MovieChat Forums > The Cider House Rules (2000) Discussion > Neither Pro nor against!!

Neither Pro nor against!!

posted 19 years ago by alexandrefallais
50 replies | jump to latest

IMDb user comments for
The Cider House Rules (1999)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think those who have limited their vision of this work to the binary pro or against abortion argument have totally missed the purpose of it. There is so much more to it !! This film is about freedom, choice to decide for one-self, and about equality. If people react to it so much (hate or love the film) is just because it's a bit like true life: there is nothing totally bright or dark. If you look closely, all characters have good and evil in them, not one is just pure goodness or evil.

It is sometimes a bit disappointing to see that we only react according to our own social, racial background and origin... Are we, white people only interseted in abortion ?

I find it rather strange that no one has yet realised there was also a great racial issue there: what about the rules imposed on the black workers? What about Mr. Rose's welcome to Homer "We're making history having this young man stay with us!! Ain't we Wally?" . Is that white man going to do with us the work that no white man usually does? Does that white man think he is an equal to us so much that he is willing to be managed by a black man?
Do people actually realise what was the black workers'condition in the 40's? It might not always be rosy today, but they were surely not far from being still considered as slaves back then. I am a white man, but I really cried when this important aspect of the race issue came to my mind as I watched the film. How can we have considered our peers that way? How was the human mind able to reach such a degree in inhumanity?

I found this movie not only well written, screen-played, played and edited, but I also found it had a true message of goodness in it, which goes beyond the nice story that you might want to dive into from time to time. It is definitely a very rich story. I think it is difficult to separate both notions presented by the movie: morality (is abortion a good or a bad thing, and from which point of view as both are present). And please, all arguments are given, I don't agree at all with the filthy propaganda argument.

The "rules" which are part of the movie title in the first place, are imposed on the Afro-Americans who work in the Cider House, assuming they are stupid and unable to behave responsibly and with common sense (Do not sleep, eat, sun bathe on the roof.. as just "Don't go up on the roof"). It is about the laws imposed on Men by other Men who do not necessarily understand the implications and the situations of those who have to comply with those rules. That is valid for abortion as well as for any other rules and leads naturally to the question of the Law : is the Law only a list of rules that we must obey without questioning at any time, or might it sometimes be a more blurry notion that sensible individuals might have to work out for themselves according to the circumstances? Or can we take into account that Life itself , and "chance", sometimes leads to another form of Justice, as it eventually happens at the end? To me, it is a real "must see". I would recommend parents to offer it to their teenagers as a means to let them build their own vision of the world.... Yes! it goes that far!!

[–] Rockn716 19 years ago

thank you! honestly some people on here.

I'm a high school senior who watched this movie for my Political Issues Through Film class, like, litereally, this morning, because it brings up the whole abortion legality issue.

and THAT is what it does - it doesn't say it's good, it doesn't say it's bad, specifically. It gives both points of views, with arguements for both. Dr. Larch says to Homer "Because you know how to help them, don't you feel obligated to help them?" He also tells him, during their letter correspondence, in response to Homer's comment on playing God, that he doesn't interfere, if a woman comes to him saying that she must give birth to the baby again and again and again no matter what, he'll let her - it's about CHOICE.

And that is where i think is the REAL misudnerstnading - there is a HUGE difference between being Pro-Abortion and Pro-Choice. I am Pro-Choice, which means that thoguh I could never have an abortion if, God Forbid, I was put in that situation, but I ALSO don't think it is any place for a man in a business suit in Washington, D.C. to tell a poor teenage girl in the slums of Brooklyn what she can or can't do with her body. A man has NO idea what it's like. He gets the 2nd hand affects, not the 1st hand physical and emotional pain the woman has.

The movie simply portrays the truth of life. People's problem is that they see hoe brutally honest it is, and can't/don't want to accept that their life is no that perfect or imperfect. People make mistakes, rules are made, and our history is practically based on those who question authority, who say, in essence, "screw the system" because they feel it is not right. Just think - America in general was first, going against the rules that England had set for us. Then there were those in the North who helped slaves escape slavery - we now have no slavery; those who sold alcohol when it was deemed illegal by the 18th ammendment - anither ammendment was made which countered the 18th; Rosa Parks refused to move from the spot designated by the system where blacks can sit, but was still told to move so that a white man who sat at the very end of the white seciton would not have to be right around blacks - segregation is illegal; women felt that their voice and opinion were just as important as any mans and they made sure everyone knew - in about 6 months, I will be allowed to vote.

