Today, on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, a new web-based series,  “BUMP+,” serves the abortion issue up to the American public in a new way.  The 13-week series unfolds the stories of three women facing crisis pregnancies. What’s unusual about this series is that the ending is not yet written—whether the characters in BUMP+  will give birth or abort their children depends on viewer input.

The creators of BUMP maintain that they are not taking sides, just pursuing an “open, honest exploration” of abortion in hopes of uncovering a solution.  Inspired by President Obama’s Notre Dame speech, calling for a civil conversation about abortion, Catholic entrepreneur Dominic Iocco decided to try something new.  He believes that people on both sides of the issue need to understand each other better—and that stories allow us to engage issues more deeply than slogans or talking points.

BUMP is a reality-style series that unfolds the proverbial “hard cases:” an immature single woman with two kids, pregnant with a third, and living with an abusive boyfriend, the military wife finally pregnant—but by another man--while her husband soldiers in Iraq, and the nursing student with a career trajectory and two prior abortions. As the press release puts it: “The final cliffhanger is so unpredictable, even the writers and producers don't know how the series will end. From Juno and Bella to Glee and Desperate Housewives, a woman's right to choose has been explored across the media landscape. What makes BUMP+ different?  We're letting the viewers decide how our characters' stories will end. We've opened the official website to comments and invited people to share their personal stories. Our team will craft the final episodes, including the ultimate decision about each pregnancy, based on audience feedback. “

The trouble I have with this series, however, has nothing to do with how the vote turns out.  Either pro-life or pro-choice advocates could pack the comments, outnumbering the other side or providing the compelling stories that make scriptwriters take notice.  I suspect that the writers will literally split the baby—one or two of the fictitious unborn children will make it, while one or two will not. Perhaps the creative types behind the series will even portray a decision to abort as a mistake, no matter how trying the circumstances. 

My worry is that the overall format of the show---with its theme of “you decide”-- plays right into the hands of those who believe there is no truth about abortion.

After 13 weeks of dramatic, emotional engagement, a decision--either pro-abortion or pro-life-- is most likely to persuade the viewer of the most damaging fiction of all: “It was a hard decision, but she did what she felt was right.  She made the right choice for her situation.”  Who am I to judge?

And that’s the real evil stalking American culture: the highest ideal is the exercise of individual choice. Its insidious corollary is that “good” inevitably happens when I decide—or because I decide.  And the more agonized, deeply felt, or even wrenching my choice is, the more unassailable it becomes.  It’s my decision—I feel it, I own it—so it must be right for me. For the reigning relativists who dominate the media and walk the halls of Congress,  “choice” makes “right.”

Back to BUMP… the idea is brilliant—an interactive approach to engage cultural issues. But its fundamental message, I believe, is fatally flawed. The overriding “you decide” message validates the American fiction that the only “wrong” is to fail to make your own decision, sincerely and reflectively.  When it comes to solving the problem of a difficult pregnancy, the question of objective right or wrong never even enters the conversation. In the series pilot, the sincere doctor-character expresses the relativist’s creed perfectly: he reassures the military wife, poignantly indecisive and alone, that,  “We’re here to support you to make the best decision you can.” The “right thing” is for each woman to make the choice that she feels is right for her (or, put differently, that makes her feel right). 

I say, don’t play that game. Relativism is the real evil here—the fatal flaw that results in real lives being lost.  For thousands of women today—and their unborn children—abortion is not a pseudo-reality show. It’s life or death. 

And God knows, even if our nation forgets, that the choice to take the life of an innocent baby can never, ever be right.  End of story.

Mary Hasson, an attorney and writer in the Washington, D.C. area, is the mother of seven children, ages 8-24, and has been married to Seamus for 25 years.  When she’s not writing, she’s likely to be found cheering loudly on the sidelines of soccer games or out on a good run.

Mary, thank you for the excellent commentary. I've been uncertain about this program since I heard about it earlier this week. For some reason I was uncomfortable about it - and I think you've named the reason for my discomfort. While I applaud the producers for their attempts, and strongly agree that "story" can be a tool for discussion and even conversion, your point about truth is well-taken. We cannot "debate" truth - it just IS.
Thanks again.

Amen to that!

You are so right, Mary.

Some things don't need discussion. They are just plain wrong.

The only sensible discussions on this and other life issues are the ones you have with your children while they are still young to inculcate them with the concept of absolute truth.

Any further discussion is to imply there is room for debate.

How un-PC is that???

It might be too early to judge the show. Let's just see what happens. You are jumping to conclusions too quickly, I believe.

I know the kids who made this show very well. They are all firmly pro-life. In fact, most of them are attending the 2010 Walk for Life on the west coast this weekend.

God bless!

