but we’ll have to see!
I think the coach’s wife gave the most potent advice in terms of articulating the pro-choice position which is where I drew my opinion mainly from. Her friend Tim’s silent support of whatever decision she made seemed as well to be a clearly pro-choice position as well. I felt he was placed in a compassionate light, a favorable light, for his silent support of her decision to have her child killed.
Also, I don’t think anyone can deny that the show indirectly spoke out against the informed consent law. Of course, they may deal with that in the current episode too.
Thanks for your thoughts, I’ll def re-watch the episode and consider what you shared. I appreciate the feedback. Hopefully, I’ll get to see the current episode and discuss it here also.
Seth,
As an outspoken pro-life person who works for a pro-life non-profit, I’m stunned that you felt “flogged” watching the episode. I don’t think anyone watches that episode and feels “good” about the 10th grader’s decision.
The show was about parents and children. And the tenth grader had constantly been told she had kept her mother from a better life and success. And the tenth grader was driven to her own terrible decision by her mother.
If anything, the show depicts the trials of teen pregnancy and broken homes, let alone the agony of an uninformed teenager forced by her parent to make a decision.
First, thanks for being an outspoken pro-lifer who works for a pro-life non-profit. That’s awesome. What non-profit do you work for?
I disagree with the idea that people can’t watch that episode and feel good. In a review on a feminist blog, the writer felt, apparently, “good” about the episode. The op-ed I linked to in a Dallas news source was by a writer who felt great about the episode. In fact, I think we can say with confidence that anyone considering themselves pro-choice or pro-abortion, though I think they are the same, would feel good knowing she exercised her right to choose. That’s not the same as saying that one feels good about everything she went through, but to the pro-abort, abortion is the answer, the relief, the solvent to the pain and a woman exercising that right is a good thing. So, why wouldn’t they feel good about it?
I don’t think she was “forced” by her mom to make the decision. I think she was pressured. But that fact that she went and talked to the coach’s wife twice I think reveals that she didn’t hold her mom’s authority in that high of a regard.
“Flogged”, maybe I should have said “bathed”? I think at every point, no matter how ugly the pressure from her mom or how ugly the silence from her friend Tim, who she praises in the next episode, the viewer is led to believe, in my opinion, that the only right solution is that this girl exercise her right to choose whether or not to have her child killed. And I think that we experienced a thorough pro-choice worldview. And I think the next episode affirms it. Of course, again, that’s my opinion and I’m so grateful to have you writing and dialoging about it!
BTW, re-watched the episode and saw the mention of adoption by the coach’s wife. My bad! But, I think the point I was making holds up, that we were being fed a premise that to have this child would ruin her life. Her response to that idea was fast and furious… “I can’t have a baby” implying it would ruin everything.
It was a t.v. show. When you watch t.v., you’re asked to suspend your disbelief, because it ‘isn’t real’, it’s only a story.
Its bad enough when you self appointed arbitors of everyone elses marality, shoot and kill doctors to make your point. When you start carrying on about a fictitious television drama, maybe in the hopes of regulating what we watch? That is simply overkill. Grow up, take care of your own lives and let others lead theirs.
Kip, that’s a disrespectful and harsh accusation you bring. I’ve never shot a doctor. I’m fairly certain the gentlemen on this thread have never shot any doctors either.
We’re all aware that this is merely a TV show but I thank you for the reminder anyway. We’re engaging in a few different things here. 1. A polite and respectful debate. Though we may each hold firm opinions and not back down from expressing them, we are not attacking each other here. 2. A discussion on culture, of which TV is perhaps too much a reflection these days, therefore this conversation is relevant. It is also relevant because this show happens to be dealing with a very serious topic in American culture. 3. Freedom of speech. I posted your disrespectful comment because you have that right as well and I want to affirm that… (for now, if you accuse us of shooting people again, or anything like it your comments will not be posted).
If we are self appointed moral arbiters, or engaging in something like that here, you are doing the same thing by telling us what to do based on a moral of your own. I don’t think we’re doing anything like that here, but you should be aware of your own tone in this respect.
I have no desire to regulate what people watch. I do however, want every sincere pro-lifer, including myself, to be sharply aware when the culture is propagating a worldview that is anti-life, and, in my opinion, this show is doing that. I might be wrong, but, again, I have the freedom to express my thoughts on this issues here on this website if I so choose. And these gentlemen on this thread have the same freedom.
Do you have a desire to regulate our speech? I should hope not Kip.