But these simply the ideas of a 17 year old girl - probably scoffed at for not living life for long enough and just needing to procrastonate in doing her essay for this movie. Ah well, i'll show you. ;-)

[–] CalvinValjean 19 years ago

Well, needless to say this is one of the great debates of our time, and I feel bad stirring up the pot, but I also feel it's wrong to say nothing.

I respect your opinions, but I feel that Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion ARE the same thing, because if something is inhumane then it is inhumane all the time. If anyone is being robbed of her choice, it's the child being cut up. Perhaps she was conceived in a rape or incest and perhaps this will lead to an awful life, but all the same, shouldn't whether or not she lives be HER choice?

Yipes, now I've done it. Now the storm will hit. But I'm not sorry. If young children have been killed, then I can afford to be yelled at.

[–] bluehawk09 19 years ago

Amen MeatballsMarlowe.

[–] whitespirit26 18 years ago

If it's early-term abortion, than the embryo is neither he nor she. And yes, there IS a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I don't think I could ever get an abortion, but I wouldn't stand in the way of someone who needed one(like a 13-year-old child, for example, since you're getting defensive about children).

[–] DustToLife 18 years ago

Pro-Choice and Pro-Abortion stances are absolutely, 100% NOT the same, and it irritates me to no end that people constantly assume that they are. It's like how, because of people like Ann Coulter, most people believe that all liberals are godless, amoral tree-huggers. That's not how it is. I'm a Christian and I am Pro-Choice. I believe it's a sin to engage in abortions, I think any couple that copulates should be prepared to face the possible repurcussions of their actions, those possible repurcussions being the conception of a child. However, despite the fact that I can observe a difference between a single-celled organism and an infant, I still don't think it's right that someone who's not involved, and - probably - of the male persuasion, can make the totalitarianistic decision when he hasn't walked a mile in someone's shoes who might be debating over whether or not to abort. Whether or not you're Pro-Choice, Pro-Abortion, or Pro-Life, this is still America. Like I said - I don't condone abortions in any shape or form, I can certainly understand how people might see it as murder, but I believe stronger in a woman's right to CHOOSE - to choose to abort or maybe even to choose to keep the child. The moment a woman loses that freedom is the moment that her democratic liberties are being violated, and that is the moment that this country is no longer "The Land of the Free".

[–] whitespirit26 18 years ago

Amen, DustToLife. I too am a pro-choice Christian and it amazes me when certain other Christians make presumptious comments about abortion, like saying that if you get an abortion, you'll go to hell. I also agree that Ann Coulter's gone way too far in the past; the idea that all liberals are godless is ridiculous and judgemental.

[–] CalvinValjean 18 years ago

Myself and other Pro-Lifers have frequently lamented the fact the Pro-Life opinion is always given terrible representation in most debates; either religious fanatics or use "going to hell" as an argument, as has been brought up here, or hateful men who are insensitive to women and might even be terrorists trying to blow up clinics (kind of defeats the purpose, doncha think?).

Then of course there's Ann Coulter, but most rational beings, both conservative and liberal, are able to realize that her act is just theatre. Still, I suppose it helps somewhat that at least she's a Pro-Life woman, which adds more credibility to the Pro-Life position.

With that said, there are many Pro-Life individuals who are rational, peaceful human beings, BOTH male and female, who are not out to cause harm or be insensitive to pregnant women, but simply wish to stand up for the right of the child out of their own conviction, not their religion's.

This child may have been concieved in an act of rape, she may be about to be born to a 13 year old, she may be about to be born to a mother who cannot support her, she may be about to be born into a home where she will be abused, but regardless of all this, the child is STILL ALIVE and even if she hates her life and one day says: "I wish I'd never been born," that's still HER choice to make, not her mother's or anyone else's.

[–] whitespirit26 18 years ago

Except that an early embryo is not he or she or a baby. It is a woman's, especially a rape victim's, right to choose whether she allows her own fertilized egg to become a fetus and embryos don't make choices or feel like the women who carry them do. Even most pro-life people agree that there are certain exceptions as long as it's early-term abortion. Only in regards to late-term abortion do I think that it's never right. And as to the comment that blowing up a clinic would defeat the purpose, since when have terrorists been rational thinkers?

