Abortion TV
Posted by Joshua Claybourn on 15 November 2004 | 12 responses
Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Reynolds offer some interesting theories as to why sitcom characters who unintentionally get pregnant seem to agonize over the decision to give birth before almost always (perhaps simply always) having the kid. Randy Barnet suggested that this refutes the idea that Hollywood is so pro abortion. But I would suggest the biggest reason for such scripts is that abortions, quite simply, are ghastly procedures and not something that’s likely to draw viewers. It’s not so much a political statement as a grapling with the reality of abortion. As Radley Balko notes, abortion doesn’t make for great comedy.
12 Responses to “Abortion TV”
Perhaps this discussion overlooks an even more fundamental fact: sitcoms are fiction. People write them. With an incredibly few exceptions, sitcom characters either get pregnant because the writers want the woman to have a child on the series, or because the actress playing the character gets pregnant and they don’t want to try to hide it.
In the first case, the character will have the child. In the second, since the actress will carry her child to term, so must the character. A miscarriage is a dramatic option, or giving birth. But the average woman who chooses an abortion would have one well before she even showed, and how then would they explain a character who had an abortion but is still visibly pregnant?
I’m with Peter on this one. The main reason characters get pregnant on TV is because the actress playing them gets pregnant and its “written in”. Unless the actress loses the baby, abortion really isn’t a script option.
Well, when Rachel on Friends became a mom the issue of the child and caring for it were practically non-existant from the remainder of the show. and given how hard it is, as the tv folks always show us, to be a single mom, i tend to discard what the screenplay artists & writers of hollywood have to say about life. with that industry it’s about ratings, and really only the media cares, so its all just self serving: you’ve got 30 minutes of a new show on tv, and then tv analyzing and pumping about that 30 minutes constantly until next week’s show. Occassionaly we’ll be distracted with stories of tv culture & bios about tv people, other times we are regaled with memories of past events on tv, though repackaged with that retro feel & some 2-bit wit from almost famous people. Their shows, generally, are not about showing life, but just to showcase their ability to charm. reminds me of bowie’s “modern love” song…
…to be honest, i don’t really read fiction, so perhaps I just have an affinity for reality. I just don’t want to be charmed by some half-ass effort, which for all the thousands & millions of dollars put into the industry, that is what we usually get.
Being pro choice doesn’t necessarily mean being value neutral on the question of whether abortion is good or bad. My guess is that it you asked most pro-choicers, they wouldnt’ be crazy about the idea of an abortion for themselves, even if they defend the choice for others. So even fictions created by prochoicers might reflect NOT choosing an abortion as a value.
I believe another big reason is obvious: skittish advertisers. Writers, I think, would love to do abortion stories because that would cover a reality that rarely gets examined (and I think you can see it in the way some shows make the choice agonizingly long and/or slow, as if they’d love to go the other way). But between a fear that audiences will revolt and a fear of advertisers about boycotts, it doesn’t hapen. It’s not just convenient additional chracters or actress’ pregnancies. As an example, I would point to Six Feet Under, which does not have these advertiser pressures, where Lauren Ambrose’s character had an abortion and the decision and its aftermath were complicated and well thought through.
Interesting comments, but I think Claybourn is on the mark here. Even most pro-choice folks aren’t thrilled with the idea of abortion. Bill Clinton (who vetoed a ban on “Partial Bith Abortion” more thna once) said he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”, and John Kerry folowed suit. I don’t see how 1.2 million abortions a year could be considered “rare”, but the fact remains that it’s not a pretty thing.
Take a look at the people (men and women) going into Bloomington’s Planned Parenthood on Thursdays. It’s not a happy place.
Isn’t the fact that she gets to agonize over the decision gives it a pro-choice slant?
Hollywood’s choice
Josh Claybourn and some other folks have their theories about why TV characters who face an abortion dilemma always choose to have the baby, given that Hollywood is so liberal. But they’re missing some of the subtlety in the pro-choice argument. Being …
You have to go back a ways, but on the early-’70s sitcom Maude, the title character did have an abortion.
Isn’t it more common that the couple can’t conceive and have to search through alternative way of conceiving or acquiring a baby? I guess this is partly because this allows for humorous situations, but mostly its because they don’t want to write a whole pregnancy of a core character into the script.
Why so few babies? Because that will always destroy a proven formula.
Why no abortions? Because that’s never funny.
All Pro-Life, All the Time
Check out the pictures of 12-week old unborn twins at the Kitchen Network. Cool! Wide Awake holds his own during a class debate that began with the question, “Should women who smoke during pregnancy and harm their child’s development be…
Maude was a good get. However, ratings of the show would decline from the git go. Television is all about making money from having viewers. Look again at the Red States and the Blue ones? When R v W is discarded to the ashcan most all of the States will make abortions rare.