“I know I made the right decision, but it’s still not easy.” These are the words of “Stacey,” a woman who has just terminated her pregnancy. A few moments later she is in tears. This scene sums up the dilemma that abortion brings into the lives of women and into our culture.

Abortion is certainly one of the most divisive questions facing our society. It may well be the focus of more single issue voters than any other concern. Only gun rights and gun control may be a rival in that regard. Abortion goes beyond being divisive; it is absolutely polarizing. It is an issue that divides people of faith. People tend to see it as a black and white issue.

Lake of Fire seeks to be a comprehensive examination of the debate about abortion. It does not seek to provide an answer to the question. On the contrary, it seems to imply that there is no answer that will satisfy the competing values and rights that make this such a complicated issue. Both the pro-life and the pro-choice sides are right given their understandings of the controversy. Can both be right? Can neither?

This is one of the reasons that Tony Kaye filmed this in black and white—not because things really are black and white, but because black and white film is really a collection of different shades of gray. The debate over abortion, while often stated as black and white, really is too complicated to be an either/or question.

Kaye worked on this film for seventeen years. Much of the film deals with events that took place in the early and mid 90s. The issue had already been front and center for twenty years at that point (counting from Roe v. Wade). We haven’t been able to resolve the question in the years that follow, either.

A 152 minute film about an issue may seem daunting, but Lake of Fire is constantly engaging. It shows many different perspectives on abortion without championing or criticizing them. Many of those involved on both sides are Christians. There were people in the film that I respect, and some that I do not respect. Some spoke with detachment, while others were impassioned. Some used reasoned arguments, others relied on emotions. Some were extremists. Some are cynical.

The film shows us people like Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, and noted liberal Noam Chomsky from M.I.T. At the extreme, we see Paul Hill, who was convicted and executed for the murder of a doctor in Pensacola, Florida. He thought it was wrong that he should be executed for doing a “good deed.”

The film juxtaposes footage from events (such as murders of doctors or of abortions) with comments by ethicists and other talking heads. Some of the footage is very difficult to watch—even in black and white. The film includes images of tiny body parts being sifted through to make sure that everything has been removed from the uterus. It also includes photos of the bodies of women who died with coat hangers still in them from attempted abortions. The scenes may well seem inflammatory. But there is a balance. These are the images that each side wants to be seen to stir people’s emotions for their cause.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz argues that both sides are right and that it is impossible to deal with the issue in the abstract. The story of “Stacey” moves the film away from the abstract. “Stacey” is the example that shows us the reality of the abortion issue. We watch from the time her boyfriend picks her up to drive her to the clinic until they walk out of the clinic after the abortion. We hear her medical interview and history. We even watch over the doctor’s shoulder during the procedure. This too is interspersed with commentary from various perspectives, notably from bioethicist Peter Singer who raises the question of what makes killing wrong. But at this point in the film, it is no longer a matter of general interest or theory; it is about what is going on in “Stacey’s” life, and the life of her fetus. It is now a personal story.

The film didn’t shift my opinion on the issue, but it did give me a better understanding of some of those who hold a different perspective than I. It may be that the film will serve to affirm viewers’ opinions regardless of the side they favor, since viewers will certainly hear their opinions stated clearly in the film. The film’s value might be found not in getting people to change their minds, but in helping us understand that the other side has arguments that may be just as viable.