[–] CalvinValjean 18 years ago

"And as to the comment that blowing up a clinic would defeat the purpose, since when have terrorists been rational thinkers?"

Exactly, that's my point. Anyone who seriously considers blowing up a clinic is a terrorist and irrational. This does NOT represent the Pro-Life party.

[–] whitespirit26 18 years ago

I'm aware that terrorists don't represent the pro-life party and I'm glad. I also, however, hope that protestors who storm outside clinics and scream their convictions against abortion in young girls' faces don't represent the pro-life party either, just as liberals who support the horrid partial-birth practice don't truly represent the pro-choice party.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcnoernberg 17 years ago

Agreed, christians believe in "faith not works", meaning, regardless of anything you "do" you're still going to hell. It's only by grace that you're "saved"

remember, there's a lot of "nice" people in hell :)

[–] jayrussell1993 9 years ago

How can you be "pro-choice" and a "Christian?" You have an unexamined life.

[–] Amills23 11 years ago

You can't be a Christian and call yourself pro-Choice you're either Christian and pro-life or a wolf in sheep's clothing. God ordains life to say someone can take said life and murder it is in error.

Since you're so open minded I'm sure your fine with pedophilia and murder outside the womb as well.

[–] lo_k_cip 18 years ago

Are pro choice and pro abortion the same thing??? You should notice just how many people who consider themselves pro choice will tell you that they could never have one, maybe you think that they have no respect for life, but we do it`s just that life isn`t much without freedom

[–] whitespirit26 18 years ago

Exactly. The bottom line for me, though, is that I don't believe embryos are babies. If I did, I wouldn't think anything in the world justified getting rid of them.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] imblue-1 17 years ago

"Well, needless to say this is one of the great debates of our time, and I feel bad stirring up the pot, but I also feel it's wrong to say nothing."

Yeah, I know what you mean and I can't keep my mouth shut either. I'm not trying to pick any fights here, just trying to put my two cents in. I'd like to try to draw a parallel that I see very clearly, might be that no one else sees it but here goes.

Abortion is a horror. War is a horror. There are pacifists who would disagree, but MOST people would agree that war is SOMETIMES necessary. Those who agree with that point are not automatically PRO-WAR, they simply acknowledge the necessity that a nation sometimes has to make a choice to do something horrible. I know people who have fought in wars, among them there is not one who does not say that war is a horror. And yet they are all proud of their service. Are any of them PRO-WAR? I should say not.

So I'm male, I can't get pregnant and I'm sure I could never understand what goes through a woman's mind when she is making the choice to do something horrible, to have an abortion. I would have to be anti-abortion except for something very important and very real: the women I have known in my life. Family, friends, lovers, wife; real people, people I love. Amongst them there are two (that I know of) who made that decision to do this horrible thing. I know them well and they are good people. When I think about what they did, what they thought (for whatever reason) that they had to do, I am glad that they had the choice to do this horrible thing SAFELY & LEGALLY.

So for me, I am PRO-CHOICE, I am not PRO-ABORTION. For me abortion is a horror, but a necessary horror. I'd like to see it kept safe and legal, and I'd like it to be rare.

I've had my say, I've done the best I can to present my point. If there's nothing there that makes people stop thinking I'm a blood-thirsty, baby-murdering, demon-worshiper then I feel sorry for them. I'll be sending a check to Planned Parenthood this year, just like I do every year.

A man's got to know his limitations.

[–] timruf53223 17 years ago

I've read your post and I have one question. If the 'she' you mention is as you ask "shouldn't whether or not she lives be HER choice?", would you then agree that that same person would have the right to end their own life at will with the blessing/help of the government (The People)? I ask that because that would be the right you afford someone if we were following the course you outline.

I also ask this because folks who take the stance you have also take a stance against allowing terminal patients to take their own life with help.

Just curious if you see the line of thinking....

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bobsci_bel 10 years ago

Very well said and I'm glad you said it!

Abortion is anti-femminist. It uses the woman's body as a veil behind which murder can occur. Out of sight, out of mind. Murder is murder. No matter how we can afford to blind ourselves from the reality that is occurring. A price is being paid for that "poor Brooklyn teen" to continue to be a teen without responsibility, and the price would be paid by the death of that child. That is not right. Poor murdered baby. Not poor selfish teen.