Maria, Thanks for your comment. I don't doubt the good intentions--and I really think an interactive video approach on the web is a brilliant way to engage moral questions. However, it's getting difficult for even well-formed young adults and teens to spot a relativistic approach--it is the unspoken framework within which every discussion of moral issues takes place in today's popular culture. While I hope the series will do some good among those who have already bought the relativistic perspective--at least it will educate them on the specific topic of abortion--it may be a case of winning the battle and losing the war. Let's see how the conversation unfolds...
thanks for writing. Mary

I agree with Marla whole-heartedly. Bump is not exactly meant to win a battle or lose a war. The show targets young women in particular. It targets those who may be in a similar situation and invites them to share their stories. Because the fact is, we have been arguing with each other for 37 years and not really going anywhere. It's time we talk/"have a conversation", see where the other side is coming from, and maybe get people to think. A decision is supposed to come out of conversation. We want to plant a new seed.

God bless!

Mary,

Thank you for your analysis of BUMP's premise. From what I've seen, the your discomfort has been shared this past weekend by most Catholics on the blogosphere. The discomfort, however, I think is good. This is a great opportunity to debate and reflect on our current strategy in the culture wars.

It's about time we starting thinking hard about how to communicate with our culture, especially with liberal-leaning young people who march the party line on abortion without ever having thought seriously about the moral weight of the question. There's opportunity to win the young (especially young women) to the cause of life, but we need to focus our attention on communication. How do we gain their attention? How do we get them to reflect? Young liberals are open to the message of life, but how do we communicate with them?

As abhorrent as the relativism underlying Saul Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals is, he has an excellent chapter on communication. ACORN activists never use their liberal buzz words when trying to win the support blue-collar workers. Communication breaks down when we speak outside of the experience of the people we're trying to communicate with.

Are young people going to be won through Walk for Life rallies? Will they be won by the silly antics of Randal Terry? As abhorrent as the reality-style premise may be, it is effective in engaging young people. I think it's hart do assume that they will come out of the show with a relativistic conclusion when you haven't even watched the full show yet. Dramatic entertainment draws us in, the empathy that builds when we're identifying with the characters forces us to drop our ideological barriers. Entertainment is one of our most effective weapons in the culture wars. It's hard for me to see so many Catholics blind to that fact.

I urge you and your readers to watch Mike Huckabee debate with John Stewart: http://bit.ly/8Wuclv. He backs Stewart into a corner and forces him to admit that he is really uncomfortable with abortion. Study how Huckabee argues-- he always argues within the experience of the people he's trying to win over. He doesn't scream "sanctity of life" but argues on the basis of equality. Huckabee wins this argument and we should all study the implications of it.

BUMP+ is an awesome innovation in the culture wars. We should be inviting every young woman we know to watch it.

I think your article really puts a finger on something I felt when I first encountered this project.

However, in wrestling with this, it seems like the show is shifting the focus a little from the question of "is this a person" to the process that women undergo as they deal with the consequences of an unintended pregnancy...because right or wrong, when a woman finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy, she is going to make a "choice."

I think more than trying to argue morality, they are attempting to advance a discussion on what women might go through as they come to that decision.

This is precisely where both sides of the issue are talking past each other and talking about the issues that make a woman more inclined to choose one or the other. Pro-lifers sometimes tend to adamantly shove something down the throat of an unconvinced audience: "it's a baby."

True as that is, if they aren't convinced of that, that will not weigh too heavily in the mind of someone who is overwhelmed with how this is going to affect her. Especially as our society becomes more selfish, trying to plead a woman to put another first, especially when they are not convinced this "thing" is truly another person, they often default to what is more convenient for them at the time.

However, if in this project, the stories of others can come forth and speak about how having an unintended baby truly did bring them happiness...or having an abortion brought unspeakable pain, when women, conditioned by society to think the choice is up to them and both are morally equally options, will perhaps listen more clearly and see that choosing life is not only in the best interest of the child, but is also in their own best interest.

So, this is interesting. They put this bit on their website today:

Yellow Line Studios is the independent owner and producer of BUMP+. We acquired the script from a former student at John Paul Catholic University, and benefited from the input of people from that community during development and production. Creatively speaking, though, its a collaboration of a group of artists from different faith traditions and viewpoints, financed by Yellow Line investors.

Mary,

I agree with your closing statement, that deliberately taking the life of an innocent child can never be right. And this leads to my great frustration with the pro-life movement. Do we really think women have abortions because they wake up one morning and think, "Man, I'm in a vile mood today - I think I"ll kill my baby." Of course not! It is waking up and thinking "Oh my goodness, I am facing 20 years of total physical, emotional, and financial responsibility for another person ... by myself!" that sends women running to the abortion clinic. So every time we "pro-lifers" vote for tax cuts (Welfare Queens!); tougher sanctions on illegal immigrants (Having babies to get a foot in the door!); or against health care (Socialism!), child care subsidies (Government indoctrination!), and school budgets, we set children up to be aborted. If we really believe in the absolute evil of abortion, we will give women real support to carry their pregnancies to term. Parenting can be overwhelming and frightening in the best of circumstances, and it only begins with the birth of the child. Real compassion and care for mothers and children must go forward from birth, and last for years. That is what will save babies: giving women the confidence that there will be support for them and their children throughout the child-raising years. I pray that we can find the love and generosity in ourselves to provide that care for all women.

Feel free to comment below:

Please be charitable in your comments

Leave your comment