I hope you decide to discuss with us, as a gentleman, in the future. Thanks for considering.
Unsurprisingly, your view on this episode is completely biased due to your own strong position. It’s quite clear to any objective person that this girl struggled with this issue throughout the whole episode, to the point where up until the end, I wasn’t sure which choice she was going to make, and actually, as someone who is pro-choice, I was rooting for her to keep the baby. The “premise” that children destroy our futures is never stated, and is something you set up as a straw man. It’s also clear that both the father and his parents were firmly in the anti-abortion position in the episode, and though the subsequent episode makes Luke’s mother a bit of a persecutrix, the rest of the family is not at all villainized for clearly wanting the child. Furthermore, it’s also clear that while Becky’s mother wants something more for her than what she had, she loves her daughter and does not wish that she had aborted her. It’s fine to have strong opinions, but you should try not to let them cloud your reason and critical thinking.
Thanks for the comments Craig. I just watched it again in light of your comments. I have to say that I don’t think that my bias influenced my perspective that the show advocates a pro-choice view. I did not say that the girl didn’t struggle. I said that she did. And that the depiction of it was moving. Did you read the article or are you commenting from the thread? Before she ever mentioned her pregnancy to her mother she was clear that she did not want to have the baby.
One does not have to state a premise to advocate a premise.
Why were you rooting for her to keep the baby? That seems strange. I’m not making fun, I am genuinely curious why you rooted for that. If you are pro-choice why does it matter what decision she makes to you? Serious question.
My point was not that the show did not display any pro-life people, but it did not advocate any pro-life ideas. I’d be interested to hear where you thought it did. Simply saying the family is pro-life does not advocate the pro-life philosophy at all. I don’t think the show intended to advocate the pro-life philosophy. Perhaps there’s more to it, but in watching the following episode I think the pro-choice worldview was only advocated further. Did I say that Becky’s mother wanted to abort her? I don’t think I did. Becky’s mother certainly pressured her to do it and I suppose they could lead the show to a point where she is shown to be wrong for doing so but I would fall out of my chair if they did, it seems unlikely.
Thanks again for the thoughts. I’d like to hear more about why you’re pro-choice if you don’t mind sharing.
Since you agree that Becky suffered from her decision, I’m not sure what you were looking for. That is to say, what would you have considered to be an even-handed depiction of this situation, short of Becky’s deciding to keep the baby?
I wanted Becky to keep the baby because it was clear that both she and Luke were kind, loving people who would have made good parents and that they had strong support systems that would have helped them as teen parents. Being pro-choice doesn’t mean you can’t have feelings. It simply means you don’t feel you have the right to impose those feelings on others. We may have a difference of opinion on whether an embryo is “alive” in the same way an adult human is alive, whether it suffers or has a soul or can said to be “killed,” but the fact that the mother is alive, with feelings and fears and hopes and dreams that may be affected adversely with the arrival too soon of a baby, is not in dispute, and I’ll take the welfare of the person I know is alive over one that almost certainly has not yet achieved consciousness every time (again, you will say that the fetus is conscious, and I will again say that that is at least in dispute).
Thanks for replying. I’m glad we can discuss this. I wasn’t looking for anything really. The article is about what the show was/is. It’s depicting a position that I believe is founded on lies. The most obvious I thought, was that this child was a detriment to this girl’s future. I do think they could have put the pro-life philosophy out there in clearer terms (the writers of a drama might be able to tell you how better than I can here).
I mean, Luke’s mom, who is portrayed as a nut job in the next episode, her position is emotional primarily. The pro-life position is not emotional primarily. You said that we may have a difference of opinion on whether the “embryo” is alive or not, but Craig, it is alive. It is a matter of fact. When a sperm and and egg meet a new human life is beginning to grow. That is observable fact. That is not in dispute and it is not a matter of opinion. The issue regarding the soul is a different question I’ll grant you, but the pro-choice reliance on the uncertainty of a metaphysical question is shaky ground.
Common sense and humanity tells us if we are uncertain of whether an “embryo” is a human life, we should not err on the side of killing it. I can tell you in your uncertainty, that it is a human life. The “embryo” as you call it, undergoes no change in substance, no metamorphosis of any kind, it is human life. What else could it be? Answer me this Craig, if you would: Do you consider a toddler to be a human being?
Again, thanks for replying and for the thoughts.