[–] Traianus 9 years ago

A man has NO idea what it's like.

True. But then no man or woman knows what it's like to be aborted, too.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jayrussell1993 9 years ago

Don't worry little high school girl, NO white man in a business suit in Washington has told any poor black girl in "the slums of brooklyn what she can and can't go with her body" for a long time. Yet your indoctrination from the proabortion national education association have been drumming into your head for so many years that, naturally, you're unable to think for yourself, as happens with most high school students. First, the intimation of the proabortion argument is always, always about the poor black girl from the slums. Next, white americans are badgered by the educated elite (also white) that we somehow owe it to the unnamed poor black girl that she needs, has a right to and should demand an abortion whenever she's got an 'unwanted' pregnancy. Don't you see the effect? White american liberals are knowingly keeping the population of African Americans minimized! White american liberals contribute the most to the genocide of the African race in the u.s.

[–] alexandrefallais 18 years ago

Films are a new form of litterature

Oktober 22 (or Stewie),

I think you are misunderstanding the whole point of the movie: it's all about keeping an open mind, and that doesn't seem to be your main quality...
The rules are unfair and patronising, no one denies that. But the movie's objective is precisely trying to point to that.
Abortion, an insult to Women? This is just the kind of reasoning that resonates from the middle ages!!
Women all over the world have faught for that right! The right to determine when they will be mothers, for the benefit of themselves as well as for the sake of the children!! That IS precisely what will make a difference in the next millenium: the human race will have to face that great problem: over population!
Will we choose to keep on breeding without thinking further about the consequences? Unwanted children, or chidren coming into the world in bad circumstances are the main "ingredient" of our world's suffering: bad food, bad education, lack of care, love, etc, leads to being lost, not knowing who we are, chronic depression, crime, etc.
To my opinion, thinking abortion is an insult to women is an insult to the Human race!
You think like the young hero of "The Cider House Rules", you expect all women and men to be responsible for all aspects of their sex life, to be responsible in the first place... That's exactly the kind of idealism that makes our world's misery... It's a myth, an idealism like that is unrealistic and a denial of the human nature. It comes from a very pure reasoning, but it's as impossible as Communism: beautiful idea, but just not applicable to the Human nature...
Sorry Stewie, are you a man? (I'm French, I don't know American short names). I will assume that you are a man. What would you think if you were a woman, and if you became pregnant at a very bad time in your life? Having a child is a real responsability, it's not just like getting a mouse from the pet store...

But I agree with you: we all need to work hard so that women won't have to come to that extremity. But as long as a woman becomes an unhappily pregnant woman, a responsible society HAS to help her out of the situation.

All the best,

Alex

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alexandrefallais 18 years ago

Films are a new form of litterature

Oktober,

Your views, which I respect, are nonetheless totally alien to me!!
First contradiction: you say you are pro-life, so, against abortion, but at the same time, for the death penalty: how on earth can these two ideas live in the same mind?

Secondly, the idea that you have about bad choices, regarding the ability for women to make sound decisions, seems wrong to me. There seem to be a misconception here: the bad choices we are talking about are on the methods, not on the decision itself. The film is quite explanatory on this point, when the young girl, who finally dies, was forced to get help from a "moron who didn't know how" (thats the terms used by the character played by Michael Caine).

You are a woman, and I am a man, so we have two different views on what a responsible sexual relation is, but if there is one thing that we both know for sure and that we will agree on, it is that desire, love (or a feeling that we sometimes mistake for love) and circumstances can lead people to conceive children when they didn't intend to...

Thirdly, I don't comprehend how the idea of a better education of both young men and women "is totally contradictory to the whole idea of women as liberated, mature human beings"... Isn't education the key to nearly all of our problems?

You say "Children can be abused and neglected just as easily by parents who never dreamed of aborting them." : that's exactly my point!!! They are certainly more in danger of being neglected and abused by those parents who didn't want them in the first place, but kept them as a matter of pinciple!!

You say your Mum "let one of these pregnant girls live in her house ", and oppose that fact to the idea that she is "pro-life", as if she had done a big favor to her : but maybe your Mum has just got a heart... that has nothing to do with her opinions on the matter!!

