MovieChat Forums > Cheaper by the Dozen (1950) Discussion > birth control scene

birth control scene

posted 19 years ago by thechildrenscrusade
137 replies | jump to latest

I saw the irony/humor in the whole birth control scene when Mr. and Mrs. Gilbreth called down all the children and the birth control lady was astounded that they had so many, and I know this is just a classic comedy, BUT did anybody else dislike the way they portrayed women in favor of birth control in the 1920's?

When Margaret Sanger pushed to legalize birth control, and make it the choice of a woman and her doctor she did so not because she disapproved of women having children or even a lot of them, but because she wanted women to have the CHOICE. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and I was semi-offended by the way they portrayed that "advocate of birth control lady" and the way she seemed disgusted with the fact that Mrs. Gilbreth had had so many children. That's not what the platform of the Planned Parenthood Federation was at all!

When Margaret Sanger (and other women like her) promoted birth control, they do so as a means by which a woman could exercise control over her life and health; NOT so they could be disgusted by women who had many children (as the movie seems to portray)!

[–] mistervoice 19 years ago

She was angry because someone had played a joke on her, not because they had a bunch of kids.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Perhaps, but why should that be a joke played on her anyways? Why couldn't a woman with 12 children still be an advocate for birth control? Had I been that woman I would have said, "What lovely children, now about our birth control clinic..." I just didn't like the way they depicted it necessarily, though I still enjoyed the film etc.

[–] Xphilemikel 19 years ago

"Why couldn't a woman with 12 children be an advocate for birth control"? Because artificial birth control is evil and contrary to God's design for mankind. ALL Christian denominations taught of the evils of artificial birth control until the 1930's when "Christian" groups changed their teachings to abide with popular desires.
I'm glad you still enjoyed the film, though.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

I have done extensive research on Margaret Sanger, Xphilemikel, Thank you very much. AND even if she was a Eugenist, that does not change the fact that she wanted women to have the CHOICE; so that women could exercise control over their life and health. If you are a male you have NO right telling a woman what to do with her body and just because you have crazy, unfounded beliefs that "artificial birth control is evil" that doesn't make it the truth. You, my friend, are the true ignorant fool.

[–] allknowingbroad 17 years ago

I have done extensive research on Margaret Sanger, Xphilemikel, Thank you very much. AND even if she was a Eugenist, that does not change the fact that she wanted women to have the CHOICE; so that women could exercise control over their life and health.

How very typical.

[–] ihatethegrizzlies 18 years ago

I don't remember Moses saying "And thou shall not useth the contraceptive, for it is evil"

seriously though, just because Christianity says its evil (and rememeber, the Bible is FULL of contradictions) doesn't mean other people should be dictated by one group of people's views.

[–] clearthinkernow 7 years ago

The Bible is not full of contradictions. I assume you've neither read it nor studied it. There are differences in the law of the Old Testament and the law of the New Testament, but they're not contradictions. It shows the difference in the covenant that God had with His people during each period.

[–] ceebeegee 17 years ago

You are incorrect. Nowhere in the Bible does Christ say anything about birth control.

I'm glad my Christian denomination (Episcopalianism) allows women to choose for ourselves, including abortion and birth control.

[–] nursewratchet_romanorn 12 years ago

It doesn't have to. It is just common sense. The woman made the choice to have sex. Too bad no one thinks it is necessary to be responsible for one's actions. Too reap what you sow, if you will. And while it doesn't make much sense anymore to have a large family(unless you have a farm or a ranch-where it would be a great benefit), an unborn child has just as much right to live as you do. Who is their advocate? If God saw fit to provide someone with child, then that child must be given a chance-period. We are supposed to be on this planet working together for the common good of all mankind. And someone who takes it upon themselves to destroy a human life inside of themselves is no different than someone who shoots someone in the head. God's will is God's will; and it is up to every Christian to help everyone to do God's will. I'm really sorry that you don't see or understand that. I will pray for you, And you know that there are many Protestant Priests who are researching the history of the Church, and are now converting to Catholicism. Because they discover that The Catholic church was created by Jesus over 2000 years ago. And it isn't up to us to decide what rules and ideas that we want to follow and what we don't.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] YoungSoulRebel 16 years ago

Guess I can't argue with a religion whose messiah is a product of rape.

[–] Damfino1895 14 years ago

That's right Xphilemikel, let's overpopulate the planet and have women continually producing children who are not wanted or are able to be fed and taken care of properly because the parents don't have the financial resources simply because a fictional book written by men nearly 2000 years ago says so.

Life isn't a rehearsal, so make this one your best performance

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 4 months ago

They were just stupid bigots.

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 4 months ago

They were just stupid bigots.

[–] Xphilemikel 19 years ago

You are wrong about Margaret Sanger and should do some research before making posts. You just show your ignorance. Margaret Sanger was a EUGENIST AND a racist and was proud of it!

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

That may be true, that doesn't mean birth control and contraceptives are evil. If a woman uses them, she does it out of choice, not because she agrees with all of Margaret Sanger's personal views. Furthermore, there are non-Christians out there who believe in using birth control, and are not influenced by the religious Christian belief that birth control is evil. Some of the opinions you expressed on birth control cannot be applied to everyone as we do not all share the same religion.

That scene with the "birth control lady" might have been more influenced by the conservative attitudes of the time, when abortion was illegal and the birth control pill hadn't even been invented yet. Teaching birth control was a controversial issue back then, one which was often hushed up. It was not an openly-discussed topic like it is today, and one you couldn't weave into the storyline of a film in 1950 set in the 1920s. I think the film maker was either anti-birth control, or thought that people like the Gilbreths who had so many children were obviously not in favor of birth control, so they would not take seriously anyone promoting it.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] BrotherNumpsie 17 years ago

If you believe in G-d you may also believe that He gave humans Free Will.

"She was like a candle in the wind...Unreliable" Garth Merenghi

[–] tfclougher 18 years ago

Margaret Higgins Sanger lost her mother in childbirth I believe. She was Roman Catholic until the opposition of the Church drove her out. As a public health nurse, she experienced too many orphans from women killed by too many pregnacies. While in jail she would explain sex and pregnacy to prostitutes who were kept ignorant by their pimps. One did not talk about sex in 1915. Her biggest opponent was Anthony Comstock and his public decency movement. Birth control was opposed by the WASP leaders who feared that the "wrong" people would out-breed the proper people. So the wrong people kept on breeding and dying while the proper people, knowing better, used birth control and probably abortion. Margaret's father was probably from Roscommon, Ireland, by origin, as Higgins is a big name there. Around the same era you had "Mother" Jones whose maiden name was Higgins, from Ireland, and a labor organizer.

Mr. Sanger worked for White and McKim Architects. Sanford White was a notorious seducer of young women. One was Evelyn Nesbitt whose husband, Harry Thaw, shot and killed White in revenge for what he had done to his wife. There was a lot of hypocrisy in the tail end of the Victorian era.

[–] YoungSoulRebel 16 years ago

Well, Lot offered to prostitute his daughters on Sodom.

Those same daughters then got him drunk and raped him.

Your religion is far more immoral than you want people to believe.

[–] alvink 19 years ago

i really do not belive that the birth-control scene was a 'statement' about anything at all- it was only filmed because the film maker decided to include one of the funnier scenes from the (non-fiction) book in his movie.

he wasn't thinking about the socio-dynamic principles of the 20's OR the 50's.

and he certainly was not trying to expound upon the judeo-christian moral ethic, and he certainly was not trying to make a coherent comment on the spiritual ins and outs of procreation, as regards the catholic, the protestant, the jewish, or the zoarostrian persuasion.

he just identified one of the funniest, if not the funniest, scene in the whole book, and he filmed it, milking it for all that was possible, as was the wont of the film makers in those, their heady days of glory.

attributing any sort of 'social awareness' to early 50's film makers is perhaps a somewhat questionable proposition.

and besides, for true 'social awareness' in the cinema, don't we have to wait for the 80's and the 90's? ah, to be able to listen mr. pryor, mr. murphy, mr. lawrence, and mr. smith all call each other "m**r f**ng n**rs"! now, isn't THAT socially enlightening??

film makers do what sells in their current climate. i really do not believe that the 'birth-control scene' was meant to offend OR enlighten. it was just a comical vignette from the book that the writers/director decided to include.

i think :-) alvin

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

I was responding more to a comment by a previous user, who brought up the issues of religion and its role in contraception. This person called birth control and contraception evil. I was trying to put things into a perspective based on what they were ranting about. The script writer probably included it because it was funny, but even then, the mention of birth control at that time might have raised a few eyebrows, even if it was done as an aside for comic relief.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

Not to criticize you or start an arguement, but I'm interested in hearing your opinion of why Planned Parenthood is a sleazy organization. I hear this from a lot of people, but no one gives an accurate reason. I don't much about Margaret Sanger as a person, and maybe she wasn't a good person, but all I hear when the conversation is about her is how "immoral" birth control and contraceptives are, when no one understands that a woman has a choice with what to do with her body, and that overpopulation and bringing a child that is unwanted into a cruel world is not a wise choise.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Margaret Sanger was NOT bad news, people who want to strip a woman of the choice of what to do with her body and her life will think that she (Margaret Sanger) was "bad news" just because she challenges their extremely flawed and terrible beliefs.

As Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade stated, - to strip a woman of her reproductive rights is to sell her body to the State.
You then force her to engage in a way of life she might detest and that might cause harm to her, the child, and others in the world.

Planned Parenthood is NOT a sleazy organization - if not for them many woman who can hardly support themselves would have to support children who would not be given proper nutritional care, education, etc. - these children would have a terrible life - because they cannot be provided for.

As to what Rao said - he/she automatically assumed that since the Gilbreths had many children, they would not be a in favor of birth control - that is where so many people are mistaken. That is a flawed statement - I know many women who have many children but are still in favor of giving women the choice of what to do with their body and health. Just because one has many children, DOES NOT mean that one is not in favor of giving women the CHOICE of how to live their lives!

With regards to what Rao and Alvin said: whether or not a "statement" was being made with the scene - the problem that I had with it - whether it be because of the film or the novel - was that it was automatically assumed that 1) a woman with many children would think it was okay to strip a woman of her reproductive choice and therefore her entire well-being, 2)That it would be humorous - that it would be a trick played on the lady from Planned Parenthood that they had such a large family, - as I stated before, had I been the women from Planned Parenthood, I would have said:

My, what a lovely family you have, now about birth control...

because the point I am making is that I did not like the way it was looked at as a joke the Gilbreth's played on the woman; that because they had so many children, they would obviously not be in favor of planned parenthood's activities etc.

PS - I didn't mean/don't mean to start any type of feud I just wanted to state and defend my beliefs.

PSS - CCthemovieman: also, I am not a "flaming left-winger" - I am an independent, support/supported neither Bush nor Kerry, and take the same stand towards political parties as George Washington did. AND I thoroughly enjoyed the film as a whole, despite my opposing viewpoints concerning one scene.

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

"As to what Rao said - he/she automatically assumed that since the Gilbreths had many children, they would not be a in favor of birth control - that is where so many people are mistaken. That is a flawed statement - I know many women who have many children but are still in favor of giving women the choice of what to do with their body and health. Just because one has many children, DOES NOT mean that one is not in favor of giving women the CHOICE of how to live their lives!"

I made this remark based on my take of that scene. The woman talking about birth control might have felt that way. What she actually thought I don't know, but she certainly was disgusted when she gound out that the Gilbreths were not running a school, but in fact these were all their children. Mr. and Mrs. Gilbreth certainly took much glee in laughing at the woman's shock at hearing that.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Right, Rao, like I said in my first post it botehred me the way they portrayed the woman talking about birth control as being disgusted wtih the fact that Mrs. Gilbreth had had so many children. Because the platform of Planned Parenthood was to give women the choice to exercise control over their health and body, not to be disgusted with women who had many children. (If having many children is the way a woman wants to live her life then more power to her.) So my grievance was two-fold - what you brought up was one part of it.

Oh, and thanks for being civil in your responses...these topics sometimes arouse yelling and...well you know what I mean.

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

Thanks for the compliment. It's not often that anyone acknowledges my attempts at civility. There are many users on this board who like nothing better then to ridicule people and start arguments. Even when a person writes out a well-thought out, eloquent message, someone has to blast it and nitpick at parts of it. That happened with a message I put up on another board. People only know how to get hostile and make insults. It's nice to see members like you who are not like that and take the time to commend other users for being the same way.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eileenyl 19 years ago

If only it were that simple.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Tanknut:

At least you realize the blame must be shared between both sexes.

But then the intelligence stops there.

If people had any self control? Then you must believe the only point to have sex is to have children? And that the two people engaging in sex should be married?

Because if sex is just for pleasure or to share one's love with another human being etc. (which it is!) and not just to "make babies", then birth control will always be needed - because people will always want to have sex but not children.

And if you only think that people should have sex when they want to have children - I feel for you. I really do.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

Sometimes people who engage in sex use birth control, but then can fail and lead to pregnancy. These people safeguarded themselves in every way they could, and did not act irresponsibly. They shouldn't be forced to pay for something which they tried to prevent for the rest of their lives.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

I agree, Rao.

But I am going to give TankNut a quick Biology review. You seem to believe that using brith control is "killing" the baby. And if you were referring to abortion - I am not going to even try (you can read some of my previous posts for my views on that, but I can't even argue with your kind), BUT I do not understand how you can see birth control as a negative thing. Obviously, you are not familiar with the female menstrual and ovarian cycle.

Let's start with the ovarian cycle:

The ovarian cycle begins when FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) from the pituitary gland stimulates the development of the egg in the ovary. The egg follicle (sack surrounding the egg) secretes estrogen hormones. The estrogens stimulate the lining of the uterus to prepare for receiving a fertilized egg. As the estrogens increase and FSH output decreases, another hormone LH (luteinizing hormone) is secreted by the pituitary to complete the development and eject the egg from the ovary (ovulation).

Following ovulation, LTH (luteotrophic hormone) is secreted by the pituitary gland. LTH causes the formation of a tissue called corpus luteum in the uterus. The corpus luteum releases progesterone in increasing amounts. Progesterone has a feedback effect on the pituitary gland and drastically decreases the amounts of FSH and LH hormones released. Further egg development is prevented until after the fate of the ovulated egg has been decided. If the egg has not been fertilized, the corpus luteum disintegrates and forms the menstrual discharge. Another result is a sharp drop in the estrogen and progesterone levels and the cycle starts anew. If the egg has been fertilized and implanted in the uterus, the estrogen and progesterone levels remain high. The high levels prevent further eggs from developing during the duration of the pregnancy.

Now, what does birth control do?
Very good question, TankNut! Gold star for you!

(sorry, sorry...I couldn't resist, I'll stop that now) =)

The "pill" is an oral contraceptive containing synthetic derivatives of the female sex hormones, progesterone and estrogen. These synthetic hormones prevent ovulation and thus prevent pregnancy. A high level of progesterone is maintained which inhibits secretions of FSH and LH. The result is that no new egg follicles are developed and no ovulation occurs

Therefore, it can be concluded that using birth control is actually RESPONSIBLE. Sort of like putting Neosporin on cut, it prevents a scar. (Bad analogy, forgive me) Birth control prevents pregnancies, not by doing anything bad just by maintaining high levels of progesterone and estrogen, inhibiting secretions of FSH and LH, therefore no ovulation can occur.

I used the cut analogy because if you are one of those people who are going to start saying - but it's god's will that the menstural/ovarian cycle operates normally - and birth control goes against god's wish. Then are you against Neosporin, too? Because it is god's will that when you are cut a scar is left? As moronic as my analogy is, that thought process is even worse.

ALSO, then TankNut I finally have a question for you:

So, if I want to have sex, it could be with a husband, perhaps, but we do not want children - perhaps emotionally I could not handle it - we do not have enough money - etc. etc. fill in the blanks - then what should we do? Does that mean we can't have sex according to your logic?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

TankNut,

How is birth control a way of "wimping" your way out of responsibilty for your actions. Birth control helps you to keep from "wimping" out of responsibilty. It helps people who are certain they do not want to have children right now to prevent pregnancy, provided the method of contraception works. Birth control is not always 100% effective. If your argument is that sex should only be for procreation, that crosses the line and goes into the category of telling people what to do behind closed doors, which is none of our business. Thechildrenscrusade was not overreacting, but providing much-needed background information which a lot of people do not know about. If more people were aware of the biology part of this issue, we would have less misunderstandings and better communication between those in favor of abortion and contraceptives and those against them.

P.S. Thanks for supporting my earlier statment, thechildrenscrusade.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

First of all TankNut, my name is the title of a wonderful book by the wonderful Kurt Vonnegut. Perhaps you have heard of it, it's on the Modern Library's list of the 100 greatest books ever written, and revered by many. It is called: Slaughterhouse-Five or: The Children's Crusade, A dutty dance with death.

It's this dark, satirical, humorous, somewhat anti-war book. Nothing to do with having children. Vonnegut just chose that name because wars are fought by children or at least the war he was in: WWII was (due to the draft) and when his old war buddy's wife was outraged and yelled at him saying his book about Dresden was probably just going to glorify war and be made into some big Hollywood film and babies would go on fighting wars, Vonnegut promised her he would name it The Children's Crusade, for to him, that was what war was.

