Cool News
Quint saw Tony Kaye's epic abortion movie, LAKE OF FIRE, at the Santa Barbara Film Festival!!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. I've dragged some ass post Sundance. I've been attending the Santa Barbara Film Festival and seeing a decent amount of flicks, but any free time I've had I spent either catching up on Sundance reports or sleeping or finding old New Zealand friends on MySpace (hi Julia). You know, important things.
So, I've got a fair amount of guilt about dodging the SBIFF coverage, but I'm here to shovel some coal and get the review train rolling. And what a way to start.
By far, my favorite film I've seen at the Santa Barbara Film Festival is Tony Kaye's epic documentary, LAKE OF FIRE. And it's one that by all means could have not worked out for me.
One, it's an abortion documentary. Two, it's a three hour long abortion documentary. Three, it's a three hour long black and white abortion documentary.
However, I was engrossed the whole time, the documentary flying by. This is helped by Tony Kaye's stance. He is completely neutral the whole time, showing both sides in extremely good light and pathetically bad light.
Our first glimpses of the pro-choice camp are them protesting the pro-life protesters at an abortion clinic and they are so damn annoying. They act like 5 year olds, mimicking the leader of the pro-life crowd. Yet the pro-life crowd has ten-fold more crazy people and flat out cold-blooded murderers in their ranks, including one amazingly entertaining, yet incredibly frightening preacher that recounts literal stories (in his mind) of women who got abortions carrying out the fresh fetus from the abortion clinic, parading it in front of the anti-abortion protesters, pulling out a grill, throwing the fetus on that grill, cooking it and eating it in front of the shocked anti-abortionists.
My own personal politics and views were challenged, strengthened and every step in-between.
There's some harsh shit in this movie, graphic, yet sterile, footage of the abortion process, from consultation to execution of the procedure. There are some flat out revolting shots of the doctors sifting through the contents of the vacuum, making sure there aren't any pieces left in the mother's womb. The little baby parts, recognizable hands, feet, faces...
I can see the religious right getting behind this movie and using it as a tool to gain support, but I can also see the pro-choice movement using it for those exact same purposes. For every graphic shot of a doctor measuring a severed baby's foot, there's footage or stills of a murdered doctor and the complete lack of disapproval by the pro-life movement. In fact, not just the lack of disapproval, but a definite approval of their murders and the support of others in the future doing the same.
The debate in all its forms is shown. The best speaker, by far, is Noam Chomsky, famous author and linguist. He dissects both sides succinctly and intelligently describes the conundrum of this argument. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. You'd think that is just non-committal BS, but he goes into great detail on how that is not only possible, but you'll find it hard to disagree with him at all.
The film is amazing, eye-opening, heart-wrenching, funny, scary, sad... It is the end all be all of the debate, every single issue covered. You might not change your mind at the end of this movie, but you'll have a broader understanding of the argument.
I know Tony Kaye still considers this a work in progress, but I think it's as powerful as it can ever be. Roger Durling, head honcho of the Santa Barbara Fest, seemed to believe ThinkFilm was going to release the movie, but that hasn't been confirmed yet. If released, it'll cause quite the stir, but as I said before I don't think the uproar is going to be as crazy as some people think. I firmly believe both sides of the argument will embrace this movie. Whenever it is released.
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
-
+ Expand All
-
that Chomsky gives a real balanced take on the issue. ::rolls eyes::
-
3 hours long? UGH....
-
Sorry.
-
And this whole "abortion," thing sounds like it would be kind of controversial. Anybody else heard of it?
-
If someone really wanted to stir up some shit they'd make a documentary/film about 9/11 or go after the Bush administration. Then we'd really be seeing something new.
-
now _thats_ an eye opener.
-
I thought Harry was being descriptive with the word 'abortion', but, no. I'll Pass. And, Chomsky and intelligent in the same sentence? That's hilarious. Croak already you commie loving fuck. Thank you.
-
I spit FUCKING MILK out my nose when I read the words "CHOMSKY" and "Well-Balenced View" in the same paragraph!!! I mean, c'mon, you can admire the man if you want but please don't try to patronize those of us with IQ's above 30. Even xxxtreme liberals know this guy is a hack!
-
Hell, here I come.
-
Why couldn't you have been aborted you fucking asshole.
-
Abortion is murder. Case closed.
-
But at least I know if Anchorite shows up he'll entertain with his always wonderfully asinine point of view, whatever it may be.
-
..only happens with late-term abortions, which make up a small percentage of all abortions. So if that's presented as the norm, I'm thinking maybe the documentary isn't as neutral as everyone claims.
-
Really now. What set you off Sly. I'm curious.
-
Tell a raped 13 year old girl that.
Or prove when an unborn foetus is conscious. Or just simply tell a woman she doesn't have the right to do with her body what she likes.
I can see the argument that abortion is murder, but simple this issue isn't! -
is this true?
-
I've never understood the whole 'debate' since it is a personal decision.
-
F the breeders...lets get boys with boys and girls with girls and make that the norm. Then we can eliminate the human population that is making this world such a shithole! Pamela Isley.
-
I am solidly pro-abortion... beyond pro-choice, I'm anti-breeding. I had a vasectomy in my twenties, so my money's where my mouth is. THE ONLY TWO REASONS FOR HAVING A BABY: IGNORANCE OR VANITY. Usually a combination of the two.
The world is full of needy kids. You want to raise one, adopt one. But nooooo, gotta make a special little pants-shitting mini-you, 'cause the world needs more of you and your special qualities so badly. Fucking pathetic, makes me ill. People who have no excuse not to know better and yet are slaves to their instincts, no better than farmyard animals. -
thinks George Bush is smart and that Saddam did 9/11
-
and liberate them from the oppressive muslim wombs with our star-spangled Democracy vacuum device.
If you voted for Bush I hope your ass is Talkbacking from Tikrit, otherwise go fuck yourself. -
Saddam didn't do 9/11? Then why the hell are we in Iraq? Surely our President of the United States of America would would be smart enough to begin a campaign against the leader of the country that organized the attack right? Instead of coming up with a reason that nobody understands to rage war with a country that most likely didn't directly lead that attack right? Seriously though, why are we still at war there? I'm all for smoking the bastards that pulled off 9/11 but you're right, it wasn't Saddam. I even consider myself a republican and feel this way. Talkback politics debate meltdown in 5...4...3...2...
-
I've never heard of an idiot actually doing the world a favor and disarming himself before. I've gotta say: I'm impressed. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
As for the ignorance/vanity thing: making a blanket statement like that is both vain and ignorant.
Cheers, fuck-o. -
I don't think my DNA is so miraculous and wonderful that it's worth replicating in a world already full of misery and deprivation. Anyone who does think so is deluded. You're as likely to get a genius from the orphanage as anywhere else if you raise 'em right.
And for any guys out there nervous about getting a vasectomy, let me assure you it doesn't affect your virility in the least, contrary to what poor old Jim Thompson might have felt. I'm still randy as a goat many, many years later. -
if you surmise that from my posts you need some windex in your eye.
-
arguing out of blind( must emphasize blind) emotion, going from an abortion documentary to an Iraq/Bush debate... It's fun being the eye in the sky ;)
-
The flip side of which is-- Thought obviously I haven't seen the film-- I find it hard to imagine how showing graphic abortion footage serves any purpose whatsoever (except to titillate the fundie fucks who collect such material). I mean nobody thinks of an abortion procedure as being a pleasant or bloodless one, for the woman or the doctor or anyone.
-
There is no "killing doctors vs killing babies" debate. That doesn't exist except in radical fringe groups. To focus on that is to miss the entire point. 99% of the pro-life side does not kill doctors, and they do not condone killing doctors. They condemn killing doctors just as much as they condemn abortion. This is the REAL debate; Is a fetus human while in the womb? If so, it is a life, and abortion is a crime. Or is a fetus nothing more than a growth of the womans body until the cord is cut? If so, than a woman has as much right to remove it as a tumor. The debate is on the status of the fetus. What constitutes life? NOT, NOT, NOT, if it's ok to kill the doctors who kill babies. It sounds like the film maker was forced represent the views of wackos as being mainstream in order to keep his documentary balanced. How else are you going to counter images of ground up babies? It may make for sensational film making, it may make for the film being watchable by both sides, but it is not representative of the actual debate.
-
it's just that some of them are Anti-Choice. let's not make abortion illegal. let's make it unnecessary. i'm in favor of replacing candy bowls with condom bowls next Halloween.
-
...to describe Daddylonghead is Misanthropic. And a dedicated one too; Vasectomy? ouch. On a lighter note: isn't the world better now then centuries ago? Wars have been around since forever and besides most diseases are eradicated and with nanothechnology the sky's the limt plus it's the digital age people, Why not procreate? It'll all work out. Thank you.
-
Feb 02, 2007 8:31:36 PM CST
I'd love to see the statistics of murder abortion docs.
by optimus murphy
Especially in comparison to the number of abortions carried out since Roe v. Wade came to pass. Seriously, is that really a reasonable or even logical way of framing the debate? There's a place for abortion, but only in the most extreme circumstances, and it's pretty obvious that those circumstances aren't comprising the majority of the procedures. How fucking stupid is it, that it's easier for a 14 year old girl to terminate a life than buy a case of beer?