I now understand what you mean by "pro-life" (an expression I didn't know, and that I really dislike because it insinuates that those who are in favor of abortion are "against" life, which makes no sense at all). I now understand that you want to give every one a chance : amongst the multitude of unwanted babies, there might indeed be a Ghandi, or a Washington, or a President of the USA... Ok. For one of these very (very very) rare persons, there will be a vast, very vast majority of people who might turn to crime, or who will at least live a whole life in psychological pain (and most of the time, in financial distress : bad education, bad job, etc...).

This reasoning leads to the eternal continuity of what we have experienced since the beginning of Humanity... Sordid conditions, pain, anger, evil... and again and again... But we can all go on living in peace if the magical solution finally gets accepted by all: the death penalty!! Let people be born and become criminals, let us judge them, put them in prison, and kill them!! In the process, they might kill innocents too, when it would be so easy to encourage people to only have children if they want them, when they want, have the resources and time to educate them and love them (whatever their social backgrounds) and prevent these births before the bad spiral happens?

And finally, concerning overpopulation, thank God, the death penalty will never be the solution to that problem, as there is a gigantic math problem here, considering that the world's population nearly doubled in the last 25 years!!! That would mean that we would need to get on the chair, or the Guillotine, nearly half of the population in the next twenty years if the growth went on at the same rate... That would at least give a job to everybody: we would all either work in factories making the deadly devices, or direcly be involved in making them chop, inject, or buzz!! Nice world!!

That projection makes no sense but it gives at least one idea of two possible futures: we either start thinking now how to keep our numbers down , peacefully, or we go on the way we do, and we will certainly end up killing each other in the most terrifying wars, just for the right to breathe, drink and eat... Considering the darker and darker shade of today's international politics, it looks like the second option is the one that humanity is taking... To my opinion, you are wrong, but you're at least in the mainstream...

All the best,

Alex

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fire_bat777 18 years ago

This is a movie that uses abortion as a catalyst to make its point. It could have used many different things to get the point of "freedom of choice" coveyed to the viewers. The fact that people see this film as a "for or against abortion" movie just proves that some people cannot see beyond a Bruckheimer movie.

Kudos to all those who made the distinction, and for the insightful analysises.

Fire Bat
IMDB has taken away my freedom of speech. Happen to anyone else?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] fire_bat777 18 years ago

Oktober---

Don't you see that's the precise point I made? Homer made a choice to do what Irving deemed was (I'm confused how you put this) "morally responsible". That was his choice. He could just as easily not helped perform anymore abortions. That is the difference here. People are generally doomed to do what they are doing. Change is difficult.

Life is theory vs. Life in reality is a good thought. Sometimes I feel everyone wonders if we could live theory in reality.

Fire Bat
IMDB has taken away my freedom of speech. Happen to anyone else?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soybean913 17 years ago

Homer had issues with performing abortions, that much is true. He felt strongly against abortions, strongly enough that that was a catalyst for him leaving St. Clouds. BUT, even though he had such strong convictions, he realized that in the case of Rose Rose, an abortion was the only viable option. A child born to a mother impregnated by her father would be ( to put it mildly ) a freakish mess. Countless health and development issues. Probably severly mentally retarded.

I'm sure even the stoutest pro-lifer would agree that that one literary abortion could be understood. But the thing is, sh*t like that still happens. If an abortion in that respect could be condoned, than abortions would have to be and stay legal to allow for a**holes that would do that to a child. There IS always a grey area in humanity. Nothing is black or white.

What knockers!
Oh, thank you, doctor.

[–] jlawson-4 17 years ago

You can only make new humans from sex!
The people that get pissed and want abortion and hate kids and think kids are horrible should just STOP HAVING SEX and kill themselves if they hate life so much

They think life is such a burden and think that abortion is a reasonable thing...
If situations, economic or social, ever present such a burden, those things should change, and people should not choose a system promoting death over life.
It will only end up murdering most of those people and destroying their bloodlines.

They say the embryo is not he or she or a baby
Well they're not giving the choice to be, especially if they kill it

So Rose Rose got preggers at thirteen because Mr Rose raped or had sex with her, I can't remember, but I know everyone can get over it

The dream of the perfect scenario out the window: The baby is real.

Let go of the idea that it's acceptable to murder, to choose death over life, especially when you want life for yourself.

Let grow.