I just liked the book. You should check it out. You have to be open-minded to enjoy books like that though.

Also, i never said I don't believe in having children! Heck that's how I got here isn't it! I just meant that I don't think the sole purpose of sex is to have children. I think people should be able to have sex without the burden of having children. That's all.

Also your gun analogy was even worse then my Neosporin one. That is different: first of all as Rao so eloquently stated, birth control is a RESPONSIBLE, PREVENTATIVE measure - playing with guns is just the opposite - irresponsible. One is just LOOKING for trouble. And with the gun scenario...of course I would take responsiblity! I could not live with myself if I did not - I believe in honor and integrity, things that perhaps, in society as a whole are dead today - much like chivalry, perhaps.

Sure having kids could be responsible - if you don't abuse them, can provide for them, etc. Many women who have abortions or couples that utilize birth control can't provide for their kids and give them a good home - therefore birth control is being responsible.

Some people just don't want kids! And life is too short! You have no right to dictate what other should do behind closed doors, as Rao said.

Guns = killing people.
Sex = pleasure OR a way of showing love OR children ...etc...

Children aren't the only reason for sex.

Tell me, TankNut, if you have had sex - has the only time been with a spouse whom you wanted to create children with?

Oh, and I'm guessing you didn't read my whole ovarian cycle explanation - you really should check it out. Fascinating stuff.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Okay - first of all, I just deleted the post and then added it after your last one, so that the order wasn't jumbled. The post of mine that came before your post is the same as before.

Also, if I resorted ot name-calling, I am sorry, I do not believe I did that - I had some sarcasm, but that was it. And I can beat your arguments. I think I have thus far.

Oh and what is all this CRAP about the canadian political party and liberal party? FIRST OF ALL - I am an American - and damn proud of it! I support no Canadian Political Party - as a matter of fact I support no political parties! As I stated before, I dislike political parties - support neither democrats nor republicans. I look to the issues, and vote accordingly. I am an independent and take the same stance on political parties as Geroge Washington did.

Whatever you say about those parties means nothing to me - I am a member of neither.

Also, open-minded is not "being tolerant of wrong doing and even aiding it" - are you kidding!??!! Being open-minded, or at least the kind I talk of is love for your fellow humna. Not to judge or hate or hold prejudices based on race, religion, gender, etc. Open-minded is acceptance, and nonjudgemental. The type of open-minded you speak of is very different from mine.

I respect your viewpoint that one should wait until marriage to engage in sex. Wonderful. I am Voltaire. I might not agree, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

You, my friend, disagree with my opposing views and insist that you should be able to choose how I and countless others live our lives. You and your spouse need not use birth control or have an abortion etc. But don't you DARE tell me that I can't or that it is wrong for me to want to.

That's all. Also, I have read everything you have written, sometimes several times, and have tried to answer all the points you have brought up. Perhaps some of my answers were lost in my long-winded replies, forgive me - I have never been good at being concise.

Also, please elaborate then if I misunderstood - I clearly thought you felt sex was only for reproduction. Because if you thought it was for other things, as well then I do not understand how you can be against birth control. Since sex is for other things, as well - then shouldn't a couple - a married couple even - be allowed to have sex and not want children?

Without birth control you're subjecting married couples to possibly having 6, 8, 10 children - who knows! I don't really understand your logic.

Just elaborate, do not accuse me of not reading your posts.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Alright TankNut I can't really talk to people like you. I'm just going to stop. Be the bigger person, so they say.

As soon as I read this, I knew it was a lost cause:

A normal human being is supposed to love their fellow humans, though you are making it very hard for me to. "Acceptance and non-judgmental" eh? You just proved what I said, "non-judgmental" is what wrong-doers tell everybody else to be and they want them to "accept" what they are doing as right when it is wrong. The open minded I am speaking of is the open-mindedness that the ones in power are using as an excuse to destroy the morals of society, they have been very sucessful so far.

In the words of Ayn Rand and this pertains not only to birth control and abortion but to all:

To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice
of the latter to the former, is unspeakable. — Ayn Rand

From an article by Leonard Peikoff:

"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.

If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.

ALSO, even if it is not convenient for them if they do not want to - if they are happy and fulfilled and children would bring them unhappiness I think it be a tragedy for them to have children. As the quotes said - to sacrifice the potential for the actual is unspeakable - physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.

And I will probably, most definitely have children when I am ready - when it would be wise and healthy for myself, my spouse, and the children, I guess you could say.

My parents moved to America from South Africa and had no money. They were in Detroit, in the thick of winter, having to put bricks in the trunk of their car just to keep it on the road. And they had my brother.

People without financial means can have children, of course, but some people can't handle it. I was referring more to people who if htey had children their children would STARVE would not have proper NUTRITION or CLOTHES, clearly you did not fall in that category.

If you reply I probably won't answer. I regret to see that you think I have insulted and bashed your beliefs, I thought I made it clear that you can think what you like. I apologize if I have come off as rude.

Had my mother had an abortion - I believe I still would advocate for women to have the option. This is a ludicrous question you asked, though. But yes because it is her right and having children is a BIG deal - the biggest. And I would not have wanted her and my father to sacrifice their lives for me, had they not wanted me. That's all.

I realize everything I say is lost on your because your ears and eyes are closed to the world. BUT - I do just ask that you think that perhaps you hav eno right to tell people what to do with their lives. You may think and do as you wish, but really shouldn't force that on others. Alright I am officially done. Thanks for the chit chat.

Oh, and Rao - which other boards do you usually go on?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

Just to answer your questions:

By the way - the cells in the embryo are undifferentiated - which means they are not destined to become anything. The cells are NOTHING.

