Abortion
Uma Thurman revealed today she had an abortion in the 1980s:
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/uma-thurman-darkest-secret-condemning-texas-abortion-law-1235018045/
Cool beans
share
MovieChat Forums > Uma Thurman Discussion > Abortion
She still gave birth to Maya so all is forgiven.
shareWhy would anyone care?
sharePeople tend to care about murder.
shareAre you going to suggest she should off herself sock puppet ?
You do know not liking what someone says doesn't make them a puppet right?
shareYou do know that your deliberately feeble response is the same old same old right ?
I like same old same old.
shareCos you calling people sock puppets is totally new. lol
shareAh it's the fake Christian and sock puppet who just happens to turn up. What a coincidence.
And has nothing to say about abortion in a thread about an abortion. How curious.
At least you aren´t denying your own hypocrisy.
shareAnd you have the absolute gall to label me a hypocrite when you are a sock puppet and a fake persona.
Ad hominem doesn´t change the fact you are a hypocrite.
shareSays the sock puppet and fake persona who started the argument here in the first place.
By the way was it you who had the image of Jesus Christ removed from the IMDb page ? It was a clever underhanded move because what was a busy and interesting board is now dead as a dodo. So if it was you well done scumbag.
I know you think I am a fake Christian and all but I would never want Jesus' page removed from MC especially considering my testimony was on there which I repeatedly replied to, so it would get more views.
If you want to continue discussion of religion, I suggest doing it on either "The Chosen" board or the Religion/Spirituality board.
https://moviechat.org/nm1832670/Jesus-Christ?page=1
The page is still there. I don´t see why the image being removed has anything to do with the page not getting traffic, not that I had anything to do with it. If you want to point fingers, maybe you should try the woke users who complain about Jesus not being black. Far more likely it was one of them, than me.
"And has nothing to say about abortion in a thread about an abortion"
Because you have contributed so much to the actual topic by calling people sock puppets. lol
Is it murder if you match someone who needs a kidney and you don't donate yours and they die?
shareNo. And that is a ridiculous comparison.
shareNot ridiculous at all. A person cannot be forced to donate any part of of their body, even when they are dead to save a life. People die all the time that way. Its part of our rights. If not using part of your body to keep a viable, living, breathing human alive is not murder, then a woman not using her body to keep cells that are not yet viable isn't either.
shareThat is some serious mental acrobatics. Murder is the unjustified killing of a human life. Someone not donating their organs to a dying man might be a cold thing to do, but it's not murder. It's the organ failure that's killing the patient, not the person who doesn't donate.
shareDon't waste your time with babykillers, it is pointless.
You cannot convince a person with a broken moral-compass.
They will dance around the simple fact that any pregnant woman, rape victims aside, made the choice to do something that can lead to having a baby, no matter the protection.
They simply do not care about life enough until it drowns in the Mediterranean.
They will pretend to believe that "it is just a bundle of cells". Yeah? Then why do they have baby showers if they want thee child, but "abort a bundle of cells" if not?
Simple, they dehumanize the child to have an easier time going through with the process because they know, deep down, it is wrong. But selfishness, greed and fear is usually stronger in them.
Again... don't waste your time.
You nailed it.
Pun not intended.
Abortion is modern day child sacrifice.
A better question is if it is murder when a woman has her period, that egg that went unfertilized could have been born alive in another 9 months if she had just fucked some guy. Or is the guy that jacks off guilty of mass murder because every one of those little swimmers could have fertilized an egg and made a human but it wont have any chance now.
If you want to pretend life exists at conception than why stop there, life exist in the unfertilized egg to the same extent. It has the potential to become a human just like a fertilized egg has the potential...
Which is why I do not consider abortion murder like Befus suggests. A corpse shouldn't have more rights for another individual not the use their body, than a living, breathing human.
shareAbortion is murder. Period.
shareWell, then to prevent those "murders" all men should have vasectomies until they are ready to have children.
Why should a non viable clump of cells and a corpse have more rights over their body than a woman?
Ridiculous arguments.
A fertilized egg has as much in common with "a non viable clump of cells and a corpse" as a horse to a pencil sharpener.
Also, a little biology: Having children requires a male AND a female.
Also, a little biology: Having children requires a male AND a female.
Yeah, thanks captain obvious.
You still haven't answered why doctors are unable to take parts off of a corpse to potentially save 8 lives unless a person consents to that. These are living, breathing humans. Why does a blastocyst get to use a woman's womb if she doesn't want it? If the blastocyst or embryo could exist outside of the womb then we could discuss murder, but the point is it can't.
If a woman has a miscarriage, do you consider that an embryotic suicide? share
Well, you stated that men should get vasectomies so I wasn't sure if you knew the whole process.
The rest of your post is just silly and you know it.
You're reading and typing merrily away right now, but if you were aborted, you wouldn't be because you would have been murdered. FACT.
Yeah, if you want to prevent unwanted pregnancies vasectomies for all men until they want them reversed sounds great to me.
Thank you for clearing up that if I was aborted I wouldn't be here. I was so confused on that. If I was in an accident and needed blood and no one donated that blood I wouldn't be here either.
This discusses ethical issues surrounding donation. https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pflaman/organtr.htm
in regards to a cadaver
Such a donation can greatly benefit others and cannot harm the donor who is dead. Not to offer such a donation can be a sign of indifference to the welfare of others.
In regards to a living donor
To be properly informed the potential living donor should be given the best available knowledge regarding risks to him/herself, the likelihood of success/failure of the transplant and of any alternatives. In some cases there is much pressure to donate (e.g. from family members if one is a good match). The courts have rightly refused to compel such donations. Motivated by charity, which includes a properly ordered love for others and oneself, one could decide not to offer an organ.