-
you and I may have to agree to disagree. Regarding your assertion that such apalling developments as nanotechnology will continue to improve things (rather than rendering the world a dystopian/orwellian sci-fi hellscape and exacerbating the already vast gulf between the haves & have nots), I remember back in '95 when WIRED magazine and the McLuhanites were all convinced the advent of internet access would somehow solve all the world's problems. Then we have the Objectivist goofs who think a free market will solve all the world's problems. Then we have the really scary freaks who think serving an invisible sky god will solve all the world's problems. I won't hold my breath.
-
You start off calling for "a reasonable and logical way of framing the debate" and then two sentences later, you're comparing undergoing an abortion to purchasing beer. I'd say you took yourself out of the running on that one.
-
Carmilla Von Doom, rock on.
-
Fair enough, friend. Agree to disagree. The world truly is as subjective as a movie. Ironiclly, the thing the brings us together on this site. Poetic.
Thank you -
"Mr. Pickle's funtime abortion clinics: we'll bring out the kid in you." haha always cracked me up
-
The reason why there is any debate with this topic is the fine line where unborn babies are still considered part of the human body... The age that would be ethically ok to terminate a fetus/embryo , if there ever is a age......
-
The Hippocratic oath doctors take - isn't it not to harm life? I've read that humans are considered alive if they have a heartbeat and brainwave activity. Fetuses have this within 4 to 6 weeks after conception, correct? Shouldn't any abortion after that (unless to save the life of the mother) be considered murder? I'm not a doctor, not a scientist, but it seems reasonable to me. And those raped 14 year-old incest victims is a strawman argument. Just like the murdered abortion doctors. An extremely rare occurance, that pales to the million of abortions each year.
-
Not everyone is pro-life. There are those that have publicly advocated minorities and underpriviledged individuals having abortions, as fewer underprivilidged babies in the world = fewer people in poverty or committing crimes later in life. Twisted mindset, but it's out there. There's a Columbia professor that is advocating not just abortion, but infanticide in the first year of life.
-
I do so love generalizations. I know literally hundreds of pro-life people, some completely active in the 'movement' and many who just simply hold passionate views. Out of that lot, I've known -two- who advocated violence. Those two were ejected from the congregation we shared for those exact views, as violence against abortion providers is absolutely NOT accepted by any but the most radical of the pro-life movement. Does this film make that separation clear? Is this just Quint's own bias influencing his interpretation? Or is this yet another documentary that focuses on the fringe of a culture and suggests it is the mainstream?
-
BigE, I think the examples you provide of people being anti-life are as rare if not moreso) as the 14 year old incest victims and doctor murderers you cite in a previous post. and the people you cite only have a certain POV, whereas the rape victim and murdered doctor are the direct victim of a violent legally-recognized crime.
-
excellent, intelligent, and more immediate discussion of the issues at hand.
Also, HypEndsHere... Thank you. The rhetoric must be changed, as it has been hijacked by ideology. It is not pro-choice and pro-life, but pro-choice and anti-choice. -
I'm not trying to further stir debate here I'm just wondering. I'm pro-choice but I don't go to rallies and wouldnt really consider myself active in "the movement". Probably because I'm not clear on what makes yout hink youa re going to get rid of abortion. It just seems like an insurmountable battle at this point. Not to mention you would have so many young girls getting blackmarket abortions that you would just have to reinstate it in time. Its too much a part of the national lexicon at this point, it's not going anywhere. Throw all the current court cases in litigation you want but none of htem are going to pave hte way for getting rid of abortion.
-
Since you obviously hate life itself, please take the opportunity to kill yourself soon and free up some oxygen for those who do value life. Your buddy Chomsky would approve, I'm sure.
-
Is that one of those human-animal hybrids George Bush swore to protect us from in his 2006 state of the union?
-
Because I sure don't. I know he's a linguist who's vocal on issues of globalization, but I've never read any of his books or position papers. I have only a vague sense of what he stands for, a sense that has been formulated mostly by the rantings of third parties on the internet who name-drop him.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you don't know shit about him either, so rather than be one of the idiots who waves the name "Chomsky" around like a foam finger at a fucking sporting event, why not shut the fuck up and stop making yourself look stupid? -
..."fundies", which is also the name for amusing underwear? To extreme liberals, it's OK to smear the entire pro-life movement because of the actions of a few murderers - that's right, MURDERERS!!! - who have taken their opposition to this modern Holocaust to unacceptable ends which are at odds to being "pro-life". Yet if anyone points out that thousands of Islamofascist terrorists are wreaking havoc around the world, they must be silenced for daring besmirch a "religion of peace and love". Oh, yeah, Chomsky's a f*cktard and anyone praising him also believes in ManBearPig. Kids, I've got something to tell you about Santa Claus, too.....
-
Ah yes, an attempt at an insult and a call to shut up. Typical of leftists who can't defend their positions and are governed by their emotions. Say hello to Hugo Chavez at the next Sheehan rally, would ya?
-
Gosh, Cindy Sheehan and Chavez... we've got all the talk-radio bugaboos now. Why not throw in Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton while you're at it? And the ozone layer? None of them have anything more to do with anything I was talking about, any more than Chomsky does, but I understand it comforts retards like you to regurgitate the silly soundbytes they've absorbed, kind of like a Catholic praying the rosary.
-
...welfare checks. Duh.
-
AGAINST ABORTION... FOR KILLING BABIES.
-
Again, you can't defend your anti-life position but continue to try and compartmentalize those who call you out, this time spouting anti-religion tripe. I feel for you, really. You've been taken advantage of by the left's top pontiffs, who know how to prey upon people with weak emotional self-control. Calling me a retard was a standard move as well, I wonder how many children who were diagnosed with Down's Syndrome were aborted because the parents wanted their perfect, little kids? Go ponder that, as well as the millions of other abortions since 1973, then get back to us when you can form your own cognizant thoughts without resorting to standard leftist insults. Thanks for the laughs in the meantime!
-
So, images of an abortion provide a good argument against it, just because it *looks gross*? Would people who make that argument also be against brain surgeries and colonoscopies? Those types of medical procedures look considerably more disgusting.
-
You say "removal of anal polylps," I say "genocide." Did you know many anal polyps are up to three inches in diameter, and alive right until they are removed from the colon? Proctologists are murderers!
-
Amazing. You must have a whole house full of adopted downs-syndrome kids, as well as crack babies and those born deformed due to fetal alcohol syndrome. I applaud your courage in taking in and raising all of these unwanted children.
-
Not just for stem cells anymore
-
I took your advice and have pondered all of the abortions performed since 1973, every single one, individually, and you know what? I've concluded that you're right.
Upon reflection, it seems to me that altogether too many of them took place with a modicum of qualified medical care. There was fear, there was pain, there was persecution, there was trauma, but not nearly as much as there should have been. You've opened my eyes, Sir Loin! In the far better world which you and I will shape together, women seeking abortions will experience even more fear and pain, as well as a thousand-fold increase in risk to their own lives, getting butchered by back-alley abortionists. Plus, there will be thousands more unwanted babies every year, and nothing guarantees a life of analloyed happiness like being born to a mom who doesn't want you (I understand you have some personal experience in this). Yes, that's pretty much a gold ticket to the best the world has to offer. Thank our sweet anti-abortion lord jesus that there are caring people like you to fight the good fight. -
Well, you've covered the religion, political, and now MOM jokes, well done. We still haven't seen any actual intellectual and original thought from you, but nobody's perfect. In any case, you are a standard, textbook example of how the left considers what life is and that should make you feel emotionally secure. It's all about you feel, of course, although you made a mistake in using the old "back-alley abortionist" argument. We now have RU-486, abortion in pill form. Perhaps you'd better catch up on anti-life technologies and spend less time playing WoW. G'night!
-
and then bends over for me?
-
Doctors are not being killed proportionately to the number of babies being aborted so the comparison is absurd. No, it is not right for even one doctor to be threatened or murdered. And I personally hate the 'when is the fetus really alive and a human being" debate. IMO, if there's a fertilized egg and cells are dividing then it's alive. Otherwise, it would be dead and wouldn't be dividing and growing. To others who might make some ludicrous argument about how removing anal polyps equates to killing (b/c they are "alive" by my definition), there's a rather large difference between an actual part of my own body going awry and dividing rampantly and uncontrollably and a newly-conceived, genetically unique human life in the womb. Gotta go, the genital herpes commercial is on .
-
It's all just conjecture about how the review says stuff that could possibly in the movie be easily targeted by endless political arguments, some movie fans here huh pals
-
no? then guess what, shut the fuck up. now that i've got that out of the way, i'm sure this doc is very informative, but i'd rather see something funny about abortion, so i recommend 'citizen ruth.' how do we know it's awesome? blockbuster won't carry it!
-
blitz on this issue back when a few acts of extreme violence were carried out on Pensacola abortion doctors, so I've had more than my fill of the debate. My comment is more for Quint: to call a balanced (truly balanced, not "Fox News balanced") documentary as wishy-washy BS is not fair. EVERY informational report and documentary should show all sides (notice I said "all" instead of "both"). For a moment in your review, you sounded like the hard-right and hard-left politicos who get frustrated when they can't neatly herd everyone into a polarized position, categorizing them in a way that overlooks personal differences.
-
Did you know a pro-abortion state was one of Hitler's goals. That's right people, look it up. We're all living Hitler's dream. Give yourselves a round of applause Pro-choice advocates for turning 'Pro-choice' into a euphamism for murder. Thank you.