I disagree with you entirely. The depiction was very realistic. Why should the girl have the same problems and terrible life her mother had with an unwanted baby? She is too young to care for it and would be on welfare rather than getting an education and a life. I am not anti-life, but believe in choice.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that the pro-choice lobby “delighted” at the fact that Becky had the abortion. Frankly, if pro-choice people truly had a pro-abortion agenda, it would be much better to show the girl suffering through pregnancy and teen motherhood. I can’t see anything in this article you link to suggesting delight or even offering the premise you mention. The article I read was mostly about how psychically damaging the Texas notification law is to young pregnant women. I don’t see the “premise” that children ruin futures as part of the episode at all. It’s certainly Becky’s fear, and her mother’s fear, but I don’t think that it is stated as some kind of fact.
What I had said was we don’t agree if the embryo is alive in the SAME WAY that an adult human is alive. I simply cannot hold a barely differentiated group of cells that may become a human being to have the same value as a fully conscious human being, at least when it comes to infringing on the rights or livelihood of that fully conscious human being.
Thanks for reading and commenting. I didn’t say that the depiction was unrealistic. I said that it was a pro-choice depiction. I think though, that your comment rather proves my point that a major premise behind the show (though not the only) was that the baby would mess up her life. Something I think is an awful perspective of children. That perspective is one of the driving lies behind the evil of abortion in my opinion. That’s a big part of why I wrote this article. Children are a blessing. No one, especially a teenager, knows the wonderful potential that a child’s life has. Because they are humans with the same glorious potential as anyone else, they should be defended and protected and cherished.
Craig,
Here’s an example of the pro-abortion lobby delighting: from the NY Times Blog:
In the episode of “Friday Night Lights” that was broadcast two weeks ago, Becky got an abortion after a pregnancy resulting from a one-time hook up with Luke. This was remarkable given the context — network television. Even more remarkable is the fact that Becky wasn’t forced to suffer regret in Friday’s episode. Regret is standard practice around this kind of thing: in the rare instances dramatic characters have had abortions on television they have had to pay some emotional price. Even on “Six Feet Under,” given to us by HBO, Claire Fisher’s abortion during the third season was followed by an unsettling dream where she saunters through heaven and chillingly encounters her unborn child in a car seat.
Here, what the writers chose to do instead is explore the unraveling of a private matter into public life in a place where religious convictions run deep. And it is Tami who is forced to pay up, essentially for refusing to foreclose the abortion option altogether. Luke’s mother is outraged by Becky’s decision to terminate and insistent that Tami go down for it. Luke’s mom is portrayed as a narrow-minded fanatic who mistakes her own narcissism for virtue. When the school board votes to keep Tami in her job (though we know the trouble is hardly over), Luke’s mother just gets more self-involved and vitriolic. “That was my grandchild,” she says.
And another from a popular feminist blog called “feministing”
The episode was not perfect. Abortion seems to always be depicted with sadness. Becky does end up having the procedure, but the episode ends with her crying. This is certainly one real and completely legitimate reaction to having an abortion. But I would like to see other reactions shown as well - abortion is not always about sadness, and I am concerned Becky may voice regret in future episodes, which is also not every woman’s truth but seems to be the only possibility for the few pop culture characters who have had abortions.
And more:
While the episode had flaws from my political perspective, I was glad to see abortion approached in a way that emphasized a young woman’s needs, barriers to access, and the sort of emotional pressure created by strong opinions about this medical procedure. Too often abortion is treated as a political issue rather than a part of women’s lived experience. This episode contained very little of the standard debate over abortion, even when it depicted Luke and his anti-choice parents. Instead it focused on the sorts of pressures put on a young woman because abortion is treated as such a controversial moral and political issue.
And this is actually from the NY Times online (not just the blog):
What was striking about the exploration of Becky’s circumstance on “Friday Night Lights” was the extent to which the opposing view was depicted as obtuse and out of touch. Two years ago an anonymous young woman ultimately received an abortion on “Private Practice” but not before an hour of television had passed which felt less like drama and more like journalism — sound, balanced and fair — with all relevant moral positions respectfully represented.
And more:
“Friday Night Lights” chose to maintain its commitment, above all, to the world it renders — and to its quasi-Marxist understanding that economics dictate everything. Dillon is a difficult place where improperly-cared-for children materialize one after another, week after week. In a subplot to Friday’s episode, Vince, another gridiron prodigy, is forced to scramble around for money to pay for his mother’s rehabilitation in the aftermath of a drug overdose, which leaves him begging her to stop and pay attention to him. Again and again, “Friday Night Lights” seems to remind us, as if in klieg lights, of the consequences of parenthood pursued by accident or default.
