wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

The pivitol scene in the movie seems to be the explicit depiction of a late-term abortion, as ap pro-choice physician calmly explains the procedure. Regardless of my feelings about abortion rights I would have a hard time watching this. Still, I would also have a hard time watching a film of a kidney transplant. Is the argument then that only visually appealing medical procedures should be legal?

So after working almost twenty years on this film and being exposed to all the various viewpoints and images, Mr. Kaye has yet to articulate his stance on the abortion debate. Isn't that a bit of a facile response?

From what I've seen of the reviews of this movie, even from favorable ones, I can see the anti-choice people getting the most out of it.

Yes, there are fundamentalist extremists depicted in the film but I'm sure their views can be either glossed over or perhaps even made justifiable by those with a more savvy political bent.

You want an answer to the abortion question? Why do women seek one? Because they have an unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is one option to deal with the problem. Better and more accessible contraception methods provide others.

It could be done if the anti-choice people really were sincere in their ends. Unfortunately too many have an additional mission: to impose their fundamentalist dogmas on others, especially in regards with sexual behavior.

Does THIS guy like the sound of his own voice?

I don't like the sound of his voice.

See the new Romanian film "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days," which won the Cannes Palm D'Or this year. It deals with the abortion as it was under the Ceausescu regime.

Are "pro-life" groups who engage in violence treated as terrorists as they should be and considered part of the "war on terror"? If it's really a war on "terror" then why are we not going after more domestic right-wing organizations thathave engaged in terrorism?

and I disagree with this guy: the fact that there is no debate in England says something good about ENGLAND, not America.

Glad to see I'm not the only one thinking this way ! They should call it pro-choice and anti-choice rather than 'pro-life.' I think even the most conservative will agree: who is the goverment to say what is morally right and what is wrong...

I agree JB, unfortunately the line between church and state is increasingly being blurred in this country and a lot of people don't believe in that separation any longer...which is a shame as it is ESSENTIAL to the democratic system.

Leonard:
If it's not addressed, please ask this question--Isn't the abortion issue really a debate of separation of church and state? In other words, I can totally understand someone supporting or fighting abortion on MORAL grounds; but why should this be converted into LAW? Why should even the most conservative anit-abortion advocate insist that their opinion be forced upon others, except where an issue of health or parental consent exists?

I say, take your debate to the church, not to the president. Outlaw abortion at your church, not in the whole country. Not everyone should be forced to think the same way in a democracy.

I come from a very conservative family that took me to 'pro-life' rallies as a kid. I practice Christian religion in a sense, BUT I don't think my ideas should become governing law!

I feel so frusterated on how many votes go to canidates soley on one issue, usually this one---what an ignorant and terrible way to select the leader of the U.S.A.

Film Forum has been showing such great movies over the past couple years!