-
if you tilt your head back slightly, you'll see something passing just over your head. it's called the point. pro-abortion does not equal pro-choice. for more on literacy, visit your local library and look up "Duhr".
-
Horray!
-
That mustachioed party pooper seems to ruin every internet flame war sooner or later.
-
People are considered alive if they have brain activity; they don't need a heartbeat. Neural development happens late in fetal development, mostly in the third trimester, and continues after the child is born. Neural development is the only viable point where we can start to draw the line between a person and a non-person. It's also consistent with how we assign personhood in all other cases, such as brain damage, death, etc.
Other approaches are either inconsistent or just wrong. When people ask "When does life begin?" it reflects ignorance: life began almost 4 billion years ago. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive. We destroy life constantly throughout the day. Talking about "genetically distinct" life has immediate flaws; twins being the obvious example. Using conception, implantation, birth, etc, as a dividing line is arbitrary. Most people go with birth because it's obvious and it's closest to the truth. -
if it were the "only" viable point, we wouldn't be in such a heated debate. my personal POV is that a fetus should only be aborted before it can naturally sustain itself outside of the womb. so, by most accounts, the first trimester.
-
Well, glad we got to the right answer eventually.
-
i'm a woman and therefore no matter what men (and many women!) want for legislation, religion or ethics - and even if i were a religious or ethical woman - i can still go into the bathroom with some alcohol and a coathanger and do whatever i want to myself in about 15 minutes. or, i might not. too bad you'll never find out! you have no idea how many women, no matter their beliefs, have 'gone out of town for the weekend' and gotten an abortion. and you never will, no matter the legislative and religious arguments. the only fact of the matter is women have babies and men don't, and, rather like nature, women will always find a way. think i'm generalizing? then you REALLY don't know women. try asking one if she's ever had an abortion. do you seriously think she'd ever tell you the truth?
-
And give it the umbrella topic of "People screaming at each other".
-
It makes them nostalgic. Ah, the good old days...
-
...none of you pro-choicers on here are Christians, because I'm sure Jesus doesn't appreciate you telling people off in His name. Hypocrites.
-
i'm sure any good christian would NEVER do anything to piss jesus off!
-
Wasn't that the first Epic abortion of of a movie? Get it? Get it? Eh? Eh? ....
-
The "heated debate" isn't over facts. The intractability of the abortion debate is a standing warning of what happens when smart people bend over backwards to accommodate "alternative" points of view.
-
Comparing the very fringes of the anti-abortion movement to the mainstream of the pro-choice crowd? I don't know a single person who would condone killing an abortion doctor. So to say that "complete disregard" of such behavoir by the pro-life crowd is widespread is just crazy. It may be to the people he chose to put in the documentary, but that's hardly a mainstream idea. Also, "for every shot of a baby being put back together on an abortion table there's one of a murdered doctor..." Gee, that's great. Except for the part that babies get aborted by the THOUSANDS every single day. In America there are 4,000 abortions every day. How many people have been killed since Roe vs. Wade as a result of anti-abortion violence? SEVEN. This includes shootings, bombingn, etc. Seven. In 35 years. You know how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors since Roe Vs. Wade? It's nearing 50 MILLION. 4000 every day nowadays. So it may feel "balanced" to show a shot of a murdered doctor for every shot of a murdered baby, but that's hardly balance. An abortion doctor should be worried about getting struck by lightening more than getting killed in such an attack. Comparing the very fringes of one side of an argument with the firm mainstream of the other is not "balanced". It's plain dishonest.
-
too bad there weren't a few more abortions done way back when. Here's my simple, patented, all-purpose answer on the abortion issue: One Dick, No Votes. It's up to the womenfolk. I don't have the right to demand the woman be my incubator. It's up to her. It's her body. It's her choice. And until we get a memo from God, an unviable tissue mass isn't a human being. END OF GODDAMNED STORY.
-
Yes, I do know how many babies have been killed by abortion doctors since Roe V. Wade: ZERO. Fetus aborted? Yes. But most of them are first-trimester, unviable, unformed, and not something a sensible human being would describe as an actual human being yet. Big difference. Talk about dishonesty.
-
Murder is a crime against order and society. If murder wasnt illegal there'd be anarchy, society couldnt function. That is how laws are made, not by what someone thinks is moral or immoral, but by government 1.)having a compelling, logical reason to pass a law; and also 2.)that law cannot infringe on the rights of a citizen. Making abortion illegal serves no compelling interest of the country (it actually does the opposite, see "Freakonomics"), and it does infringe someones rights, the womans right to control her own body. Whether you think a fertilised egg or a fetus is a person is irrelevant. Thats based on personal beliefs or religious faith, thats not something the govt can or should decide.
Abortion can't be illegal based on protecting the rights of the fetus either. Government doesnt protect rights, the Constitution does, and the only right the constitution could protect (against the govt) is the right to have an abortion or not to have one. Your 'right to life, liberty...' is against the government not against another person (People commit crimes, governments infringe rights). I do think the right to have an abortion becomes less of one later on in the pregnancy though, if enough time has been given for the woman to choose. -
First of all - whether you "have a dick" or not is irrelevent. The central question is when does a person have rights? If you think a baby in the womb isn't a person, then it is up to the woman. If you think it is a person, it can't be up to the woman, because that person deserves the same rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness as we all do. So let's work this out... In the next post, to make this easier to read.
-
When does one "become a human being"? If you are pro-choice, you necessarily think it doesn't begin until birth. Or perhaps you think it begins at "viability", and that abortions shouldn't be allowed once that point is reached. I used to be in that camp, too. But I was wrong. Let's look at the first one: "A fetus becomes a person when it is born". This one is easy to shoot down with a little common sense. Unfortunately, this is the legal definition in our country - in many states, you can kill your baby up until the time of delivery. In one state recently, a girl actually delivered her baby in her bedroom and smothered it to death. But since the cord wasn't cut yet, the judged ruled it was an "abortion" and not murder. Patently ridiculous. Those who would say that a person should only have rights "at birth" are denying that the baby is a person before that magical moment. But what really happens "at birth"? The baby moves a foot or two. That's it. It moves from one place to another. Is there anything really "different" about the baby five minutes before birth and five minutes after? No. It is the exact same baby. It looks the same, it acts the same, it will feel pain the same, it has the same thoughts. The only difference is it's one place right before birth and another place - a foot or two away, right after. But legally, you can use a vaccuum cleaner to tear the baby apart while it's still alive five minutes before birth, or partially deliver the baby, puncture its head and suck its brains out(partial birth abortion). But do any of this just five mintues later - after birth - and it's murder. This obviously makes no sense at all. It's the same baby, and there's no real difference five minutes before birth and five minutes after. And why is "birth" the magic point that that baby all of a sudden has rights? A birth can happen at any time. It can even be induced to happen sooner, and often is these days for various reasons. So there's nothing magical about the exact point when a baby is born - you can kill it one day because it's "not born yet", but a doctor could've induced you or given you a planned C-section and had it born a week or two earlier and it would've still been the same baby. Why does it have rights at that one magical point called "birth" but not right before? It simply cannot be because the baby is "different" before that point, or not a human being. It clearly is the same baby, and I don't think many sensible people would argue about that. Next up? Viability...
-
The legislature basically rolled over and played dead for Chavez. Kinda like the GOP-controlled House and Senate did for Bush for six years. I think you'll start to see some American supporters of Chavez start to distance themselves from the guy now.
-
I used to be in the "you can abort only until the baby is viable" camp. But after lots of thinking I realized this didn't make sense, either. First of all, that definition is horribly imprecise. Where is the "line" when a baby all of a sudden becomes viable? Where is that moment in time where it moves from "unviable and legally killable" from "viable and legally protected"? We simply cannot know that precise, but if we use that as a standard, we MUST be that precise, for obvious reasons. Otherwise we are legally condoning murder if the doctor is wrong on the viability question. "Well, just make it at a certain trimester, then". Even here, it is an imprecise question. Unless you know the exact time of conception, which hardly anybody who has a baby(and a healthy sex life, especially) does, then there is no way to identify these trimester points with the kind of precision that would be needed to make this law make sense or work. And finally, what does "viability" mean any way? "The baby can live outside the mother on its own" is a definition I often here. But can it? Most of the definitions of "viable" I hear are something just like this - but it doesn't really make any sense. Even a newborn, full term baby, will very quickly die if the mother doesn't take care of it. Are we to say that it's okay to kill a child until the point that they can fend for themselves without parental help? Of course not, but the "viability" argument is only a short jump away from the same argument. Not only is it way too imprecise to be a practically standard, but it also just doesn't make a whole lot of sense on its own merits. A baby isn't really "viable" to live on its own without benefit of its mother or other caregiver for years after it's born. So what does the standard really mean? "It can live not attached to the mother"? Again, medical advances are constantly pushing back this piont, to where eventually babies will probably be able to be grown without a mother at all someday. Waht does that mean for the viability argument now? We can kill this baby because we dont' currently have the technology to keep it alive outside its mother today - but we might tomorrow? No. Viability doesn't work as a standard for many reasons... Now to the last, and only "standard" that makes any sense... Conception.