"We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.

That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual."

That is the only thing that is ludicrous, I found the example I gave quite a good one. And yes it WOULD be ludicrous to consider a person an undead corpse -just as ludicrous as it is for you anti-abortionists to consider an embryo and unborn child. Happy you agree.

You should check out a Biology book at a library - because you really don't seem to know much about the science, which is where I think the largest problem with abortion lies - people speak without understanding the scientific truth of the issue.

Oh and regarding the quotes:

I feel no need to include any, as I am too lazy and do not have the time – because you merely thinking abortion and birth control should not be allowed is ordering people to conform to your beliefs. If you can’t see that you are a moron, and you do not seem like an unintelligent person, thus far – just a person with skewed views.

If you said that you personally did not agree with abortion or birth control, but realized that you have NO RIGHT to take the option away from other people for various reasons, which I have previously listed, then you would not be “forcing your will” on anybody else.

But since you do advocate that people should not have the option of abortions or birth control, you are certainly forcing your will.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

"You also have done something I have rarely seen anyone other than my little sister do, start name-calling when you can't beat their arguments."

Where did I call you names?

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] thechildrenscrusade 19 years ago

TankNut you don't seem to hear anything I say - so I'm done. Thanks for the convo.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

That is not calling someone names. That is the impression I got from your posts.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

I will, but only if it's to have a civil discussion and not start an argument.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

There you go again. You're acting hostile and trying to start an argument. You're the one making the libelous accusations by saying that I'm doing so. My question was a serious one: that I would carry on the disussion with you if you promised not to turn it into an argument. I didn't want to go any further unless I was sure you were being honest about wanting to discuss this subject. However, you are not and I'm not wasting any more time. You have some nerve labeling everything thechildrenscrusade and I say as libelous just because you don't agree with them. I am only stating my perception of your statements. If they are not the same as what you intended, then you have to say so. By simply accusing me of making libelous statements you're not going to get anywhere, and I'm done with this conversation too.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

Objection. Can't and won't apologize for something I didn't say. Every time someone says something you disagree with, you say it's libel. As far as I can see, you are not being damaged financially or physically as a result of what I wrote, so if we were in court, you'd have no case.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 19 years ago

Why, you want to file one? I have heard of them, but if you want to waste time going through with one, be my guest. You are not capable of having an intelligent discussion because you are contstantly taking everything a person says as libel. There's no crime against agreeing with someone, and if your reason for accusing me of libel is that I agreed with childrenscrusade, you're lacking in reason. If you're asking if I'm finished with this conversation, why are you continuing it? You responded twice to post I put up before the previous one. I've never been on the AOL political message boards, so I have no idea what the Liberals are saying. The Conservatives are no more honest, and you are doing anything but disprove that. You are simply trying to start an arguement and make everything into a court case. If you want to me to be finished with this conversation, stop responding to my posts with accusations of libel and threats of lawsuits.

You say use of birth control is wimping your way out of responsibility for your actions - it aids in preventing pregancy from occuring. It is not wimping out, but keeps a person from having a responsibility which they may "wimp out of" taking care of. If you are not saying that sex should only be for procreation, why would you be against something invented for the purpose of preventing pregnancy? If there was no birth control, then people would be forced to be celibate. You insist you did not say intercourse was just for having children, but is not the focal point of a relationship, then why be against birth control?

That is the inference I got from your post, and when I originally commented on that, you didn't respond. If all you're going to do is threaten me with lawsuits, then I am done with this conversation for good.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tubularbelle2003 19 years ago

Just a thought. I am unable to have children, where does that leave me in your argument? Should I abstain from sex because no child will ever be conceived? I have no choice in my infertility.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] go2theant 19 years ago

What I think is hilarious scene and produced an hilarious scene here. To get back to the question that began this is whether any others were offended by the planned parenthood scene. I thought it was hilarious. I have not feeling pro or con for PP. I do think one must consider planning in regards to children, but I don't believe in free sexuality outside of marriage as birth control does fail. But, life isn't perfect and I would rather have precautions than not.

I personally don't think children have been put in their proper perspective. The Gilbreaths seem to have that all figured out which is why I loved the movie and that's what this is about the movie anyway. It shows a loving family who takes their child rearing responsiblities seriously, if a bit unconventional for their day.

There are gads more things in the movie you wouldn't see happen today and you have to take it in context. How about the scene with the tonsils when the Doctor knocks the wrong child out and takes out the tonsils anyway. Where were those lawyers!!!

Anyway, I think we've developed into a very touchy, easily offended nation. We need to start spending our energy in helping people and we won't have time to be so touchy over things that don't matter. Such as being put off by a scene from a movie over 50 years old.

[–] tubularbelle2003 19 years ago

You say that children are the inevitable consequence of sex, that is not true for my husband and me. We were virgins when we married and have been completely faithful to each other for 21 years. We had been married just 2 years when we were told we could not have children. Since then every act of love between us has been with the knowledge it would not result in a child. For 19 years we have been having sex for nothing but our own pleasure.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jack_1515 19 years ago

I don't think you quite understand what you are saying. It is mathematically impossible that every fertile couple where both partners use birth control will a pregnacy be inevitable. In fact, most couples under these circumstances will not have a pregnancy before menopause or impotency occurs as a result of aging, IF birth control methods (condoms, pills, IUDs, whatever) is practiced properly by both.

Yes, some will get pregnant, but your statement is a fallacy (or should I say phallacy ;) as it allows for no other result than the one you offer, i.e. that a child is inevitable in all circumastances where a man and a woman have sex.

Also, your example makes absolutely no sense at all.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] padget24 18 years ago

http://www.canadiana.org/ECO/mtq?doc=93583

Hey Tank, Just thought you might be interested in this link. It's to Dr. Alice Bunker Stockham's book Tokology. Dr. Stockham was strongly pro-life. She was a 19th century physician.

