Gil's abortion comment rubbed me the wrong way
-
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 10:17 AM)
Fact is we do Kuato and George. That IS the way it is. What do you want to do. FORCE them to have the child and then whatwhere does it end then. Where do you then draw the line? It's not quite so simple. The whole It's there bodies is always going to be a factor wether you like it or not. As an indiviudal man you can't force them to have that child. And technically speaking it Isn't even a life if the mother finds out very early on that she is pregnant. Although you might argue that it just isn't her body but two bodies. One inside the other.
-
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 11:31 AM)
Fact is we do? What kind of answer is that? For starters I'm not denying it. Additionally, claiming "that's the way it is" isn't any strong support for a stance. It's just a statement of the state of an issue.
"Whether you like it or not" is not an argument. There's nothign in that statement to back up anything at all. It's just a statement.
Murder, rape, corruption, and many other horrible things are going to happen in life. Always. That just is the way it is. I guess nobody should have an opinion about any of it since it's always going to exist though, huh?
If you want to disagree with me, by all means go ahead. I'm not afraid of a little friendly conversation. But this "Oh it's always going to be that way" type of statement is a total cop out. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 03:03 PM)
Well you have a fair point with some of the remarks I made but I did make some kind of attempt to back it up, seems that either you've chosen to ignore it or you got so bent out of shape over my remarks that you didn't notice it.
Fact is, what do you do? You force a woman to have the child against her will. Force her to go through the mind numbing pain etc. But then where do you draw the line? As a man I think its easy for me to expect something of some one of the opposite sex when i will never be in their shoes. Its not an opinion, its a FACT. Yes, we make decisions in a courtoom that have a major influrence on other peoples lives but we don't necesarrily tell someone who might be considered relatively sane what to do with there body. You don't force someone who has a bad knee to have surgery even though it may be in there best interest. I don't necesarrily think abortion is necesarrily the right way to go but if you start forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy it can be twisted in to so many things what we can get an individual to do against their will ie. Having a man have to go through painful surgery so he may still be alive because its in the best interests of his family that they stick around. Can we force a woman to have a baby when she is in already a fragile state that it may very likely not put her at risk during the birth but her child as well? And then you wonder was it all worth it in the end when the child has ended up dying and put her through even more trauma. And what of if a woman has been raped? Who are we condemn her for wanting to rid her self of the child who when it enters the world and some day is going to know where it came from? It's not all black and white you know and believe me it can't be an easy decision to make. Its not all daft young girls who allow them selves to get pregnant. And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the man isn't partly to blame and doesn't bear any responsibilty. Yes, abortion can and is on many ocassionseen as a get out free card and to be honest it is. But if we start forcing woman to do something physically against their what does that eventually make us as well? Forcing her to have the baby when she's already in a less than stable state and to go through the whole ordeal might be comparable to bullying someone to do something that you disagree with so you MAKE them do it. Like a man forcing his wife to stop smoking against her will. Woman go through birth all the time, yeah but the fact is that some have planned on the pregnancy OR if they've had a baby before they know what to expect already.
I've heard people say it Isn't the fault of the child if a woman is raped but then again it wasn't the fault of the mother either. If anyone is to blame its the rapist. The child wouldn't be their in the first place if she hadn't been raped which in itself is traumatic and because of some peoples principals you allow her to go through another traumatic ordeal. And imagine now if that was a thirteen, fourteen year old girl. You could potentially screwing that poor kids life even more than it already has been. And all so we can uphold our principals when we have one life hasn't even forced it self out of the womb yet!
That child might have a chance but we're possibly giving one life in exchange for another that's become totally screwed up to the extent that the girl may not be dead but might as well be. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:07 PM)
I've heard people say it Isn't the fault of the child if a woman is raped but then again it wasn't the fault of the mother either. If anyone is to blame its the rapist. The child wouldn't be their in the first place if she hadn't been raped which in itself is traumatic and because of some peoples principals you allow her to go through another traumatic ordeal. And imagine now if that was a thirteen, fourteen year old girl. You could potentially screwing that poor kids life even more than it already has been. And all so we can uphold our principals when we have one life hasn't even forced it self out of the womb yet!
That child might have a chance but we're possibly giving one life in exchange for another that's become totally screwed up to the extent that the girl may not be dead but might as well be.
For the record, I've never said people who have been raped should carry out a pregnancy. I've made my stances on abortion clear in my 2nd post. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:46 PM)
Fair enough, you have to forgive me as my memory at times Isn't the best in the world and I either don't take certain things in. So i'll apologise for that, that said you haven't covered any of the other points that I made.
-
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 09:30 AM)
It was not presented as "it's OK for one person to decide in this situation", it was Gil passing the buck, and getting a deserved negative reaction from his wife for it.
It was presented that way by Gil. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 02:48 PM)
It was presented that way by Gil [it's Ok for one person to decide]. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil.
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:09 PM)
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
I thought they were making it pretty clear (through Gil) about the whole "my body, my choice." But I can also agree Karen presented another POV. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 05:12 PM)
True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.
From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.
There were two characters in the movie who hinted at having an abortion. First was Martha Plimpton's character. The other was Gil.
