In a recent article, NRL News Today offered a critical analysis of the film “Obvious Child,” which depicts the experiences of a woman grappling with an unplanned pregnancy.
Those who believe that there is a depth to which pro-abortionists can sink that other pro-abortionists will defend, may be surprised to learn that Amanda Hess found Obvious Child to be the most honest abortion movie she had ever seen. It is about time that such a film was made.
Before we address Ms. Hess’s ostentatious and inappropriately light-hearted commemoration of the demise of a child, it is prudent to provide a brief overview for those who may not have a personal stake in the matter of abortion. (It should be noted that NRL News Today stories are carried by all the major sites that aggregate news stories, such as Google News.)
It is necessary to have an appreciation for bodily humour jokes. As previously stated, the star of the film is Jenny Slate, who previously appeared as a supporting actress on the American television programme Saturday Night Live. She is perhaps best remembered for uttering the most offensive four-letter word on the show’s opening night.
It is evident that Slate and Director Gillian Robespierre were created for each other. Both have a penchant for vulgar, sub-adolescent humour and a proclivity for discussing bodily functions. In an interview with The Village Voice, Robespierre revealed that she is “obviously something that I need to go to therapy about.” “I am compelled to discuss this matter.”
It is also necessary to accept the premise that this is the subversive romantic comedy that has been anticipated. Please provide evidence to substantiate this claim. One might inquire as to the rationale behind the opening line. In the film, Donna Stern, a stand-up comic, is seen in a reflective moment, preparing to deliver a pivotal line to the baby’s father.
“I’m having your abortion. Do you want to share dessert?”
This is “subversive”?
Okay, so why is Ms. Hess so in love in “Obvious Child”?
Firstly, the film concludes with a positive resolution, which is a welcome change of pace. The film’s conclusion, in which a child dies and no one appears distressed, is perplexing. It can be assumed that she is referring to the couple (minus the baby) being together at the end.
This represents a significant advancement for Hess. She posits that even more contemporary cinematic productions that portray women in the modern era and address the topic of abortion fail to acknowledge the constitutional right to abortion as an unambiguously positive development.
Moreover, the proportion of films in which a pregnancy results in an abortion is now lower than at any time in the past. This trend has become particularly pronounced in films produced since 2003. In other words, the fact that abortion is now a safe procedure has resulted in women on screen no longer choosing it.
In other words, as many pro-abortionists have recently asserted, the films in question have a “wrong ending”: birth. Perhaps the most vexing aspect of Hess’s critique is the pervasive portrayal of women in these films who, despite the availability of abortion, appear to have never considered it as an option. One might be forgiven for questioning whether the Sisterhood is being adequately served.
In a roundabout manner, Hess will concede that a film that teams up with NARAL and features the most charismatically competent Planned Parenthood doctor that a young, sexually active woman has ever seen may, to some extent, challenge the boundaries of credibility.
However, as this is a celebration of a film that has been perceived to have overcome various challenges, Hess is unable to acknowledge the obvious, as doing so would render her entire argument implausible and tiresome.
In contrast, the film’s satirical potential is somewhat constrained by its overt political stance.
One might be forgiven for questioning that assumption.
However, following this fleeting encounter with reality, Hess reaches the following conclusion.
“For too long, Hollywood has been offering up either the tragic abortion narrative or the implausible motherhood story without giving the abortion caper its due. Obvious Child makes this heretofore untold tale look like a piece of cake. The film manages to be revolutionary by treading the most traditional of rom-com territory: A girl meets a boy, and after navigating a series of miscommunications and obstacles, one of which happens to be an abortion, they live happily ever after. Or at least through a snuggly, post-abortive viewing of Gone With the Wind.”
Two brief observations are in order. The objective of the extensive pro-abortion propaganda currently in circulation is to completely negate the “compromise” that they have consistently opposed: the fictitious pro-abortion assurance (famously espoused by Bill and Hillary Clinton) that abortion should be “safe, legal and rare.”
Those in favour of abortion rights are often asked why it should be rare. For many women, it represents a significant life event, a decision that is entirely theirs to make at any stage of pregnancy. Any suggestion that the act of abortion may be morally ambiguous or that the child may be deserving of respect is met with vehement opposition and must be eradicated.
Secondly, by portraying the context in which the child’s death occurs in a manner that is both irreverent and comedic, the event becomes a subject of ridicule, akin to the satirical portrayal of the fraternity in the film Animal House.
You do have to ask yourself, who would make a joke out of the end of a child’s life? Only those who are dead set on scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