[–] padget24 18 years ago

{You should check out a Biology book at a library - because you really don't seem to know much about the science, which is where I think the largest problem with abortion lies - people speak without understanding the scientific truth of the issue}

Perhaps YOU should crack open a biology book or check out fetal development on the internet. Because I'm such a nice person, I'm including a few links to get you started; http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
http://babies.sutterhealth.org/babygrowth/fetaldev/

Also I'm including links on Natural Faamily Planning; www.bygpub.com/natural/natural-family-planning.htm
familydoctor.org/126.xml -
www.fertilityuk.org
http://www.ccli.org/

Sex is for married couples to express their love, the procreation of children, and yes, enjoyment. If a couple does not desire to conceive a child just yet they can employ NFP which would require them to abstain from sex for the few days a month the woman is fertile.

Margaret Sanger once said "More children from the fit, less from the unfit." She advocated forced sterilization of couples SHE deemed unfit.
The unfit included non-whites, the poor, the sick, and others who had just as much right to have kids as those she deemed fit.
As pointed out before she was a Eugenist and a racist and NOT a heroine by any means!!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cc19hc 18 years ago

Hold on one minute Tanknut! Even in people who are able to have children, pregnancy DOES NOT "inevitably" occur EVERY time. You make it sound like a pregancy will occur every single time a fertile couple has sex. A pregnancy can only result if the woman is ovulating, which is only once a month, and if the man has a sufficient sperm count. Plus, there a varying degrees of fertility among the population. Some are infertile, others can only conceive In Vitro, etc.

Oh, and about the whole pro-life thing. What about QUALITY of life, physically and emotionally?

A child conceived out of a rape should not have to be born, IF the woman does not want it that is (some may want it despite the rape, who knows?). If a woman has been forced to have sex without her consent, it is NOT HER FAULT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! If this child is born, even if you do everything possible to keep the rape a secret from it, it WILL find out about it and may feel ashamed. All children deserve better than to be born into something like that. I don't know, just the very idea of a child being born as a result of a rape just kind of bothers me. Another way you could look at it is that the stem cells of the embryo can be donated to those who need it, such as those with Parkinson's disease and things like that. Kind of like organ donation, but at the cellular level.:)

And another thing about quality of life. I think if a pregnant woman's life is in danger for some reason, and the only way to save her life is to terminate her pregnancy, then so be it. It's not the most desirable thing to do, but sometimes you have to do what you have to do. God willing, she can try for another child later on, and it won't be dangerous, but there's only one of her.

Also, I learned from a psych class that conscious life doesn't begin until about the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy. So, if the abortion were to take place within the first three months after conception, the would-be kid wouldn't really lose anything because it's not aware of ever existing in the first place. Kind of like annulling a marriage: it never happened.

I for one would love to have children somewhere down the road, but when my future husband and I are READY to. I'm thinking of the child as well as myself. I'll think about what kind of environment I'm in at the time and decide whether or not a child could be well-raised in it. So, it's NOT necessarily selfish to put off pregnancy. People postpone, or just abstain from, having children for all different reasons. Yes, some people do it for their own benefit, but others do it because they're thinking of the would-be children. Tanknut, I think it's best to look at the gray in addition to the black and white.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cc19hc 18 years ago

Ha! If anyone was against women having children, they'd be against the continuity of life as we know it.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thechildrenscrusade 18 years ago

Maybe you should read the first post. The humor is apparent. Har har har. I just thought I might start an intelligent discussion since times have changed etc. Perhaps not everyone is capable of such a thing. Tsk, tsk...

[–] MaryAnne_Spier 18 years ago

I think that birth control shows responsibility on the part of the sexual partners. For example, when my mom was pregnant with my sister, her blood pressure was dangerously high, and both she and my sister may have died. So after my younger sister was born, my dad had an operation in order to protect his wife's health.

Mind readers must only charge you half price.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kramer-44 12 years ago

I do think most people are capable of having an intelligent conversation, but I also think it is difficult to have one with a person who has a condescending attitude. Tsk Tsk.....

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard.fuller1 18 years ago

I just watched the movie and saw the scene with Mildred Natwick as Mrs. Mebane.

I checked to make sure that she wasn't the person you refer to, named Margaret Sanger.

She wasn't. Was she supposed to represent this woman? I don't know.

A woman could be interested in promoting birth control and still be impressed by another woman's decision to have 12 children.

Granted we are still a society of assumptions, and an observer today would conclude that a woman who has 12 children is provoked by her husband to bear so many.

I don't know how the scene played out in the book, but since two of the kids who witnessed the birth control woman and her reaction as it originally played out wrote the story, I would be willing to bet that they described it as it took place.

It seems the woman didn't say 'what lovely children, now about birth control'.

Whether Mrs. Mebane thought the neighbor had deliberately misled her, or the unseen neighbor meant it as an attack on Mrs. Gilbreath to send a birth control woman to her front door, or the neighbor may have been taking Mrs. Gilbreath's own credentials as a professional woman into consideration with no regard whatsoever to the number of Gilbreath children there were is unclear.

But I think it is obvious the Gilbreaths found it amusing that a birth control woman would arrive on their doorstep.

Mrs. Gilbreath did ask Mrs. Mebane if she would like some tea after Mrs. Mebane realized the Gilbreaths had 12 children. Mrs. Mebane refused the offer.

I would be surprised if she stormed out in a huff as she is shown in the movie, but that is what makes it a movie.

It seems to be the depiction that troubles you most. Mrs. Mebane's reaction. I think Mildred Natwick was quite the capable actress that she could have smiled politely, rounded her eyes, swallowed and questioned whether or not Mrs. Gilbreath was interested in such a position, which I'm sure the real Mrs. Gilbreath would have been very interested. She seems like a very intelligent, open-minded woman.

