The woman at the end made an excellent remark "whos going to take care of these children" the same thing being said the same thing being pictured, there not getting it...without Free Will there is No god...its like they keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different (crazy).An idea that i guarantee would work, Work on what would happen to these unwanted children when they are born, we have so many already, work on the answer to the unwanted children, im sure god is asking., work at a different angle instead of, good lord this same old thing. The church should also be something you can trust and that is not true anymore. How dare the preacher hit back, this woman, He appeared soo small in many eyes and lost support for such., while holding a child. This man called her something terrible and no she should not have slapped him, but he (a man?) did not handle that right, These supporters of pro life truly need to go about it at a different angle...Change peoples views with a different angle.!!

Like some kind of movie-making magicians, those responsible for "Unborn in the USA" have pulled off quite a remarkable feat of documentary legerdemain. Though obviously pro-choice themselves, instead of launching a diatribe against the pro-life movement, they have allowed those on the other side to speak for themselves in their own words. The result is that the pro-lifers are not reduced to the simpleminded caricatures we so often encounter in media portrayals of them (think of that sweet but rather pathetic and utterly befuddled anti-abortion protester standing all by herself outside the clinic in "Juno"). Indeed, virtually every person interviewed for the film falls on the pro-life side of the issue and most of them come across as decent, well-intentioned individuals who are willing to put themselves on the line for a cause that means so much to them personally.Somehow, directors Stephen Fell and Will Thompson were able to gain remarkable insider access to some of the key players in the pro-life movement, including Focus on the Family, a Colorado-based Christian organization that, among other things, trains college students to go forth and spread the pro-life gospel (this is the aspect of FOTF's ministry on which the movie primarily focuses). Even when the filmmakers interview a member of a group like the Army of God - an organization dedicated to eradicating abortion through any means possible, including violence against clinics and abortion doctors - the directors make sure to counter them with people on the pro-life side who vehemently condemn those actions. The movie also features women who have had abortions and now go around the country voicing their regret.In fact, so potent and powerful are the images that one begins to wonder if the movie might not in actuality be a product of the pro-life movement sent out as a kind of Trojan Horse to lure the unwary to their side. Indeed, the filmmakers stay almost entirely offstage in this film, voicing their own pro-choice opinions only in the title cards that are frequently interspersed between interviews."Unborn in the USA" functions almost like a Rorschach-blot test for pro-lifers and pro-choicers, since viewers on both sides of the issue may be able to project their own beliefs onto the movie and have them reaffirmed by what they witness here. It's a tricky gamble Fell and Thompson have taken with their approach, but the result is a thought-provoking and challenging movie that definitely cries out to be seen.

This film was amazing. More than halfway through, I grabbed the DVD box and tried to figure out who was 'backing' the film. I really couldn't figure out if this movie was trying to portray segments of the pro-life movement negatively or positively. The film is segments of the pro-life movement engaging in activism, interplayed with simple facts on a black screen with white lettering. A few of these facts revealed a glimpse of the filmmakers' bias, but that was the extent of it.This film was difficult to watch, as it highlighted the argument of the use of graphic images in the abortion debate. I enjoyed the pro-choicers that the film makers decided to include in some of the sidewalk conversations sparked by the images displayed by the pro-lifers. They were confrontational, but didn't portray the pro-choice individuals as stupid or fanatical. The same with the pro-life folks in the film. If they seem stupid or fanatical, it's either because you perceive them as such, or they really are. One of the last scenes in the movie (a confrontation with a pro-choicer) was amazing in that it showed the hypocritical Christianity of some pro-lifers. This was a thread throughout the film, including a Catholic priest who offered a cash reward to the apprehension of pro-lifers who engage in bombing or shootings. If you're going to be pro-life, he says, you have to be pro-life all the way.An extra feature on the DVD is a post-interview with those interviewed on how they felt they were portrayed in the film. Almost everyone felt they were represented without bias, with the exception of one woman who felt that some members of the pro-life movement came off as caricatures. What an extraordinary attempt by the film makers to ensure their objectivity. I do like Michael Moore, but I wonder if his films would stand the same test.

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.