[–] soybean913 17 years ago

How is being raped 'choosing' to have sex? Not just in the case of Mr. and Rose Rose, but in real life. Say a virgin was walking home from work and a thug jumps her and rapes her. She gets pregnant. Why should she be forced to have a pregnancy and a child that she didn't want? Why should she be forced to watch her belly swell with an unwanted fetus? Why should she be forced to face and relive that single act of brutality every day for at least nine months?

And the fact that you say that 'everyone can get over it' in regards to a pregnancy as the result of incest is scary as all hell. The forced sexual intercourse between a father and daughter is real ( stuff like that happens, and not just in books ). Rape is real.

Let go of the idea that it's acceptable to rape, choose freedom over force, espically when you want freedom for yourself.

What knockers!
Oh, thank you, doctor.

[–] henfruit 17 years ago

YOU DO NOT GET OVER RAPE!!

I would never have an abortion myself...BUT I feel that it should be a woman's choice.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] In-a-Haze 17 years ago

I find one of the previous posts rather horrendous in that the poster said that everyone can "get over rape" etc. to prove his/her point that women should let their baby live out their nine month growth period so that they can be born. This is a totally wrong view of looking at the whole situation: I think that abortions are really tragic and that they should not be done by a woman who has become pregnant in an average fashion. Abortions should only be used by women who have been raped, been the victim of incestial pregnancy or are under the age of seventeen. I am a woman, by the way.
At fourteen I know that if I got pregnant for ANY reason at my age I would want to have an abortion, but I also know that I couldn't. I would feel horrible if I killed my own baby as it was forming inside of me. IN my school we had a woman from the local pregnancy centre that helped women find a safe enviroment to have their abortions in and also helped them if they were choosing to keep the baby, through finding adoptive parents etc. This woman said that at their centre what was one of the biggest cases was that women who had had abortions through the centre or not were coming for counselling and psychological help because of their abortion's affect on them. I found this interesting since I had never heard that before, and yet it is very true. All of the women I know that have had abortions have all experienced this post-abortion depression. Interesting, that it is NOT, unfortunately, the quick fix it is cracked up to be.
I believe that women at a responsible age (18 or older) should have the foresight to think about the consequences of having sex before they do it. Abortions are very sad, and they put an end to what could have been a child's life. As I have said previously, I do believe that some conditions apply to my own personal view of being pro-life, such as rape etc., but if it is a normal case of 'well, me and my boyfriend were really in the moment, and it just happened, and now I don't know what to do...I can't handle a baby, so I'll have an abortion' then abortion really shouldn't be used because no one is pressuring you to keep the child afterwards. You can put it up for adoption; most people know a couple within their own circle that is infertile or for some other reason looking to adopt children.
I know I will get attacked for this view, but seeing as I am in that category that everyone is protecting with the whole pro-choice view, ('think of all of those young girls who might be impregnated...why should they give up their lives for the life of their baby?'), I think that I have more of a say in this whole matter than a lot of you may think.
If a woman wants to make the choice of an abortion, it is not MY right to take that away from her. Yet what about the baby's right to live beyond being chopped up when she/he is taken out? I know many will say that they are not babies, just fetuses, but you know what? I DON"T CARE! If I were taking the stance that they were only embrios I would still be disturbed that this embrio would very soon be a baby, so it is very much like murder whether it is a baby in the womb or not. The only difference between the view of embrios:babies in the womb is that if your view is that it is already a baby you are murdering it by having an abortion, if your view is that it is an embrio then you are murdering its chance to be a baby, to take its first step atop of lush green grass. To say its first word to a loving and excited ear, to have its first kiss, to go to that first high-school dance, to have its first class in college; yes, even to have its first sexual encounter. All of these things your future child would be missing because you could not wait out the nine months that it would take to pawn the childe off onto someone else whom you would never see again.
It is sad that we can not make the sacrifice of our own pride for the sake of a child's future. If you think that they are only embrios until birth, then think of the future which you are confiscating from them. I believe in women's rights wholeheartedly, yet when it comes to abortion, my money is on the child's right to have a future, and the mother's duty to sacrifice that small bit of their life for someone else to have a full one. Is this too much to ask? I say no, since the underdog in this case has no advocate to ask it whether he thinks his life should be taken away. All babies, embrios or not, deserve the right to at least have a go at this life which we so take for granted.

[–] furrymustards 17 years ago

This is too hilarious.
So many opinions, as if you matter.
Everyone should have the choice to do whatever they want in life within reason.
Pro lifers should picket graveyards.
Religion should be banned.

I take it most posters here are American or at least Western.
Good for you, you have a rich society and therefore means to support a child and give it a decent chance in life, if you choose to keep the kid.
Imagine what it must be like to want a pregnancy, but you live on a garbage tip in India or a raging hellhole like wartorn Iraq?

"All babies, embrios or not, deserve the right to at least have a go at this life which we so take for granted."

Only a complete bimbette would say this.
sorry.

"This is your Brain. This is your Brain on drugs. Any questions?"

[–] neko-neko-1 14 years ago

I know many will say that they are not babies, just fetuses, but you know what? I DON"T CARE!
=============================

You know, I know they are fetuses/babies/human life, but you know what? I DON'T CARE!

Human life, big frakking whoop, what's so special about being human anyway?

If I got pregnant, I know I'd have a human life inside me, but that won't stop me from getting that sucka scraped out as soon as I can!

I don't want to raise a child and I'm not going to give birth and adopt it out either as I don't believe in adding to the overpopulation crisis.

[–] bite_me_loser_86 13 years ago

Nobody is 'pro-abortion', that's what some pro-lifers don't understand. We are pro-choice which means we think it is up to every woman to decide for herself, make her own CHOICE whether or not she wants to carry a baby to term. I think this movie takes a very clear stance as pro-choice. Dr Larch says so himself in a scene. If a woman wants to give birth to her child he helps her with that, he never tries to even suggest abortion. However if a woman that comes to him doesn't want to have her baby, he gives her what she wants - an abortion.

I think some pro-lifers have difficulty grasping this. They seem to think we LOVE abortions and think they're great and that every woman should have them. We don't. There's a huge difference between being pro-abortion and pro-choice.

Frankly, I think this movie is very courageous in taking a such a clear stance in what in America is still an inflammatory subject.
I live in Sweden though, and here pretty much everyone is pro-choice.

[–] Nikon11 12 years ago

I agree. It's a foolish concept and stance to think that you have a say in what someone else decides about their own body.

Especially as a man, I'd be totally out of line to even have an opinion on what I think a woman should do in this situation.

It's a woman's choice, and she has to live with her decision.

[–] rixrex 10 years ago

Well, regardless of eloquence, you're mistaken and the film does take a stand.

The fact that it is set in a period when there was really no choice legally, and yet the film does promote this position of choice, is the definition of taking a stand.

The novel was written after abortion became a legal choice, and that is what it is saying, that choice is the proper position, which is what is shown when the anti-abortionist decides to perform an abortion after all, in a situation that is totally set up to make it seem most proper.

Now let's look at what it fails to say, but could easily have said to show it not taking a position:

The pilot and young girl decided to get an abortion since she was pregnant. She still says she wants children later, and is assured that she may still do so. However, the pilot is paralyzed in a way that would make this not possible with him as the father. We see that she is going to stay with him, presumably to marry him.

So the child they aborted is the child she would want to have and now never can. Imagine the guilt this couple will have in their future.

Of course they can adopt, and there are plenty of children to adopt, but the film sidesteps this whole situation of the abortion that probably should have never taken place. After all, how much of a problem would it be for an officer to get married before he went to duty, since that was the eventual plan anyway, and then come home to a wife and child, even though paralyzed.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

[–] Tommen_Forever 8 years ago

So the child they aborted is the child she would want to have and now never can. Imagine the guilt this couple will have in their future.

This is an insightful comment. Abortion may turn out to be the wrong choice for some, but that's the point; it's a choice, and one that people should be allowed to make for themselves.

-------------
http://bit.ly/2fldLcQ

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tommen_Forever 8 years ago

really just restating some of rockn's points here:

You're mistaking "pro-choice" for "pro-abortion." The film merely advocates for letting people make their own decisions, whether that decision be to abort or to carry to term. The film successfully shows that those who are against abortion tend to have the least experience with it, and Homer's ideology changes when he gains more life experience and when he sees people that he cares about in pain. It's easy to judge women who get abortions if you've never been close to a woman in that position, or if you've never been in that position yourself. If anything, the film is propaganda for good "Christian" empathy, which is not the same thing as being pro-abortion.

I put Christian in quotation marks because it's often Christians who have the least empathy for others.

-------------
http://bit.ly/2fldLcQ