But this was a movie for 1950 about events that took place approximately 30 years earlier. America was just entering reinforcing the notion that momma belongs in the kitchen, which had been considerably rattled after Rosie the riveter.

I find depictions of this earlier lifestyle from movies at other earlier periods in history interesting, in their conclusions about women mostly. Racial and ethnic depictions are largely just stereotypes.

But it seems there is more a psychological manipulation on female members of the audiences in these movies.

Another one, tho it is a big favorite of mine, is "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" from 1954.

Now bear in mind, this movie took place in the 1850s, in mountain territory, and Jane Powell's character had no intention of being a backwoods mountain woman fending for herself.

But when she talks to Ian Wolfe about why she is marrying Howard Keel, I was surprised first of all that she said she tried again and again to say she would marry a local guy.

My thinking was she had to marry the first guy she said yes to. I wondered how she kept getting out of it.

Again, Jane's character wanted to tend house for a man, but I couldn't help but feel it was being slanted to the 1950s young girl in the audience; go out and find yourself a man and marry him and clean his house.

So was Mrs. Mebane in "Cheaper" aimed at making fun of birth control; they should be barefoot and pregnant instead?

Again, whether the actual woman who came by the house reacted that way or not, I think the movie meant it as a tongue-in-cheek joke. A deliberate one at that.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] richard.fuller1 18 years ago

I'm not sure what was after with this thread.

We have to take into consideration that this was a true story about a family with twelve kids.

Now it seems obvious that Margaret SAnger did NOT knock on the Gilbreath's door to see if mrs. Gilbreath would sponsor planned parenthood. I'm sure she was busy elsewhere. I am only assuming.

So we get MRs. Brebane, played by Mildred Natwick. Whatever the woman's real name was, had she in fact ever met Margaret Sanger and discussed planned parenthood with her? I suppose the biggest possibility is that Mrs. Brebane sat in on a lecutre of Mrs. Sanger's.

It seems very likely that the incident was NOT made up for the film.

That would be the only travesty of the film, and all we have to go on from there is the book written by one or two of the Gilbreath children.

So we conclude that a woman from Planned parenthood did knock on the Gilbreath door. No matter what her feelings about planned parenthood or large families, I would be willing to guess that the woman clearly was not mature enough to go 'my, what lovely children, now about planned parenthood . . . . " as the initial poster inquired, nor did she feel welcomed in the home.

Or maybe the actual woman DID remain and wasn't offended by the number of kids. Again, that seems unlikely.

There was no reason for a woman from planned parenthood to be shocked by a large number of offspring, no more than a mother with three kids would be just as shocked.

Rubber-necking is rubber-necking.

Again, if all we have to go on is the two kids telling the story and they confirm that this was the planned parenthood woman's reaction to all the Gilbreath children, then there was no stab at planned parenthood here. This was how the woman reacted.

The movie could have just as easily shown a priest or a nun looking wide-eyed at the number of kids, a policeman on the street reacting the same way or a schoolteacher or a principal behaving in the same manner.

Twelve kids is a lot of kids, planned parenthood or all-the-kids-you-want thinking, it is still alot of kids.

But as to all of these posts debating what Sanger's intention was and what she was really after, I don't see how any of these apply to the movie, again, only and IF ONLY the producers or director of the movie ADDED the scene and it isnt documented in the Gilbreath's books.

If it didn't happen for real, then I can only conclude that the scene in the movie had an ulterior motive, yet none of the replies seem to be debating this.

Unless we want to debate if Sanger herself somehow got the scene put in the movie.

Why, I woulnd't know.

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

Diverting the argument to "women's choice" is B*llsh!t. It's a life. PERIOD. Killing a pregnant women is considered double homicide. I would respect pro-choices opinion more if they would just come out and say, "yes, we know it's killing the baby, but I don't care cuz it makes me feel like the govt is telling me what to do"

I am pro-choice, and nothing is going to make me change that. I don't want anyone - the government, religion, or society in general - deciding what a woman can and cannot do with her body. Abortion is not a clear-cut issue. It's not all black-and-white. There are many different circumstances that arise that force us to take every one into consideration individually. We cannot say, "Abortion is wrong. Case closed," and leave it at that.

Not all pregnancies are without complications, and there are those that, when they occur, can be fatal to the mother and child, or one. It leads to a woman having to make that decision as to whether she wants to terminate the pregnancy or not. In the end, the decision to have the abortion done is her choice. If a person doesn't believe in abortion, that is up to them. Then they wouldn't have such an operation done, but there are those who are in favor of it, and the ability to make such a decision should not be obliterated.

Pregnancies occur when sexual partners take precious care to avoid them. That doesn't automatically mean that they have to be forced to deliver a child because the law doesn't allow them to do otherwise. Making the decision to have the child or not should be theirs. No one is saying that everyone should have abortions if they don't want to have the child, but it should be an available option.

People point out that a fetus is a life, but no one utters one word about what will happen to these children once they are born and their parents decide they don't want them, and subject the child to years of abuse, sometimes resulting in the child's death. Even politicians go on about making abortion illegal, but never discuss their plans when the population increases as a result, or what will happen to these children after they are born. Not all of them will be lucky enough to be adopted or placed in kind foster homes.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

Don't let your vagina write a check your ass can't cash....

If you're going to talk crudely no one is going to listen to you.

So if they are a burden to society, we just kill them? Spoken like a true Nazi. What about cripples? the metnally insane? Maybe we should have like a one year trial period. If the baby and I don't get along, I'll rip it up and vacuum it. It's my child, it's my choice.

Are you saying I'm a Nazi? Have you started resorting to slander? I didn't say to kill anyone who was mentally or physically handicapped, but it is a fact that politicians are quick to make sure that all babies have a chance to be born, but care little for them once they are. I never said to kill babies who are a burden to society, but before you advocate stopping a woman from deciding if she wants to procreate or not, think of the consequences. If abortions are stopped, and women who don't want to continue their preganancies are forced to have these children, not all of them will think to put these children up for adoption or find a good home for their child on their own, and that child might end up dead anyway. Either way, there's a chance on both sides that a child will die.

