The_Boxing_Cat The woman who was so offended because little children saw the pictures. Yet, it was fine with her for attacking those same little kid's father- literally beating on him. Then, there's the students who complained about the graphic photos on their college campus. The way I see it is, those pictures are the voice of the aborted babies. I'm not religious, not a Republican but I am a person who is greatful that my mother didn't abort me.Z3

ChrisBagley One viewer argued that the filmmakers have a pro-choice bias because they filled 2 percent of the screen time with the black-and-white factoids, including one that represented the medical community's position that abortion and breast cancer are not linked. Another viewer implied that this film is pro-life because it focused almost entirely on pro-lifers.I think both viewers are wrong and I think trying to figure out whether the filmmakers are biased or trying to manipulate us is a waste of time. Ninety percent of the movie is footage of pro-lifers in action and pro-lifers discussing their work in their own words. That's pretty much exactly what the movie promised at the outset. If the film had teased "a complete, thorough, and balanced look at the abortion debate," then you could accuse the filmmakers of pro-life bias. But it didn't do that.

vitalymakievsky Though this film has some interesting emotionally charged footage overall is boring. The people interviewed in the film have very little to say and often repeat themselves. Their only point is that they think the late-term abortions are gross to look at. Nevertheless, this film may be worth watching on instant viewing if you click through most of the repetitive material, for a few interesting clips. There are a lot of talking heads that say the same thing. Furthermore, what they have to say is mostly telling you what to believe and think without much elaboration or any meaningful philosophical content.Did I mention that this film repeats itself a lot?

real_hiflyer In response to a previous offering 'How many of the zealots protesting abortion have taken a child from a stopped abortion into their family? Probably few.It is hypocritical to encourage these babies to be born and not participate in the support of them.'Are you using the lack of support anti-abortionists offer to full term babies as justification for killing them? It is hard to interpret it any other way.Does 'probably few'mean you don't know? Wouldn't it make more sense to check on how many people would love to adopt a baby before offering a reason that isn't? Would 'discussion of over-population' perhaps be more appropriately a forum for problems in the customs of third world countries and the worlds unfair and uncaring distribution of wealth? Isn't man's contribution to global warming a problem based on greed, distribution of wealth yet again, and how we acquire what we need rather than anything to do with abortion? For those of us who feel life begins when a baby is conceived and detest the justification of abortion on anything other than danger to the health of the mother to be called 'zealots', a word adopted to derogatorily describe this point of view, offers an insult veiled within a statement. From the comments you offer, I can't possibly imagine a film of this subject and title, introducing so many issues having nothing to do with what it seems to be about. Your arguments make little sense and are so scattered and disjointed you really must have written your comments in a haze of preconception without much thought or consideration. Please apply love to a position or else these kinds of comments might be the death of, literally, another person's opportunity to affect positive change and not destruction.