The maternal mortality rate in Canada was 8.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2018. So, again, why should a mother be forced to take risks when no one else is forced to and those people die as well.
Lol! There are a LOT more risky things that women do EVERY DAY than pregnancy. In fact, they're probably more likely to die in a car wreck, going to get an abortion or die from the abortion itself.
Your attempts to justify murder are sorely lacking.
Where are your stats that more women die from abortions than childbirth? I'm assuming you are referring to unsafe, back alley abortions. Women die from botched abortions. Where abortions are legal and a woman has access to healthcare they are relatively safe.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/
The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.
Why haven't you answered my question? Why does a cadaver have more autonomy over their body than a woman? Why does a blastocyst or an embryo have the right to use a woman's body to survive, but if that child was out of the womb that same woman has the right not to use part of her body to save that child?
We're talking about abortion, not cadavers.
You did notice I said "probably", right? but back alley and botched abortions are in fact abortions that kill women. Also you didn't address the other FAR more risky things women do besides pregnancy.
Also, I'll play along even though your mind won't be changed anymore than mine will. 8.8 women per 100,000 die huh? Well, in 100,000 abortions, how many of these murdered babies would have been born healthy if they weren't murdered? I guarantee it would be exponentially more than 8.8 per 100,000. It's murder no matter what you say.
When I speak of cadavers, I am speaking about using one body to keep another body alive. When I speak of living donors I am speaking of using one body to keep another alive. When I speak about pregnancy, I am speaking of using one body to keep another alive. Why is it that in only one of those situations that the body being used to keep the other alive doesn't have a choice in the matter?
None of those involve murdering a human being which is what abortion is. This is obvious.
shareYou have not explained how you think that it is different.
shareCa'mon! Abortion is physically attacking an snuffing out a human life.
P.S. I'm an organ donor and have been since I was able to be one.
So if you will not reconsider that abortion is murder, what do you propose to prevent them?
Just like anything, you can't mandate morality. I think the only thing that will reduce abortion is education. Sadly, it will never go away just like general murder, rape, theft, fraud, etc. Thankfully (at this point) the good outnumber the bad but times are a-changin'.
shareYou raise an interesting moral conundrum in comparing to the situation where we do not force deceased people to donate life-saving organs to strangers. But, I think your hypothetical misses the difference stemming from abortion being a forceable killing. While you have no duty to give some stranger your kidney to keep them alive, you also have no justification for stabbing that person in the head and vacuuming their brains into a sink. Abortion is an active and forceable intervention into a natural system to bring about the termination of life. This is a completely different situation from your hypotheticals about donating organs.
shareExactly!
shareIt might be more humane to euthanize a person that you won't help than to let them slowly die from liver damage.
This is where the question of when does life begin comes into play. There is no consensus in science or religion. So, do medical abortions count as murder if one is taking a pill?
Your justification of murder just doesn't cut it whether you like it or not.
share"If you want to pretend life exists at conception than why stop there."
Because it makes sense... but don't let that stop you from your brain fart marathon.
It doesn't make sense. Until the parasite you call a fetus starts breathing on its own it no more a separate being than a tumor.
share"Parasite". Wow.
Found the leftists.
Show's your stupidity, I'm only liberal in my belief in liberal application of the death penalty, liberal use of guns for self defense and all those other leftist beliefs.. You stupid idiot. You know I'm right so you just want to throw out labels... All you've done is prove your a brainless bible thumping moron. Conservatives don't all believe the world is only 6,000 years old or any other biblical nonsense.
shareBible thumping, eh?
Well funny, because I'm a full blown atheist.
I guess you are guilty of exactly the same you accuse me of, so we welcome to the club, stupid idiot #2 who knows I'm right so he wants to throw out labels.
Calling a baby a "parasite" is not "being right".
A fetus is a parasite, if you are too stupid to understand what a parasite is then I might as well be trying to teach a dog to talk instead of saying anything to you.
shareA comatose person on a ventilator is, technically, also a parasite, with a WAY more significant impact than a fetus inside a woman's body. She does not even have to "eat for two" (an old myth) or any of that, there are no extra costs or circumstances, aside from pregnancy related ones that billions of women have proven over history: Are quite tolerable.
A comatose person however costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, requires an ICU bed, requires professional medical care around the clock, physio therapy, massage therapy, etc. etc.
Soo... let's pull the plug, it's just a parasite!
This fetus on the other hand, sorry, "parasite", when just left alone, will develop into a perfectly healthy child in just a matter of a few months. Let's kill it. It has no value! :)
Ah, before I forget.
Babies are not parasites.
http://www.dannastaaf.com/search?q=parasites
Educate yourself. Or don't. You seem to be the type that rather goes down on the mighty SS Ignorance instead of swallowing his pride and boarding a life boat. You do you.
I’ve never understood this abortion argument about how society does not force strangers to donate kidneys to preserve life. You certainly do have a duty to another that you personally placed into the precarious or life-threatening position (which is more akin to the actual relationship between mother and fetus at least in the absence of rape). And, while an anonymous woman can’t be pulled off the street and forced to donate a kidney to some stranger’s child, she surely has the moral and legal obligation to protect the life of her own child. If the child’s life saving bone marrow transplant can only be obtained from his own mother, society and the law manifestly expect her to donate.
shareYou talk about the law expecting the mother to donate. There is no legal obligation for anyone to donate any part of their body. Not even a mother to a child.
shareI like Uma and respect her even more now.
shareWhew!
I thought she killed a baby.
That was a close one.
She kept it private all this time. That must have been hard for her to disclose.
shareSo what? It's nobody's business but hers.
share