-
it's very rare that a man points out that babies aren't squeezed out of the end of his dangly bits! however, i still think most men are genuinely clueless. you know how many women spontaneously abort? happens all the time. you can cause an abortion from inhaling paint fumes in a freshly painted room. you can cause an abortion from running too hard. or, you can cause an abortion from choosing to go to the doctor and having a DnC because you got pregnant by missing 1 birth control pill and you don't have a steady job or enough money in the bank to put your future child through kindergarten, much less college, AND because you're 35 you have a 30% higher chance of developing uterine cancer from being pregnant and you're not interested in dying of cancer. i'd like somebody to tell me that a)i'm talking out of my ass or b)that i should go ahead and have that baby because, oh, god says so. i dare you. and, if you'd like to tell me so - also indicating that you don't care that i will probably get cancer, since my mother and my grandmother had it on top of the pregnancy bullet - then i'd also like you to mail me a check for $1,000,000, or, the approximate amount it costs to medicate, clothe, feed, and educate my future child in southern california until the age of 18. thanks!
-
Conception is the only standard that makes any sense as a defining point for when an individual is "a person" and has legal rights. "Viability" doesn't work for the reasons I listed in my last post(and others). "Birth" doesn't work as the magic line where somebody has rights, because it doesn't make much sense at all, as there's no real difference between a baby the moment before birth and the moment after, yet that legally means it's okay to kill that same baby five minutes before birth but it's murder five minutes after... but it's the exact same baby at the exact same point of development, and it could've been born a week before or a week later with just sightly different conditinos, so how can we peg "personhood" on that? Can we really peg "personhood" on such variable and meaningless external conditions? Or should we peg "personhood" on when the baby physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. should be considered a person. The baby and what the baby "is" at that point should obviously be the standard as to when it becomes a person - not some arbitrary external standards that don't have any effect on who that baby "is" at that particular point. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which brings us to the only "line of personhood" that makes any legal, moral or ethical sense: Conception. Conception is an obvious place to call somebody "a person with rights". There is a precise moment before and a precise moment after. There is no guesswork involved as to whether a lady is pregnant or not - if she is, she is, and a conceived human being is present and alive inside of her. There is no question as to "at which point is something alive or not" - it's there, and it's alive. Secondly, at conception, AN ENTIRE NEW LIVING CREATURE NOW EXISTS. This is a human being, with its OWN DNA, completely unique(unless it has a twin or something along those lines) - unlike no other human being out there. It is alive, self-replicating, and unique. It's DNA starts its growth - ON ITS OWN. It takes nutrients and shelter and protection from its mother, but the organism is growing and forming INDEPENDENTLY. Only the most obtuse among us would deny that this is a unique, living organism with its own DNA and its own "personhood". It IS "alive" in every scientific sense. "But the mother has to be there to keep it alive!" So what? The mother has to be there to keep it alive AFTER birth as well. Do you want it to be legal to kill it then? -
...after you do that, do you mind traveling to any 3rd-world country of your choice where abortion is illegal (and potentially carries a death penalty, or at least a public stoning) and helping out all the desperate women with multiple disease-ridden children? thanks again!
-
It's actually none of these things, really. Which is completely ridiculous. Most people think it's "birth", which it's really not. We don't have an actual legal standard for when a person becomes a person... I'll tell you why. We not only give rights to a baby only at a somewhat arbitray point - birth(it's the same baby as only a minute before birth, but it's legal to kill it then for some reason), but we don't even stop there... it's ILLEGAL to kill that baby, even BEFORE birth, dependent on one thing... The mother's WANT. That's right. Look at the Laci Peterson case, for example. If you kill a pregnant woman, and it's determined that she wanted the child in her belly, then you are not charged with one murder - you are charged with two. But that same woman could go down to the abortion clinic and legally kill that baby(an independent lifeform with its own DNA) without the law so much as blinking an eye if she wanted. So legally, we recognize that the baby growing in a pregnant woman IS alive and has rights. It IS a "person" worthy of the same legal protection and right to life as any other person... UNLESS the Mother doesn't "want it". Is that not sheer insanity? Our legal definition of when a baby is "alive" - of when it is a "person with rights" should be based on the baby itself, shouldn't it? Shouldn't certain traits of that organism be the benchmark we are using to determine whether or not that organism is "alive" and has "rights"? I mean, we're talking about killing the organism in question legally, so shouldn't we being using IT as the standard somehow? But we're not - our standard has nothing to do with the baby at all, it has to do completely with the INTENTIONS of the mother. Of her WANTS. So something is "alive", if somebody else WANTS it to be. If that somebody else doesn't WANT it to be alive, it has no legal rights. That is simply and utterly ludicrous. Assigning the protection of government as right to life solely based on the WANTS of one other person? And not the life itself? That IS treading on dangerous, Nazi terrirtory - the legal definition of life was decided in the Reich not on the life itself for them, either - it was decided on whether they WANTED it to be alive or not. Whether they assigned it any worth or not. How we have so brainswashed ourselves as a society to think this way, that this legal definition of when somebody has rights that are protected and when a person becomes a person, is completely staggering. I admit at one time I was pro-choice, but eventually, if you think about it, it just doens't make sense. It's never okay to kill another person because of convenience, and as society not protect another person simply because of what somebody else WANTS. And let their WANT determine if another human being is "alive" and "has rights". That's a horible, and dangerous standard to use to decide what we call "alive" and a "person with rights" and what we don't. We have to wake up and realize what we're doing here, and apply a definition and standard for when a person has rights that makes sense. And the ONLY standard that makes sense on every level is conception - the point where a completely unique and new life in the Universe, with its own DNA and its own life, is created.
-
Sounds like a dreary way to spend three hours. Would anyone really change their mind after seeing this? I doubt it. Riddle me this people: If the regligious argument against abortion is because a soul is attached at the moment of conception and they don't want their Fed tax dollars supporting that (I completely understand), then how is that any different than tax dollars going to the Department of Defense? Surely the religeous right realizes the term "collateral damage" means dead civilians, right? Aren't these innocents just as valid human beings as a splitting cell? Aren't pregnant civilians killed by collateral damage too? I mean, if you're going to be absolute in your definition of when life begins then become a pacifist and don't pay any taxes at all. I guess I just don't see the logic there. Otherwise, limit abortions (except for a threat to the mother) to the first four weeks only. After that, give the baby (if still unwanted) up for adoption.
-
tinfang, i understand a certain extent of your argument, but have you ever given birth to an unwanted baby? been horribly pregnant, vomiting, developing diabetes, your hair falling out, developing sores and hemorrhoids and edema? all the while knowing there's something inside you that you're feeding and dragging around that's a parasite on your body that could very possibly kill you during the birthing process, and you don't even want it? for every child who is wanted and loved during pregnancy and birth there is a child who is unwanted for any number of reasons. explain why i should be forced to carry that unwanted baby to term and enjoy labor along with it. can't wait to have the OB cut my perineum open with a pair of shears!
-
But I am the father of two grown daughters. I'm just offering some compromise position and I certainly don't claim to be absolutely "right" about my opinion. That's why I support a woman's right to choose. Given a term period over making it illegal, especially a constitutional amendment, would better than it was before Roe v Wade. And, yes, I do know women who either died from pregnancy complications or as a result of having a back-alley abortion (yeah, I'm an old fart). I also had a cousin who commited suicde after having an abortion.
-
You're trying to compare the "wants" of one person(the mother), with the right of another person to even exist(the baby). There is no comparison. Almost everything you quote is extremely rare, and even then it basically boils down to a matter of convenience - "i don't want to be forced to even have to carry this child for nine months, so I'm gonna kill it." One organisms right to EXIST is subordinated to another organisms right to not be inconvenienced. And you're the one on the "righteous" side of this issue? It's even egregious considering that in all but the most rare of cases, you have every right to choose to not have a child - BEFORE YOU CONCIEVE IT. If you don't want to be pregnant, then in all but the most rare and extreme of cases, you have every right to make that decision. You lose that right, or should, once you have been responsible for creating that independent life with its own DNA growing inside of you. Does your convenience, especially having been responsible for creating that new life, really outweigh the right of that new life, that new person, to EXIST without being murdered. To be able to live without getting pulled apart limb from limb by a vaccuum? Of course not. But over 97% of abortions are stricly for that very reason - convenience. And that's it. And it's clearly horrible. Now you have the other cases - life of the mother being the first one. In these cases, I think it should be legal - it's one life for another. No good choice, and if you can guarantee you can save the mother if you have to lose the child, then that's the call(if that's what the mother wants). A horrible call to make, but the call. Rape? First of all, conception by rape is VERY, VERY rare, so this is almost a non-issue. But in the rare cases that are there, the baby is still an innocent life. Still, if the compromise HAD to be to leave abortion legal for these instances, then I would be for it in order to cut down the number of abortions from 2 million or so per year down to the 30 or so that would occur from that "rape choice" you mention.