While I agree with you that the Karen character, presented another POV, having two character pretty much say "It's the woman's choice and nobody else's" comes off to me like I was being preached to just a bit. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 06:01 PM)
Ah, but did Gil really believe that? He actually seemed kind of sheepish as if he didn't really mean it when he said it. At least he was just uing it as a get out clause so he didn't have to say what he really fealt about the matter. Because if he said what he really fealt it might incur her anger only to find that not saying anything and attempting to pass the buck p*ssed her off even more. Either that or he just didn't want to accept any of the responsibility for the final decision.
I can't remember what Martha Plimpton's character might have said so you'll need to refresh my memory on that one. But some times writers don't necesarrily put things in a movie because that is what they personally believe in as muchtobegratefulfor as stated. Perhaps you've merely misunderstood their intention. And even if it did, alot of films do preach at their audience although some a little more than others. Look at "Philadelphia" for example which while I thought was a good film I thought got a little too heavy handed in its preaching. Although in fairness that was more or less whole point of "Philadelphia" while "Parenthood" I suppose was only supposed to be a comedy drama which wasn't potentially supposed to be making any political point in the first place. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:38 AM)
I think Gil legitimately didn't want the kid. Whether it's because he didn't want another child (expense) or didn't want the responsibility of making the decision, that's debatable (I can agree on that).
Martha Plimpton's character got into a fight with her husband. He storms off and she mentions something about "If he thinks I'm having this child now he's insane>." Or something to that effect. It was once again the whole "Only the woman has a say" thing. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:58 AM)
I think Gil's initial reaction was "NOOOOOOO!" when she told him. Since he later seemed genuinely happy that she was pregnant, I think it was the initial shock of getting this news when he had quit his job.
As for Martha's remark when she gets into a fight with her husband, I think this movie would have been unrealistic if the immature newly-married teens did not at least bring up the subject of abortion. And her making that remark is again, not pushing the "only the woman has a say" agenda. As mentioned above, it was just depicting the reality if she wanted to, she could have aborted her pregnancy with no input from him. And I did not see this presented as a good thing; here is this teenager potentially deciding to abort on a whim after a fight with the father.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 08:47 AM)
Two separate characters push forth the same idea. How is that not a little preachy?
Now I'm not saying I would be as upset if it was a pro-choice statement. I just don't like the "my body, my choice" part of pro-choice. I believe such an important, life-changing decision shouldn't be left up to 1 person. -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 04:01 PM)
You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy? That's potentially not what the writer was attempting to do. Put it like this. If two characters who are villains condone murder does that all of a sudden mean that the writer is trying to preach that it is?
These are fictional situations but based on fact and the writer has possibly thought, well what would more than one individual say or do in the situation. Doesn't mean he or she agrees with it but its what might happen.
Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda. I could write a movie where two characters push foward the idea that capital punishment is ok (something that I'm against), doesn't mean that that's an agenda that I'm pushing. -
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 06:32 AM)
You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy?
I'm assuming they are, you are assuming they aren't. What's the harm?
Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda.
And you're all upset that I said it. So what's the f-cking problem? I said it. I feel that way. You are upset that I said it. What's the big deal? -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(April 03, 2010 04:57 AM)
You're assuming that they are pushing foward an agenda on very limited and circumstantial evidence. You've made the assumption based on two characters who to be fair make comments that a lot of people in the same or similar situations would make. How is that pushing foward an agenda? I've chosen to point out why I think you're being narrow minded and not considered the fact that they MIGHT not be as has the fellow poster who shares my opinion.
I'm not getting upset just pointing out that I disagree, if any one is getting upset it's your self. Although if I was a writer/filmmaker and somebody made a bold accusation about something that I had written and came to a hasty conclusion I think I would have a right to be upset. Especially when there's really very little to back it up apart from two charcters who happen to make comments that YOU do not like. If any one is making a big deal out of this its your self. Don't get all bent out of shape just because I happen to disagree with you and explain why. You've felat a certain way without considering the alternative which has been suggested to you and yet you still cling on to the belief that you're being preached to. If you disagree then fine, but I'm still going to say in my view that you're being narrow minded. -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 03, 2010 06:29 AM)
I agree. Having 2 people make comments you find similar does not make the movie "preachy". If something was going to be "preached", it would be presented in a positive context. Instead, you have one of the comments made by a immature teenager after an immature fight, the other made by as a cop-out by a married man and taken as such by his wife. If anything, the movie makes the "it's the woman's choice and the woman's choice only" stance look pretty bad.
It bothers you, as you've stated, because characters SAID these things. I don't get upset when characters in movies say things I don't agree with, especially when
a) it is quite plausible that these characters would say that in those situations, and
b) it is not presented in a positive way as I've noted above.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 06:02 PM)
Sorry, don't see it. In one case, a married man makes a cop-out statement "giving" his wife the choice, when what he wants is for her to make the choice that he wants her to make, without him having to say it.
In the other case, an immature teen girl who is in a relationship with an equally immature teenage boy and pregnant by him, threatens to abort the baby after having an immature fight.
Sorry, I don't see what is "the same idea" being pushed here, other than (news flash) people with unplanned and inopportune pregnancies consider abortion. And when discussing it, say things that you apparently don't approve of.
But that's not preaching. As Gauis notes, depicting something in a movie is not the same as giving it the stamp of approval. There is no evidence that the director/producers agree with what either character thinks. But is it plausible that both characters would say what they said? Absolutely.
The other commonality is that both decide to have the baby, and appear happy they did. If anything is being preached here, it's "have the baby."
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi