Lake of Fire

American History X's Tony Kaye's abortion film Lake of Fire shows just how scared we are of women. Kaye ingeniously brings you along to that point with footage spanning from the early 1990s, there is no narration and the characters speak for themselves.

Kaye's technique made someone like me, who was not overly invested in the issue, see what is really at stake in this conversation: how real the fear of woman is. I should say that I serve on a board that seeks to provide women in the third world access to doctors who can perform C-sections when their bodies are unable to give birth the natural way. I've always thought the women's healthcare lot was about education and getting access to proper care. Even when I read The Cider House Rules as a teen, I thought then, well you have to let women have abortions because they may die doing it themselves. And you can't stop women from trying to abort unwanted children. It's the poor women who suffer; the rich find a way to access care. A woman should have the services that modern healthcare can provide. She should have options; she should have choices, why argue with that? I never bothered to think beyond -- or into the minds of anyone who thought that abortion was actually murder. That's just crazy talk.

Consciously or unconsciously, Kaye's film shows that these arguments are beside the point for anti-abortionists. Instead, a deep fear has brought some Americans to wage their own private holy war -- and they've got a lot in common with the radicals we think we're fighting overseas. Many count themselves among the "American taxpayers party" (which seeks, among other things, an end what they refer to as the "welfare state") and ascribe to the "Christian Identity Movement," which reportedly shares kinship with neo-nazis and white supremacists in the United States. Eric Rudolph, who attacked a gay nightclub, an abortion clinic and then bombed the Atlanta Olympics and the criminals who murdered or attacked doctors and healthcare personnel participate in this kind of domestic terrorism.

"Hell is like a lake of fire," says John Burt, one of the characters from the film, a rabid anti-abortionist and former KKK member. People who are not saved live in eternal torment in that lake. Abortion rights advocates are in there.

Burt is easy to laugh at; his brand of theology has its limited audience. But the picture Kaye paints is a complicated one. Jane Roe from the Roe v. Wade case, for example, is now an anti-abortionist. We hear her explain how she got involved with the legal case, how her home was attacked, how she was mistreated by town folk, how she became despondent and cut her wrists. She tells us how she starting working at an abortion clinic and how she later befriended the anti-abortionists who bought property beside her clinic. Her biggest reveal -- she found Jesus with their help. Unbelievable!

In one of the more mesmerizing moments in the film, she says, she went to the back of the clinic and opened the freezer and "there were babies, man!"

There were babies.

Writer Nat Hentoff, an avowed atheist, says he simply opposes abortion because "you're killing a developing human being." Clearly the debate over this issue is more layered than meets the eye. If I were to accept that abortion were murder, what then?

When do we kill? When do we save? When do we legally murder? -- War? Accident by torture? Punishment? Self-defense? Carpet bomb? As Noam Chomsky says poignantly during the film, "the values we hold are not absolute." We kill when we have a reason to; when it's sanctioned as acceptable by our society.

"The right to bear arms" for example is commonly defined as "the right that individuals have to weapons. This right is often presented in the context of military service and the broader right of self defense." Implied in there is the right to kill, under certain circumstances. The contest over Roe v. Wade and the continuing debate over abortion show us that that right is reluctantly shared women.

I never thought of abortion in this way, and yet, this does seem to be the root of it. Why should a woman have a right to kill her baby? This is the real question the anti-abortionists are asking.

Chomsky's not impressed with anti-abortionists because they have largely shunned the easy ways to save innocent lives, "if you want to do things to help people, there are easy ways to do it." There are proven ways to care for people to bring abortions down. He says there are massive problems that they could do things about -- potable water, healthcare for women, caring for children who are born, among them, and they've largely done nothing about those things. If these people really care about babies, why are they not outraged at all the innocent Iraqi babies killed because of this war... the argument would go.

And yet if we put the right to kill under certain circumstances -- the implied right behind the right to bear arms -- I wonder, when is it that a woman kills? Put aside, for a moment, the woman serving in law enforcement or in the armed services, it's often something extreme or unfortunate: mental illness, abuse, self defense, survival.

The myth of Medea comes to mind, a fearsome blood-thirsty, extreme woman. As one version of the myth goes, she killed her children (and a whole lot of others) to spite her lover, to gain power, to get what she wanted. Scorned woman, we all know this archetype.

More grounded in our American story is Margaret Garner; Toni Morrison's novel Beloved is based on her story. Garner was a real person -- a mother, a runaway slave. Reportedly, she was in her early 20s, living in Kentucky and "killed her two-year-old daughter with a butcher knife rather than see the child returned to slavery. She was preparing to kill her other children and herself when she was subdued" by slave wranglers.

I'm from the MTV generation (and now admittedly the VH1 crowd) and thought we'd gotten over this stuff already. As a black woman, I've often thought of male oppression of women as abstract and quaint, ridiculous like the 1950s and certainly not as far on my personal front-burner as racism. But Lake of Fire is part of the larger explanation of how the subjugation of women and other forms of oppression are connected.

