Gil's abortion comment rubbed me the wrong way
-
MuchToBeGratefulFor — 16 years ago(March 30, 2010 11:48 AM)
I see where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. It was a cop-out answer on Gil's part and that is how the wife reacts. 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.
And given that she didn't have an abortion, and the final scene is an orgy of babies, I'd say any agenda this film has is very pro-birth, pro-baby, pro-family, etc.
You must be the change you seek in the world. Gandhi -
Gauis-the-wise — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 04:41 AM)
Gil's reply may or may not have been a cop out but look at it like this. Ultimately what a man thinks or any input he may have is ultimately meaningless to a degree as its the woman who has to make the choice, not the man. Its not a pleasent fact particualrly if you're the man in the situation but its the case in this world wether you like it or not. Yeah, she got upset and arguably you can see why but he could say she shouldn't get an abortion but there was nothing to prevent her from doing so. Apart from the fact that it may have effected their marrige in the aftermath. Men have barely any rights in the matter apart from maybe having a say but in the end they're powerless. I'm not saying this to attack women, i'm not a mysogonist. I'm just pointing out what is a basic fact of life. Maybe what Gil felt was that there was no real point because ultimatly it was her decision although to be fair its another persons opinion that can influrence some one elses choices. So yeah it was a cop out as Gil should have said what he felt even though ultimately there was little he could do.
-
Kuato_and_George — 16 years ago(March 31, 2010 09:23 AM)
Men have barely any rights in the matter apart from maybe having a say but in the end they're powerless.
Words cannot even begin to express how angry this mindset makes me.
We let 12 untrained citizens (jurors) make decisions that affect people's lives. Yet, when it comes to the right of life or not, it's basically down to one person. Arguably the 1 person who might be the least objective about it. -
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?