The realities of 'Juno'

Commonweal, Feb 29, 2008

While I liked Rand Richards Cooper's review of Juno ("Life & Death," January 31)--a truly remarkable film--I disagree with his conclusions about how the movie may represent cultural changes regarding abortion. Again, someone's judgment has been driven by ideology rather than the facts on the ground.

The heroine in Juno makes a decision to keep her child. Fine. But she is middle-class, lives in a nice neighborhood, goes to school, and has supportive parents--all of which may be missing in the lives of many pregnant teens. Having a child out of wedlock can be a calamity for poor, lower-class, uneducated teens of various ethnicities and races. Statistics have shown that this often locks a young woman and her child into an ongoing cycle of poverty. Is this anything to celebrate?

The reason that the abortion rate has gone down is not that people's attitudes are changing: it is the result of restricting abortions for teens and women across the country. No one wants an abortion, in the way one might, say, want an ice cream. Having an abortion is not always a sign of an "insistence on unencumbered freedom, individual attainment, and absolute control over one's destiny." It can be a necessity for some women. Restricting abortions and outlawing them will mean one thing--women will go underground to terminate unwanted pregnancies and will be endangered by back-alley abortionists. Is this celebrating the seamless garment of life?

I think Cooper's conclusions about the shibboleths of our lives are incorrect and a gross generalization. Juno is a wonderful film, but it is not an iconic representation of cultural change.

ANN TURNER

Williamsburg, Mass.

THE REVIEWER REPLIES

Ann Turner takes me to task for being ideological. Truth is, where abortion is concerned, I don't have much of an ideology, other than believing that too many of them take place. I certainly don't deny that unwanted pregnancies can trap mothers and children in poverty. But to pose the hope for betterment against the ability to experience wonder at unborn life strikes me as a false dichotomy.

For the record, I do not favor outlawing abortion. Nor, contrary to Ms. Turner's implication, did I attempt to extract from Juno any such policy recommendation. All I said was that the film portrays a girl for whom an unwanted pregnancy does not turn out to be a calamity, and who experiences awe and joy at the images on an ultrasound; and that this portrayal may betoken changing social attitudes. Is that so terrible?

In fact, Ms. Turner's letter perfectly replicates the hypersensitivity of the prochoice movement, ever ready to perceive a threat to its interests. But as long as we liberals (yes, I am one) insist on construing any reference to the miracle of pregnancy as a political assault, we will continue to seem heartless and cynical. For thirty-five years American liberalism has tendentiously obscured the humanity of the unborn child in order to facilitate a political result. That I happen to favor that result--namely, preserving the legal right to an abortion--does not mean I approve the means.

RAND RICHARDS COOPER