Sperlock has one thing right: there is definitely a lot of disagreement on the abortion issue in the United States of America. Despite what many politicians and political activists would have us believe, the abortion issue has not been settled in America. Sperlock says he has found a Pro-Choicer "willing to cross the line" to join a group of Pro-Lifers for 30 days. Question #1: did Sperlock ask someone of the Pro-Life persuasion to join a group of Pro-Choice persons for a month? If he had, and found one to accept - and knowing many Pro-Lifers personally, any number of them would have accepted - this episode would be much more credible if he had created a balanced atmosphere. This atmosphere would consist of Jennifer in the Pro-Life world for a month and a Pro-Lifer in the Pro-Choice world for a month. Hell, even "Wife Swap" has gotten this right. The way this documentary stands, we really only truly see one side of the story. While Sperlock doesn't actively disparage Pro-Lifers, it only gives the Pro-Choicer, Jennifer, the opportunity to discuss with her friends, on camera, for the world to see, her fears of joining her new community for 30 days. The fears coming from the other direction in the same situation were never given the opportunity to see the light of day. This is but one example of the Pro-Life views that never saw oxygen while the Pro-Choice candle burned brightly. I initially gave Sperlock the benefit of the doubt, thinking perhaps he really wasn't able to find an equal participant of the opposing view. However, I was proven wrong when I began to view the Atheist/Christian episode which used exactly the same set-up - an Atheist joins a Christian community, thereby giving more oxygen for the Atheist to inject conjecture and opinion into Sperlock's documentary. Not that I should be surprised by this as Sperlock, in his very first episode (minimum wage), declares his poverty by showing that the only thing left in his wallet before he leaves for Columbus, OH is his drivers license and his ACLU membership card. This tells me that even if Sperlock were willing to set up a balanced atmosphere, creative editing would still be king. How are we as a viewership to ever begin to take Sperlock's new docu-venture seriously if he shows such bias from the beginning and in the very structure of each adventure? This viewer finds it difficult to do so. Jodi B.
Omaha, NE