Belinda Morrissey writes in When Women Kill: Questions of Agency and Subjectivity (Routledge, 2003):

For the fear of women, of their power to generate life and to take it away, runs deep in male-dominated societies... the feminine is often aligned with the abject, the criminal, and that the potential for feminine evil is considered ever present. Female abjection relates largely to the very permeability of female bodies; through reproductive and sexual processes, female anatomy blurs the line between self and other, clean and unclean. The woman's vagina is penetrable and engulfing, her menstrual blood is a primary abject pollutant, while her capacity to give birth raises the subject's terror of encompassment and subsequent loss of self. Finally, the baby's early dependence on the mother gives her enormous power, and the fear this evokes, combined with the abject nature of the female body, has been narrated repeatedly in myths and legends of evil and dangerous women throughout history. Women who kill confirm this archetypal feminine power, reinforcing the terrible antithesis to the myth of the good mother, reminding us that where creativity is located so too is destructiveness. The need to contain and limit the threat posed by such women is paramount in legal discourses, charged with enacting society's official response to these crimes, and in media discourses, responsible for communicating that reaction to the general public.

In short, it's deeply disturbing when women kill. It's no wonder some of us get really scared and upset at the prospect of this. For some, it's so clearly not okay, it's so clearly black and white: At a rally, Randall Terry, co-founder of Operation Rescue shouts into the crowd, "we are right, they are wrong!" Ah, the '90s -- if only our worries were that simple now. Then again, maybe not much has changed. The debate over abortion, like many of the contested topics in this country, is as intractable as ever.

As I watched Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, speak against abortion in the film, I thought -- here is a man who we know (thanks to Amy Berg's Oscar-nominated film, Deliver Us From Evil) protected a known child rapist in his church. It's time to be aware of all the interconnected mischief afoot in this country and start getting at the root of our fears.

I always thought the abortion debate was about women's bodies, at least for pro-choice people. But I think what the film shows is that the anti-abortionists are not talking about that, they are talking about the right to kill, which they view as wrong, at least when women initiate it as mothers. Pro-abortionists or pro-choice people need to address this, or both parties will just keep talking past each other.

Comments

[guitarkaos]

Women have the ultimate power and the ultimate love to heal the world. And, we've abdicated that power for too long.

[UtahLiberal435]

Worldwide: People name their babies when they're born. Their chronological age is determined from when they're born, and celebrated in 'birth-days.' No one holds parties on the anniversary of conception. Citizenship papers, social security numbers, tax allowances for dependendents, cards from relatives, none of those yardsticks are measured based on conception date. A blastocystic collection of cells is considered "sacred" by hillbilly witch doctors, while the most benign tumors are surgically removed without remorse.

The only organized opposition to abortions, particularly early-term abortions, comes from tax-exempt religious 'authorities,' who use it as a wedge issue to whip up contributions and fanaticism in their suggestive flocks. In fact, pedophilic, pederastic, Conquistador holdover institutions like the Catholic Church are virulently opposed to not only abortion, but contraception as well. Sex is only for procreation.

Yeah. Right. And big population numbers ramp up the take in offerings.

In the end, it's not 'fear of women,' it's all about control, and power, and money, and last but not least, stupidity.

[mamacat]

Thank you for a very good blog.

The best thing said by a politician on this issue was from Bill Clinton: (approximately) I do not like abortions. They should be done as seldom as possible. But a woman should have the right to choose.

There are no simple ways to achieve consensus on this issue. We all have to make choices in our lives, and I have chosen to be pro-choice and against interference by others in my life. It is not right to allow the most extreme and least rational members of our society dictate how the majority should live.

[clevelandchick]

I think women have abortions because they are at a point in their lives they believe they cannot have the baby - they believe 'it's the baby or me' and it's a survival issue.

If a single working woman who is not on welfare but cannot financially care for a child and their birth control fails? Companies fire women for getting pregnant. Men walk out on pregnant women all the time and not all husbands are doting and supportive. The prospect of doing it all alone with no money is frightening. They'll both be doomed to a life of poverty. Powerless.

Young women/teens also grow up with conservative parents that tell them if they get pregnant they're on their own. As a teen/college student mother told me that every chance she could and I believed her. Later in life she told me that she just said that to scare me and that of course they'd have helped me. Well, she told me that too late.

For women if they have a baby all alone with no money they are left powerless and at the mercy of people. Women know how fickle, petty and unmerciful human nature can be. It's the last position anyone wants to find themselves.

And your post recounting the words of those who are against abortion proves that - it's all about punishment and oppression not mercy or solutions. Not one of them would advocate for national healthcare, equal pay and flex work time for women so they don't have to choose between a child and survival.

[zizyphus]

What is so hard for people to understand? As long as a fetus is attached by its umbilical cord to the mother, it is part of her body. What next, women will be banned from cutting their hair and toenails?

It is all about controlling women's lives and taking away power, and nothing to do with the welfare of fetuses.