-
but i'm afraid you only think you know what you're talking about. nothing i spoke of is rare or convenient. i think you should ask cecile richards if 97% of women in america who have abortions think it's 'convenient.' having an abortion is a horrible thing, and since i presume you've never had one - and you don't know if i have or not - you'll never fully understand. i get to argue the abortion point because i could have one, while you can't. both of us could conceivably serve in the military, so we can both argue pro- or anti-war stances, but you can't have an abortion, so all your rhetoric is specious. saying i'm 'righteous' is simplistic and inflammatory for no reason other than to puff yourself up and try and put me down; you still don't understand that me stating it should be legal for a woman under any circumstance to take care of herself does NOT mean i say 'go, abortions!' this is the facile argument of every mildly ignorant anti-choice activist. also, you have no data on how many rapes cause pregnancies - and, in point of fact, you also have no data on how many women are raped with no concern for the fact that it MIGHT make them pregnant, regardless of their age or station in life. i'm sure women who have been raped would also not appreciate the insinuation that becoming pregnant through rape is a 'non-issue.' anyhow, i'm giving a metaphorical shrug for the same reason i stated in my first post: none of your beliefs fundamentally matter to pregnant women because they will always give themselves abortions if and when they really want or need to, so tough shit. and tinfang...thx for the clarification. i do appreciate your viewpoint (and i also know women whose friends gave them money to fly to cuba, in point of fact, to have abortions when it was illegal in the states, so i hear you about that), but i was mostly asking you not to be cavalier about a woman going through with an unwanted pregnancy and then having to give the child up for adoption. that, in and of itself, is a horribly difficult thing as well...anyhow, i'm done flashing back to the days when i marched on washington...i STILL think everyone should just see 'citizen ruth'! "suck the shit outta my ass!"
-
If pro-choicers were really concerned about their position, they would compromise and agree that all late term abortions should end (except to save the life of the mother). Supporting partial-birth and all that late-term stuff is really hurting their credibility. I promise you, most pro-lifers would back off their hardline stance if abortion was only allowed in the first trimester. Workable compromise. And occcula, your position that "only women should be able to decide this since they give birth" is a not logically sound. It is an issue that affects all of humanity. It takes two to make a baby, not one. If I have to pay 18 years of support for what I did in a few minutes, no questions, then life definitely begins at conception. Plus, you chicks just aren't rational when your hormones kick in! ; )
-
hormones suck! buuuut i still stand by my rights as the person who has to push a bowling ball out my snatch while you don't even have to be in the room. (i say 'you' rhetorically, of course. plenty of men DON'T pay child support, ya know!) OK, the thing about the bowling ball is giving me a cramp, so i'm gonna make some hot chocolate and watch 'how to make an american quilt.' HAHAHA!
-
... really now, characterizing the entire pro-life aspect of the debate as a) religious zealots that abhor civil liberties or b) advocates for vigilante justice against abortion "doctors..." Seems kind of unfair.
Personally, I don't believe in any God, but then I also don't believe the state should legally turn a blind eye to the killing of innocent human beings.
I'm all for strong protected civil rights, but your rights always end when they infringe on someone else's. I can't really think of a more permanent or cruel infringement of someone's natural rights as to arbitrarily strip them of their right to life. -
Read Moriarty's and others reviews. The particular review doesn't mention the perfectly reasonable pro lifers that are in throughout the film. It really is the most even handed documentary I think I've ever seen. It's scathing in it's search for facts and if there is an objective truth but it's very very equal. I always knew Tony Kaye was an excellent film maker, good to see that vindication.
-
As far as women being the only ones who should have a say in terns of aborions. I never owned a slave, should I not be able to say it is wrong? ...please commence bashing me
-
You know what's inconvenient? Having a 2 year old. It drains all your money, it drains all your time, it drains you physically. It destroys any hope of ever having a social life. Well, fuck it, get that tumor up on the sink, and feed it through the garbage disposal! You made that thing! What MAN has any right to tell you what to do? The MAN who screwed you probably isn't even there! He's off with no responsibility at all! While YOU, the WOMAN has to deal with this.. THING that grew inside of YOUR OWN BODY, NOT the MAN. So fucking grind that shit up. Who has any right to tell a woman what to do with her own body? Or the growths that came out of it? Even if they made it illegal, you'd just go in the bathroom with a coat hanger and kill the fucking thing there, and no one would ever know! It's your choice! A WOMANS choice! And if anyone DARES say otherwise, they are women haters who want to send you back to the 18th century!
No matter how inconvenient it is, no many unwanted children there are, or how shitty their lives are, the mother has no right to terminate the life of child after birth. So what's the difference between those children and the unborn. A cord? What else? That's the question. That's the debate. And you're ignoring it. No where in any of your twisted selfish rant about convenience, unwanted children, and evil men do you ever address the actual issue. It seems more like you simply hate men, and see abortion as a rallying flag for womans liberation.
I have no problem debating abortion with those who will in fact debate the actual issue. But you, and so many of the other talk backers only see abortion as a symbol of your hatred for conservatives/george bush/religion/or the opposite sex. And that makes any discussion with you pointless. -
I never understood it. If you are against abortion because you think it's killing the unborn, how can you THEN be for all these wars by the US and Israel? Even the upcoming "war in Iran" that the US will do. I am an active member in the 9/11 Truth movement because I firmly believe the public has been lied to about the events of that tragic day and how its been exploited to justify wars. However I also see how the elites probably LOVE abortion. Sure, they have their puppets like Bush pretend hes all for taking a women's right to chose away, but they love eugenics. They want to encourage abortions amongst minority women, and they want to sterilize 3rd world populations and cause a massive population reduction.
Perhaps, I am the only one here who sees abortion as a holocaust but believes it should be kept free and legal. Otherwise, youre going to have some very desperate people.
Maybe we should have "I support a women's right to kill her unborn child". Oh, and there's PLENTY of excellent 9/11 documentaries, "9/11 Press For Truth", "Dust To Dust" and "Martial Law 9/11" being some of them. -
He thinks questioning 9/11 is crazy, thinks Oswald acted alone, supports Holocaust denial, and is becoming quite senile in his leftgatekeeping.
I like some of his earlier material, loved "Manufacturing Consent", but he's just losing his ways. -
Nobody really wants to be "pro-war" unless it's against an enemy that does not value life and will extinguish itself in the persuit of your destruction. Stop blaming the US and Israel, radical Islam does NOT value life and in fact is a death cult that teaches its children to die for old men in the name of "Allah." You think those old men would martyr themselves? No way. Wake up already.
-
Feb 03, 2007 11:42:51 PM CST
been readin for years, first time i felt need to reply
by jarjarsdeathrattle
what does jar jars death ratle sound like? like a pro life vs pro choice vs anti choice argument on a fanboy website. You guys remember when we were shitting our pants about n sync in episode 2? Ahh, the good old days....
-
doesn't matter how many times you call me a dumbass, kids. you're still men and you'll still never fully know about it even if you think you do, or you have a wife, or you, like, knew a woman once. i would think that men would WANT to support women's they can impact their own lives so monumentally. those of you still ignorant enough to a)think i like abortion b)think i hate men and c)think i care on a personal level about your tired arguments like 'what if you knew your child was going to be a deaf schizoid - would you abort it? AAA!! you just killed beethoven!' are just spinning your wheels. go ahead, get self-righteous, get mad. greatone - if you read more carefully you'd have seen that i already acknowledged women who are anti-choice, but maybe reading isn't your strong suit. and aaron - how do you know i don't have a child? did you ask before awkwardly attempting to make it personal? you guys just want to yell and you can't even be bothered to consider that the arguments i raised are perfectly valid, even if they aren't the norm. unfortunately for you, women like me are impervious to the yelling...and maybe that's what makes all you gents so mad. i think pockybot put it very well that it's a holocaust that should be free and legal. however, he was wrong about oswald. he did act alone, and chappelle said he used a magic bullet!
-
greatone, did you really use the phrase 'house negro'? wow.
-
sorry. i frakking hate when i try and edit while writing. i forgot the word 'choices' up there. not that it really makes any goddamned difference at this point! 'n sync was in episode 2??
-
this talkback is indicative of the very issues overall problems. Great points brought up on both sides, even the extreme sides, then it gets nullified because its impossible to not get emotional. That said, I love kids, and I love women. Like I'm sure the rest of you do. It kind of puts you in an awkward position when you feel the need to have to protect one's interest over the other. Chivalry goes haywire and we usually wind up saying something stupid. Which is why I'm just going to continue to observe and stay as neutral as humanly possible on this one.
-
But then talkbackers united and they were cut. supposedly. just like if we can all unite on the abortion issue on one side or the other we'll get the country to come to a definite resolution. I love you guys though.
-
Dagan brought all up all the right points ( very well said by the way, good job). The issue is not the woman or what is "inconvenient" for her. It's about the life of another human being. I'm saying this in a sober state of thought without any emotion. One more person taht knows the truth just makes the world better( no sarcasm)...I'm making it short and sweet by leaving out any analogies.
-
It's just not that big a deal here in the UK. I guess that's because the country isn't run by bible bashing loons........
-
Just wanted to say that.
-
are an idiot.
-
I dont have to imagine because when (due to abortion) the population of Europe is replaced by Muslims abortion will be quite illegal.
-
Let the women decide, full stop.
You know, this Talkback has gotten far too substantive. Thus, I would like posit that in all matters, not just the abortion issue, the USA wouldn't be half so messed up-- lagging back with barbaric medieval joke-nations like Turkey-- if women had made more of America's decisions in the past 200 or so years. Bring on the gynocracy, I say, it can only be an improvement. -
Wow, a scary notion! But you can at least have full confidence that by the time that happens, the USA should be wholly in the hands of the Latinos, who are universally acknowledged to be more industrious, have stronger family values and are more patriotic than whites. In every regard, better citizens. With the help of the Asians who own Canada, our strong new Latin America will repel the Muslim threat.