And this from reality check:
Two weeks ago, DirecTV aired an episode of Friday Night Lights (FNL) that very quietly made a mini-kind of television history. As many writers throughout the feminist blogosphere noted with approval, the show depicted a character having an abortion in a very nonpolitical, personal way.
And more:
But it’s a humane show despite its brutal story-lines, and the incredible casting and writing make viewers believe in the uniqueness and moral potential of each character, even the “types.” That includes the moral potential of women who have abortions and help each other have them, and while that shouldn’t be remarkable, it is. This is the season for feminists to tune in.
That last one is particularly awful. It’s all over the web Craig. The pro-abortion lobby was delighting in the fact that this TV series had a key character have an abortion all packed in a show that propagated the pro-choice position. I said, in the article, that the pro-abortion lobby delighted, not the writer of the op-ed.
I know you said that you’re not sure an embryo is alive in the same way an adult is. But neither is a toddler. Neither a toddler or an infant in the womb are fully developed. Would you be okay with a mother killing her toddler because it is an inconvenience to her? A case could certainly be made that many “adults” aren’t even fully developed. And if you’re also judging a person’s value not by the fact that they are a member of the human species but that they are a “conscious” member of the human species you are on even shakier ground. Craig, you drift into unconsciousness every night when you go to sleep. People are knocked unconscious in accidents and become completely helpless. According to your logic, those people lose their value as a human being because they are unconscious. I’m not toying with your words. This is the logical outworking of your value scale for humanity.
As far as the “embryo” being a “barely differentiated group of cells”, you are going against proven fact that the “embryo” is a human being in miniature, on a amazingly organized and coherent regimen for growth, complete with its own personal and unique DNA distinct from it’s parents, it’s gender already determined, and it’s personhood intact. Do they have all the aspects of personhood as you and I? We don’t know and if they don’t, they certainly have the essential aspects to be recognized as full members of the human species.
Your comment about the value of a sleeping person’s life is not a logical outworking of my argument, it is a reductio ad absurdium. Clearly someone who is sleeping has been conscious before, will be conscious again, and has probably touched many lives that would be deeply affected by the loss. But I’ll say this. If I had to choose between the life of a fully conscious human being and one who was in a coma, all other things being equal, I would choose the fully conscious human being.
But Seth, I would rather stick to discussing the issue at hand.
It seems to me that what most of these journalists are “delighting” at is a realistic portrayal of the issues surrounding abortion as they happen in today’s society. Again, I ask, how could the storyline have gone down that you would have considered it to be even handed?
It’s clear that these folks, whether they are journalists or not I do not know, are delighting in abortion. They see this fictitious portrayal of a young woman having an abortion as a victory. That’s so clear in their words. I can’t, of course, make you see that.
Again, my point is not that Friday Night Lights wrote a terrible story but that they have an agenda. Again, I hope I’m wrong, but it seems clear that they are advocating a pro-abortion worldview through the medium of their show. I do not wish to change their plot line, it is what it is. I’m merely pointing out that it is slanted and that it does not fairly portray the pro-life philosophy. Like I said before, I’m not a television writer, how they might have portrayed it more fairly is beside the point, nor is it even my hope. If you’re asking me to brainstorm about how they might do that I suppose I could, but again, the point is that this show is advocating a practice that I know to be evil.
Lastly, I don’t think my conclusion regarding your logic is absurd. I think finding the value of humanity in whether a person is fully conscious or not is absurd. As you said: someone sleeping who has been conscious before will be conscious again, well, if the “embryo” as you call it, has not been conscious before, they certainly will be conscious sooner than you think or could possibly know. Your value scale for humanity seems to be rather utilitarian. You say you would “choose”, implicitly to spare a person’s life, who is fully conscious, rather than a person who is in a coma, and I think that this answers my question regarding the toddler. You would choose, according to this logic, to spare a teenagers life over a toddlers life if you were forced to choose because you rank an individual’s humanity according to their abilities. But Craig, my hope is that you will leave the hypotheticals and the utilitarianism behind and embrace the sanctity of all human life.
The depth of my personal conviction exceeds mere biology I must admit. I think human beings are created in the image of God and that this is the chief affirmation of their inherent worth. But it is not deficient to simply say that all humans are “created equal” and to treat them that way. I might not have convinced you Craig, but I do hope you’ll reconsider your views on life. Thanks again for this dialogue.