[Social]

L'age de Raison (The Age of Reason) by Sartre is more or less an entire novel set against the backdrop of trying to obtain an illegal abortion. It portrays the mentioned dichotomy that evolves between those that can afford to have a doctor perform a private abortion or opting for the notorious "back alley" variety.

Besides being an excellent read on the topic of various social issues that are just as relevent today as they were in Sartre's France, it's one of the only novels I've read that does the topic at hand justice. The question raised that most aptly fits with today's headlines is; can you put a price on good healthcare?

[realnoia]

I just saw a revival of the "Crucible" and
what I saw was male irrationality vs female
irrationality. The female crazies won.
The real witches (crazies) beat the ones who were
accused of witchcraft by out lying them and they beat the male lunatic keepers of the Protestant
flame by out scaring them. In other words woman
are better lawyers.

[Mariel]

Sometimes contraception fails. It did for me, once, and I thought I was pregnant and would have to look for an illegal abortionist. But I was not pregnant; false alarm. I know others for whom contraception failed not once but many times, and these were married women who had too many children and had already lost the love of their husbands, who were chasing younger women. I worked with a teacher who forgot her birth control pill one day and got pregnant; but she was ready to have a child, so that was OK, but what if her husband was out of work and there was no one to support the family?

I have to say that I don't know if God has an opinion on this. The Bible is unclear on this. I can't recall it even mentioning it, and I have studied the Bible a lot.

I became a Christian, too, and have opposed abortion for a long time, but I am at this point, post-menopause for myself, unable to say what God thinks younger women should do.

[Kansas Evans]

I have to say that I don't know if God has an opinion on this. The Bible is unclear on this. I can't recall it even mentioning it, and I have studied the Bible a lot.
***********************************************

I've noticed that as well. And I think it's safe to assume women were having abortions even then. Just because men were unaware doesn't mean it didn't happen. You know what I mean? And, I could be stretching it here, but if God is omniscient as we say He is, wouldn't He have known to be more specific about abortion? I wonder about that everytime I hear Tom Perkins, James Dobson, etc. It seems to me that even God respects a woman's right to her body. Or at least her right to sin. What do you think?

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Abortions existed then but they were just as likely to abort the woman as the fetus. Abortion could only come about as a major social issue when it could become safe and common, which happened with the advent of antiseptic and anaesthetic surgery.

[dadw5boys]

Tell the truth about Partical Brith Abortion.
The truth is they only happen 1 in 4.3 million births.
They only happen because the fetus is deformed and will be hospitalized most if not all og their lives.
This happens MOSTLY when women do not have insurance and do not receive medical care.

[Kansas Evans]

Great blog. It was actually the study of slavery and of slavemothers killing their children that made me pro-choice. Lord knows I would've wanted my mother to kill me, and I told her so!

It's easy to dismiss anti-abortionist because they don't wanna do anything that'd actually improve anyone's quality of life. Also, I'm convince they're more interested in controlling women than saving life.

But to answer the issue of not talking past each other: if someone was coming into a house with plans for harming the woman and/or her children, would she not be allowed to defend her children and herself? If robber comes in with a gun, is it okay for the mother to defend herself and her children, or should she wait for her husband to show up with a gun?

But again, I can't give in credence to anti-abortionists because of the reasons I mentioned earlier. I'm Christian, so the idea that abortion interrupts God's plans has resonance with me. But we interrupt God's plans in so many ways, what's the screaming about when it comes to abortion? Isn't the problem essentially that's a woman doing it? That a man can no longer keep his wife barefoot and pregnant while he does whatever with whomever? That he can't do whatever he wants knowing his wife and her vagina are safely at home for him? Isn't the problem that fathers can no longer certify their daughters' virginity? Isn't that REALLY anti-abortionists' problem?

That's why we talk pass each other. It's hard to believe they're really concerned with "murder" or "child safety," for that matter.

[PKSSK]

When a woman makes a choice to abort a child it is usually a long and painful thought process, depending on the reason. No woman or teenager sets out to become pregnant so that she can experience the path to an abortion. It is a path that is chosen because a person feels desparation both financially and emotionally.

As I have taught my daughters, it is the choice that we, as women, are entitled to. We enter this world as free, imperfect mortals given the gift of free will. It is our free will that allows us to live life by making right and wrong choices that will enable us to grow as spiritual beings. Abortion is a choice that is typically made when one is not educated on the ways to prevent it. When people stop judging those who make a choice that differs from their own, maybe then we will have a civil society.

Sadly, the people that tout prolife are usually the ones who support the death penalty, war, NRA and the rules of those who view themselves as the superior society. The male dominated patriachal ruling institutions, and the women that follow them, do not have the right to take away a womens right to choose, especially when it relates to our bodies.

I am pro-choice and have made the "choice" to be pro-life and I do not judge or degrade others who choose differently. I just try to educate women so that they do not have to make the choice of abortion, it is called planned parenthood.