-
When people bring up Roe v. Wade, is the assumption that Roe v. Wade invented abortion or something? Do people really think that abortions would just disappear if Roe v. Wade were overturned? Also, how many of these people are also in favor of abstinence-only sex education, getting rid of birth control, etc.? Personally, I think there's something to be said for the "safe and rare" position; understand that one way or the other, abortions are going to occur, but the thing that people can strive for is to at least make them as unnecessary as possible, while still being available in a safe and regulated environment. As other people have mentioned, overturning Roe v. Wade and making all abortions illegal isn't going to magically stop abortion. It would just push it back to pre Roe-v-Wade world, and force people to come up with new and alternate ways to have abortions. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in infanticide, frankly.
-
an advanced, seemingly intelligent society can condon abortion. Unfortunately, it has become a conservative v. liberal debate, or a chance to throw the religious under the bus. but stop and zoom out a 100 miles, eliminate the political and religious view points and ask yourself, can we as a society accept that we allow the taking of life as a means of birth control. I understand the arqument that a fetus is not alive, but that's just convient if you ask me. One could arqument that a person who lives hooked to any variety of medical device it's alive because they couldn't exsist without the support, the same way a fetus can't exsist without it's mother. What about people with organ transplants, they survive with the support of others. Maybe that's petty or a bad arquement, I'd like to hear people's thoughts. Abortion is birth control for the irresponsible, it's not granting women control over their bodies, or population control. Responsiblity is saying if I have sex, I may get pregnant, the guy who I had sex with may not stick around, I maybe on my own, but it's my choice, and i have to life with the results. If people thought that way, perhaps we;d have less unwanted pregnancy and more responsible society. I know the response to this is how responsible is it to let someone have a baby that isn't ready/doesn't want it, but the worlds culture is so full of ways to get out of whatever trouble you've found yourself in, why take responsiblity for one's actions, there's always an escape route, this is what must stop.
-
how stubborn are you people. I guess people will keep their very convenient/ignorant opinions no matter what information is presented to them. People are going to lie, people are going to hurt others, and people have and will continue to kill others...Does that mean it's going to be acceptable?
-
second half of your post added another great point
-
The point is not whether abortion is legal, it's whether it's necessary. The most "visible" result of overturning Roe v Wade would be a steep increase in back-alley abortions. The goal should be to reduce teen pregnancy and the overall demand for abortions by propagating contraception, promoting adoption and fighting the often existing pressures to abort (fear of parents finding out, pressure by boyfriend etc.). THIS is what the debate SHOULD be about. When push comes to shove I also support a woman's right to choose, but that does not mean I am "pro-abortion" by any stretch. Also, to the hypocrits who are anti-choice but pro-war and pro-capital punishment: Please go away.
-
of someone who was raped at sixteen years old by her stepfather, became pregnant, and chose to have an abortion, my feelings on the subject are pretty clear. I used to do a lot of volunteer work at Planned Parenthood. You would be fucking SHOCKED at how many young girls and women came through those doors seeking abortions because the child had been a product of rape. I didn't think I could be any more disgusted with humanity after listening to some of their stories. As for women who had not been raped, almost every single one of them had talked with their spouse/significant other about getting the procedure done, and it was a mutual decision. If Roe v Wade is ever overturned, it will be a sad day in history. And for all the pro-life camp, good idea explaining to the rest of your family how your daughter died from getting a back-alley abortion. I wish you luck.
-
thank you angelcordy et al. runfood - you are starting to make a good point when you mention 'responsibility.' as someone speaking for what i guess you'd consider the opposition, i FULLY agree that women have to take responsibility for themselves if they're sexually active. FULLY. i think the problem is that a)there are always contingency issues, such as angelcordy's example and some that i mentioned earlier - which may sound merely incindiary but are meant to illustrate a point - and b)that people are, frankly, still uneducated. and by 'people' i mean everybody, from 14-year old girls to your grandma. that may genuinely be the root of the problem, but it may also be insurmountable. the problem is that we (and i guess by 'we' i mean the legislative body) still have to provide for those who DON'T take responsibility, even if we don't want to. at least i'm glad you guys finally understand that my earlier comments were not because i love them thar abortions.
-
o great one, please don't call all the men and women who take time out of their lives to volunteer at planned parenthood 'liars'. planned parenthood is not an abortuary. it is an organization that provides family planning, child support, parental support, post-partum depression support and medical aid to underpriviledged men and women. notice we didn't slam the above TBers who said they worked for their own anti-choice groups. and, again, i regret to inform you that you aren't reading things properly. those of us who support the right to choose are fully aware of what a DnC is, which is one of the reasons we provide support to women who have to/have decided to get one. we are also fully aware of what adoption is as it was discussed yesterday. please go back and read the TB more carefully before spazzing out, which isn't going to endear anybody to your point of view.
-
Youre kind of making my point for me. Aside from your belief in the genetic superiority of Asians and Latinos that is. My personal view is that no human is superior to another. Even the Chalkies. The fact is that unrestricted abortion in successful industrialised nations means the end of the populations of those nations.
-
Nothing in this topic is black and white, just like all issues.
-
Look at the stat people. Roe v Wade and the increase in abortion is directly responsible for the dramatic drop in crime in the states in the 90's.So in a way, you owe your low crime existence to legal terminations [wait for response]
-
Besides being untrue (google it) it is at its core simply a continuation of the ideas behind eugenics, The Bell Curve, etc.
-
I clicked on this review thinking that the movie was an abortion, not that it was a movie about abortion. Now I gotta wade through a million comments: "Abortion is evil" "No, YOU'RE evil" "Shut up" "No, You Shut up!" No, YOU shut up!" et cetera into infinity. Keep going guys. Because the one thing I've learned about this issue is that it's easy to change somebody's mind about abortion one way or another. And nobody digs their heels in the dirt on this issue at all, no matter how ridiculous or misinformed their point of view is.
-
I cant see how a movie that shows severed dead babies would be used by pro-abortion groups.
-
you guys must be worn out with all this typing. also, what better place to argue your points of view on abortion than on a nerd-news website
-
HEY!!!
-
"When people bring up Roe v. Wade, is the assumption that Roe v. Wade invented abortion or something?" No, but they want to challenge the validity of the court's decision, which is to say they think this is not a federal matter, which it isn't. "Do people really think that abortions would just disappear if Roe v. Wade were overturned?" No, but they would be illegal. "Also, how many of these people are also in favor of abstinence-only sex education, getting rid of birth control, etc.?" Personally, I don't see a valid case for the state to take any position on this issue. "there's something to be said for the "safe and rare" position; understand that one way or the other, abortions are going to occur, but the thing that people can strive for is to at least make them as unnecessary as possible, while still being available in a safe and regulated environment." Absolutely not. Just because people will do something regardless of its legality is not relevant to a discussion of whether or not it should be illegal. I think marijuana should be perfectly legal, but I've never made the "people smoke it anyway" argument - that's simply not a valid statement for a debate (people will steal anyway if you make theft illegal, etc). Furthermore, who gives a damn about the safety of criminals in the act of committing a murder? "And I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in infanticide, frankly." Feh, what's the difference? Abortion IS infanticide.
-
The debate is whether or not it should be legal. I can't imagine that anyone thinks that killing a human fetus is a wonderful thing to do. I am growing increasingly tired of the "it's our bodies" argument. Those aren't your dismembered arms, legs, torso, and head are they? No. Nearly every woman who end up with an unwanted pregnancy does so because she is irresponsible. Period. Ladies (and girls unfortunately), if you want to have sex get on birth control and make him wear a condom. The odds of you getting pregnant when doing that are infinitesimal. If someone can make even one valid argument for not doing those two things together I would like to hear it. And rape and incest are a tiny percentage of abortions, and policy should not be dictated by such a small amount of the total.
-
I think its so absurd that this argument is debated on top of pedestals made by man, man the dominating species that has reduced this world to steadily dying rock. We sit up here debating who is chosen by some made up god to be "divine" honoured to stand in the presence of their make believe deities and say "our foetuses have a right to live, and we have the right to tell you what to do" whilst chomping down on the corpse of an innocent animal which died for no reason other than their lunch, and in a few years give that meat eater colon cancer. This world is dying, mainly thanks to those right wing egocentric fucks who actually believe that they have the audacity to say that on one hand, "lets kill all the muslims for believing in a slightly different made up god to us" whilst on the other preaching that those same people, those they wish dead, should also not be given the right to chose whether they have the life to support yet ANOTHER human bag of organs. PEOPLE! this world is dying, there are TOO MANY FUCKING HUMANS on this poor poor planet. I for one hope that in 20,000 years, when the human race has been wiped out by its selfish domination of every other life, that whoever takes the reigns does a slightly better job than us hypocrytical ass wipe human apes.
-
why do we have this obsession with human life? what is it that makes you think that we are so special? half of this planet is brain dead..apparently 13% of americans dont even know what global warming is? whilst 45% think that their christ is going to return and rapture them all up to heaven?!!! is it "liberal" or "left wing" to care that the world you live on is dying? is it "weak" to think that debating endlessly about your stupid 2000 year old dumb ass beliefs is so utterly pointless? WAKE THE FUCK UP! STOP BREEDING!
i wish for once in our live all of us would wake up and say "today im going to just try to be nice to everyone, including all the non human lives that i usually eat, kill or ignore" its time we started acting like the "superior" species we think we are. -
But I guess you actually exist. Wow. Since nobody could be that naturally ignorant I'm going to assume you're willfully ignorant or a troll. Probably a combination of the two... an Ignotroll.
-
Which part of iorek's post did you consider ignorant? I'm wondering because to me his points seem pretty valid.
-
I don't think I have any right to dictate to perfect strangers what they should do on such a deeply personal issue. I, after all, will not have to deal with their having a child/abortion. Having an opinion on the issue is fine - thinking your opinion should be the basis for how complete strangers should conduct their affairs, knowing nothing more about their lives than this one element, is complete and utter bullshit.
-
...a democratically elected leader who wants to make sure the poorer people in his country get a fair shake. So he said some lousy things about our President...I would too if he tried to kill me. Go see the documentary The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.
-
* "This world is dying, mainly thanks to those right wing egocentric fucks who actually believe that they have the audacity to say that on one hand, 'lets kill all the muslims for believing in a slightly different made up god to us' whilst on the other preaching that those same people, those they wish dead, should also not be given the right to chose whether they have the life to support yet ANOTHER human bag of organs." *
THIS is the ignorance, willfull or otherwise, I'm talking about. I know of no one who holds those beliefs. I know of no one who wishes others dead for believing in a different religion than theres, other than those who are out to kill US! As for the rest of his screed I'll just chalk that up to the ravings of a lunatic.
-
most of america holds those beliefs, the US government is fighting a religious war. if you right wing fucks cant see that (or actually support that) then thats your choice. It has come to the attention of most people who have brain cells that the entire US war of Iraq, including the "inside job" of 9/11 where your fucking government crash a plane into the trade centre so that they could wade into the middle east and bring about the demise of muslim world, re-establish israel for the jews, thus ushering in your made up christ figure to whisk you all to heaven, whilst us heathens sit around waiting for the great tribulation - the oil thing? A quick buck on the side never hurt anyone. capitalism and religion the two greatest evils in the world, followed jointly by the meat industry. And for what? why because right wing fundies actually belive they should have dominance over this planet - it is neo con fundies who youll find trying to push anti abortion whilst tucking into their macdonalds, preaching their ignorant beliefs to everyone who will listen (which seems like a few too many if you ask me) whilst you all go on and on about saving the lives of more pointless humans, THE FUCKING POLAR BEARS ARE DYING OUT? does anyone care that we are loosing species everyday thanks to our governments caring more about their retarded crusades and lining their pockets with cash, in 80 years 60% of life on this planet will be dead anyway, thanks to global warming, thanks to the fucked up mistakes the western world has made. we are all fucked thanks to money and your made up stupid ass god delusion.
-
from EJcarter9 - "I'm talking about. I know of no one who holds those beliefs. I know of no one who wishes others dead for believing in a different religion than theres, other than those who are out to kill US! As for the rest of his screed I'll just chalk that up to the ravings of a lunatic."
EJcarter9 -
------------------------------
it is the US government who created the threat, it is the US government who went into afghanistan and Iraq and riled up all the muslims. The Muslims DIDNT crash a plane into the WTC, the US government did it. If youre too stupid to see that, then thats your problem. The muslims are upset because you trashed their countries. Thats their beef. And why> because the US government is run by neo con christian radicals that see islam as a threat to their way of life. Religion is both as bad as one another, religion is responsible for 9 out of 10 problems on this planet. all religions hate each other and therefor fight the same fight. They probablt didnt want to kill anyone, they are retaliating after The US sent in 1000's of troops and slaughtered their families. Oil, money and belief, the unhealthy trinity.
atheism = peace and freedom. -
...but you lost me at "The Muslims DIDN'T crash a plane into the WTC, the US government did it. If youre too stupid to see that, then thats your problem." Yes, 9/11 was the neocons' wet dream come true and they likely knew about it in advance. But seriously, "the government did it?" Doubtful, to say the least.
-
Woman's body. Woman's choice. Are you pro-lifers, or even those on the fence, really ready to live in a world where we tell women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies? Put yourself in that scenario guys. Anway if women don't want a pregnancy they are going to terminate it one way or another. The issue is whether they do it in a clean sterile environment or with a rusty coat hanger in an alley. Get over yourselves.
-
AAAAHHH AAAAAAHHHHHHH AAAAHHHHH AAAAAHHHHH AAAAAHHHHHH AAAAAAHHHHHH AAAAAAHHHHHH AAAAAAAHHHHH AAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!
-
It said, "Aint it cool news?" I said, "No".
-
"One organisms right to EXIST is subordinated to another organisms right to not be inconvenienced." This describes pretty much the entire human condition. Do you eat? I'm betting that, unless you are a freak of modern science, you eat something that was once alive (or perhaps still is, if you eat yogurt). Do those living beings not have rights? I'm an omnivore, so I eat just about anything. And I'm able to justify it just fine in my head. Now, I'm not suggesting eating aborted fetuses would make everything better. I'm simply saying that life doesn't carry with it certain rights. At least not according to culinary history. You might say human life is different, but humanity decides who has the right to live and to die every day. A Christian conservative administration has decided that Muslims have less right to life than Christians, and they are acting on that decision by the minute. I know many of our anti-choice pundits support that decision and those actions. I would argue that, if you believe in a soul and in the sanctity of human life, killing a Muslim is far worse than killing a fetus. Because human life, a.k.a. humanity, is not the division of cells and development of an embryo. COmpare embryos from humans and pigs and frogs and, up until a certain point in development, they look awfully similar. In fact, genetically, they're pretty malleable. They could still become just about anuything with the right stimulus. Humanity is the sum total of a person's hopes, dreams, convictions, desires, beliefs and feelings. A dead insurgent represents a greater loss to humanity than an aborted fetus. As for the viability issue, I believe the same person I quoted to start this off indicated that a newborn separated from its mother will die shortly after birth, so it could'nt survive on its own and therefore nullifies the viability argument. Um, no one expects the newborn to go get a job and an apartment and drive tot he grocery store, einstein. Newborns survive without THEIR mothers all the time. As long as they have SOMEONE, they're usually fine. A fetus needs its mother to sustain its existence because it has not yet developed the necessary biomechanics to exist outside of a parasitic/symbiotic relationship. At the point where that fetus could conceivably survive if cut from its mother, for whatever reason, then we can talk about the moral/ethical implications of giving the mother's life and quality thereof priority. Up until then, if for some reason you and I probably would never understand (because we're both men and we aren't the ones being asked to make the choice) the woman wants to end the pregnancy, that's her right. And it makes as much sense as any other damned thing we do as a species, a nation and a people.
-
I am an unabashed liberal but you are giving the Bush Administration way too much credit. They certainly exploited 9/11 to the fullest to satisfy their neo-con wet dreams of a remade middle east but to say they planned it themselves . . . come on. Clinton was a very good president and he couldn’t even keep the fact that he got a blow job in the oval office secret. Bush is an incompetent moron backed by an equally inept administration that has bungled just about everything he has touched. There is no way he could have pulled that off without everybody knowing about it. Besides, look again at the footage of Bush reading “My Pet Goat” when word of what happened came down. He was about ready to shit his pants. He’s not that good of an actor.
-
forestal, you brought the funny. when i went to EMT school in my textbook was a recipe for sauteed placenta. very nutritious and handy to eat if you've just given birth in the wilderness more than an hour from rescue!
-
Women these days favor the barstool abortion(or the restroom stall squat and stash). But, however they want to abort they're going to abort. Might as well make it clean and legal.
-
I don't know where you got your information, but a human fetus is not similar to a frog or pig. When a sperm enters the egg there is approximately 20 hours until the 23 chromosomes of your father and the 23 from your mother combine. Once that happens your eye color, height, whether you will lose your hair in adulthood, personality, hair color, and everything else that will make you unique are set. All this at one cell old. The whole "women will go back to doing abortions to themselves or in back alleys again" argument is getting boring. If a woman wants to do that to herself then nobody can stop her. Should suicide be federally legalized? Of course not.
-
we'd educate kids on birth control, make it readily available. Make adoption a more attractive option... We can't outlaw abortions because it's a slippery slope giving the government that much control over your body. But, if you make it so unplanned pregnancies are rare, abortions become obsolete.
What I hate is how this argument, like everything else, has become the "religious" vs the "heathens". Our fucking political system looks more and more like a theocracy all the time. -
of lower crime since abortion became legal. It makes alot of sense, actually. Poor kids in bad neighborhoods aren't born into the cycle of crime and violence their parents were, so future crime goes down. Not saying this is a good reason for a abortion, merely stating an observation.
-
In the first few weeks of development, most mammal fetuses are hard to tell apart, at least visually. They share the same basic body frame and positioning.
-
I can only imagine what Morimoto or Cat Cora could do with a few fresh feti. (Bobby Flay would obviously just grill it with mango and cumin. How boring.)
And let's be honest for a minute. Nobody is truly alive until you can afford a good lawyer. -
Do you people even know what a theocracy looks like? I am so tired of hearing that criticism from the idiots on the far Left. Simply because someone is against abortion and they happen to be religious DOES NOT mean that they are theocrats attempting to enforce their religion on you. Everyone has a world-view, and that world-view informs your moral beliefs which in turn informs your moral actions. Contra the relativists on the Left, some world views ARE better than others. Thus, I happen to be religious, but I'm not trying to convert you to my religion; I am merely attempting to argue that (for example) abortion is morally wrong. So for the love of God, quit your stupid screams and wails of "the USA is a theocracy": you just sound like the pathetic loons that you are.
-
Those were two of the most incoherent posts I have ever read in my life. So...wait...your point...is...we live in a theocracy...based...on some...anecdotal evidence? Real convincing.
-
in the tag line for the article and already I know I am not interested.
Politics or not this is just dumb and sick.
Plain and simple.
A waste of film and a waste of an article to report it.
3 hours?
I don't know what is worse, 3 hours of this or that Fanning rape movie.
What's next a double feature of both movies?
I mean yeah I am all for woman's rights. It's their bodies to do with what they want. But really folks do we really need this film? -
Even if you're a dude? I feel exactly the same way. Humans had their chance and they blew it. Bring on the asteroid!
-
I think the problem is being misrepresented by the film. The majority of Pro-lifers do not kill abortionists and actively oppose anyone who would physically harm abortion providers. Anyone who acts as a vigilante is not acting as a pro-lifer they are acting as an individual. This has only happened three times, it is not common. There are four “pro-lifer” individuals who collectively are responsible for the death of eight people associated with providing abortions. There are roughly a dozen instances of other individuals involved with violent crimes against abortionists or who have caused property damage against abortion clinics. Let those numbers sink in. Four individuals responsible for murder (Eric Rudolph, James Kopp, Paul Hill, Michael F. Griffin) out of over 100,000,000 who describe themselves as being pro-lifers have killed 8 people. Less than twenty violent individuals out of over a 100 million. The number of abortions since Rove vs. Wade: 47,000,000. Think about it. 8 vs. 47,000,000. Can you honestly say the film is showing both sides of the story if they show the carnage caused by both sides as being anywhere near equal? Yes, please do show graphic depictions of all 8 abortionists killed, show their faces, tell their names. Then out of fairness show 47,000,000 images of aborted fetuses so the audience can have some proper perspective.
-
Sorry, that should have said it only happened FOUR times, I forgot about Paul Hill who was executed for his crimes, and did not revise that one sentence.
-
Sorry, the number of abortions more accurately today is around 49,000,000 or an abortion about every 25 seconds. The latest update for abortionists killed since Roe vs. Wade, still 8, or about one every 4.7 years.
-
"Should suicide be federally legalized?" Ummm...yes it should. Why should it be illegal to end your life? It's your fucking life. And I'm sorry the argument "bores" you but it still valid.
-
Abortions for all!!
BOOOOOOO!!!
Abortions for none!!
BOOOOOOO!!!
Abortions for some, minature american flags for others!! YAYYYYY!!! -
If people want to end their life, then that is their choice and nobody can stop them. Obviously you can't prosecute somebody who is dead. Suicide being illegal is a bit ridiculous, but having it be legal would be insane. Think logically about the repercussions of that. Somebody could walk up to a playground full of kids and attempt to set themselves on fire and nobody could legally try to stop them. Technically if suicide was completely legal and you forcibly stopped them, you could be charged with assault.
-
Ah. I see. Hadn't had my coffee yet.
-
If I ran over a pregnant woman, would I get charged with one death or two? How have courts decided in cases like that? If it's below the age that the baby can be aborted, would they call that murder?
-
"If you kill a pregnant woman, and it's determined that she wanted the child in her belly, then you are not charged with one murder - you are charged with two. But that same woman could go down to the abortion clinic and legally kill that baby(an independent lifeform with its own DNA) without the law so much as blinking an eye if she wanted. So legally, we recognize that the baby growing in a pregnant woman IS alive and has rights. It IS a "person" worthy of the same legal protection and right to life as any other person... UNLESS the Mother doesn't "want it"." That's what I thought it was.
-
Saying that abortion is a "personal decision" and therefore doesn't belong in the political arena is only half an argument. Yes, it's a personal decision. But part of what government does is decide which personal decisions will be regulated by government and which will not. Using drugs is also a personal decision. It's a personal decision, however, that government regulates. So you can't just say "it's a personal decision" and leave it at that. Tell me why government has no business regulating this particular personal decision -- the decision about whether or not to have an abortion.
If you respond to that challenge by saying "women have a right to do with their bodies as they wish," then I will tell you, "no they do not." If they did, then prostitution would be legal everywhere, as would drug use, as would organ sales, as would consensual sex among adult siblings, as would self-mutilation. After all, these are all things that women can do with their own bodies. But they are also things that governments at various levels and in various places have deemed not to be in the interest of women or society at large, and therefore has restricted or prohibited. So again, women clearly do NOT have an absolute right to do with their bodies as they see fit. That argument, then, cannot be used to defend the pro-choice position. -
...is that somehow the pro-life movement supports murderers of doctors, and that somehow that makes both sides equal. (A random search of one famous incident: Google "Pro-Life Condemns Gunn Murder") As for this doc showing things fairly (why is it the highest form of flattery to say a documentary shows two sides equally?), hmm, let's see, how many defenseless human fetuses killed by doctors vs. how many doctors killed by crazed wackjobs who've been condemned by the pro-life movement? Just doesn't seem equal to me. And btw, I'm an atheist. It's science, not silly religion, that makes me see that there is no difference between judging blacks or Jews as nonhumans fit to be destroyed and judging humans in their weakest stage of development as "potential" humans. (Are they potentially something OTHER than human, too?) If I became ruler of the world I would NOT stop abortions because that would lead to backalley ones and death, but I WOULD pour money into educating people about birth control so they wouldn't get to the point where abortion is sought as a solution to a problem. And spare me the "helpless rape victim" crap, rape and incest make up less than 2% of abortions--most of them are because people didn't want to take precautions, and it's so much more convenient to simply regard a developing human as a thing than to admit "Yeah, I'm willing to murder to keep my shape." Oh, and I'm against the death penalty and for anyone who is mentally competent to croak themselves if they desire, so spare me the easy responses. Oh, and that this movie has the laughable whackjob Noam "I hate the nation that made me rich" Chomsky in it condemns it to the Bargain Bin right off.
-
Any aborted fetuses male? Yes. So YOU stfu, moron. The "it's a woman-only" issue is not only so 70's, it lets all men off the hook for getting women pregnant in the first place--by your retarded logic, men shouldn't have to pay when a woman keeps a baby, since it was HER decision alone, and SHE should have to deal with the consequences of HER decision. What a bunch of freakin lepton brains our schools are cranking out.
-
Feb 09, 2007 2:41:37 AM CST
And thus this talkback resolves the abortion debate...
by purityofessence
forever.
-
http://www.gargaro.com/bomb.html
-
You both make some excellent points. Thank you. Dr Eric Vornoff, I wasn't aware that suicide wasn't illegal in the UK. But the fact that you haven't seen anything about somebody trying to stop it doesn't mean it hasn't happened. It has happened numerous times more than likely. Anyway, it was just an aside to the main debate.
-
And yeah, doesn't sound like this documentary is balanced, unless by balanced they fixed the scales... Well, since I'm late to teh party and others have already addressed these issues, I'll just chime in to say I believe Abortion is one of the worst and openly practiced evils on earth. Science confirms that the child in the womb is fully human. Law and historic examples reaffirm that this is indeed murder... it's just licensed and legal murder. It's fucking sucks bad that many women may be subjected to inconvenient pregnancies, but that gives neither them or anyone the right to kill another person out of convenience or trauma from rape, particularly one as innocent as a child. Neither does it call for religious people to attack abortionists with physical violence or destroy property, and let's be honest, it's fucking rare, so pro aborts looking to hoist those examples have no real case. So, if ever the day comes that God comes down from the skies followed by the 4 horsemen and you wonder what He's so pissed at... remind yourselves about this... Latez.
-
A featus isn't born or deemed "alive" untill it's fully out of it's womb. So technically it isn't murder since it isn't officialy alive.
That's why if doctors have to preform an abortion very late in the process the featus is only half removed out of the womb before it's snuffed.
I'm pro-choice but I don't think people should use it as a contriseptive.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Quint sees some DJANGO UNCHAINED footage at CANNES!!! -- 290 total posts 285 posts
- A Fire Definitely Rises In The New DARK KNIGHT RISES One Sheet!! -- 202 total posts 201 posts
- Tom Cruise Saddles Up For A Remake Of THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN!! -- 102 total posts 100 posts
- Mark Millar Offers Some Interesting Insight Into The KICK-ASS Movie Sequel!! -- 77 total posts 77 posts
- "Some Men Are Coming To Kill Us. We're Going To Kill Them First." Teaser To SKYFALL! -- 245 total posts 77 posts
- "I Don't Remember An Episode." The Teaser For THE MASTER Is Here!! -- 146 total posts 65 posts
- Charlize Theron thinks it is pretty badass to be in a Ridley Scott Space Movie! PROMETHEUS featurette -- 86 total posts 61 posts
- When there’s no more room in Hell The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will walk the earth. -- 48 total posts 48 posts
- When there’s no more room in Hell The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day will walk the earth. -- 48 total posts 48 posts
- Is Official!! BREAKING BAD’s Final Season Begins In Under Two Months!! -- 48 total posts 48 posts