A woman should have the right to make the decision if they want an abortion or not. I see from your post that you're a man. I'm a woman, and I believe the government should butt out on this issue.

Keep in mind I'm not going to go up and down this board debating this, but I'm not going to allow someone to call me a name, either. If you are pro-life, that is you choice. I'm pro-choice, and I can disagree with you if I want, and you with me, but do not use such a harsh term as Nazi to describe me because I think differently than you. I'm Indian and have more than my share of insults in my life from real Nazis who didn't like me because I was different race and religion than they.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

I didn't say it was the government's job to take care of children, it is not their job to tell a woman what to do with their body. I never said anything about getting rid of the unwanted and the undesirable. As far as I'm concerned, someone who misinterprets someone else's words and to suit his need to call them vile names is no better than the names he's using. I never said, "Let's rip babies apart to take of our responsibilities." Those are you words, not mine. I'm not changing my argument because you don't understand it and want to twist it around. This may come as a shock to you: No one said everyone has to have an abortion, but it should be left as as option. I never said that anyone with a physical or mental malady that's prenatally detectable should be aborted, but should the issue arise that there will be harm to the baby and/or mother if she carries the child to term, that could mean death for one or both, a woman should have that option to have an abortion. That is NOT the same as saying they should have an abortion, case closed.

Just where did I say it was the government's job to raise children? That is what they're doing anyway, for parents who produce children and don't take the responsibility to take care of them themselves. Nowhere did I say that these children should be aborted, but if abortion is illegalized, then there will be more cases of parents abandoning their responsibilities and the government stepping in to support them, which you're against.

If you choose to have the child and don't believe in abortion, that's your option, but saying that no one should have the right to choose having an abortion regardless of their situation is the same as what you were accusing my of saying, that abortions should always be done to get rid of the undesirables - false statements that either way, equate to the goverment and citizens with conflicting views telling others what to do.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

I see where you're coming from, but as a woman from a different background with a different life experience than you, I see other issues going along with it. I didn't say, "If we can't afford them, kill them." The issue depends on every individual's situation. I didn't say that every woman who doesn't want her child has to have an abortion, but simply that it should be a choice for them, if that's what they really want. I may never be in the predicament where I would need or want to get an abortion, but I'm not going to say that all women should not be able to make that choice. There is one reality you will have to admit, that if abortion is illegalized, then the population will increase, and the government who made this law will have to have a plan on what to do when to accomodate all of them, because, after all, they were the ones who made abortion illegal - not one common citizen like you or anyone like-minded. AS a result, the government has to account for their actions. I want the government to butt out of my life too, and that's why I'm against them deciding on whether to make abortion illegal. I'm not saying, "Let the government take care of our children," but if they want all babies to be born, then they have to admit that some of these babies will be born to parents who didn't want them, and will not consider adoption or foster homes, but will resort to adandonment and/or murdering the child, and steps will have to be taken to ensure that doesn't happen. I'm not saying abortion is a solution to stopping abuse of children, but if all children that tre meant to be born are allowed to be born, there are more children as a result and ensuring that they are all cared for must be considered even more so, not ignored.

I chose to be pro-choice early on in life, and did not want to waver in my decision. It's not an easy stance to defend, but neither is being pro-life. I say abortion should be an available option given the woman's cicrumstance, but not the only solution. If you hate government control in our daily lives, then this is an issue that shouldn't be debated by the Supreme Court or any government, but a personal choice that should be left open to each individual. I just think, if you're against it, don't do it, and if you're in favor of it, it should be an option for you.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] will7370 18 years ago

How come people who are Pro-Choice are never very vocal in advocating a woman's right to choose BEFORE life is created? Like choosing to avoid the activity that creates life in the first place? Except for understandable extreme situations like rape or incest where the woman had no choice, why don't Pro-Choice people push more for excercising that freedom of choice responsibly BEFORE life is created? Once life is created by irresponsibly choosing to engage in the activity that creates it, then both men AND women are responsible, if not before God, then at least to humanity itself for ensuring that that life makes it safely into the world. How can ANYONE possibly think their "right to choose" and "convenience" is more important than a sacred human life? In the 32 years since abortion became legalized in the United States, there have been about 80 million abortions performed (2.5 mil/year X 32 years). Of that number, how many would have grown up to become people like Albert Einstein, Madame Currie, Jonas Salk, or even Mother Teresa? Out of that 80 million people, how do we know we haven't accidentally killed off the person who would have found the cure to AIDS, or to cancer, or brought about eventual world peace? What a terrible price to pay just for a woman's "freedom to choose" and "convenience".

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

The choice to have sex or not is up to individual. Being pro-choice is not synonymous with being promiscuous. Many pro-choicers are voicing the woman's right to choose when it involves rape and incest, as well as times when the couple tried every means of contraception they could to avoid pregancy, and were being responsible. The pro-choice movement was not invented to provide convenience to sexually promiscuous people. Would you want someone who is irresponsible and promiscuous to raise a child? It's not about convenience. Choosing to have an abortion takes serious thought and is not something women who have had it have chosen to do as casually as they would taking medicine for a cold. People talk so much about that "sacred human life" but care so little about it once it exists. How about taking of the children who are already here, and are being abuse, neglected, and left to die by cruel parents and society, rather then trying to create more in a world that is already very violent and unmerciful to those already in it?

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] padget24 18 years ago

Just so you know I'm a woman and very strogly pro-life. Maybe in this thread we are in the minorty but over all I think we are in the majority. A lot of pro-lifers are afraid to speak up for whatever reason.

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

The same is true for pro-choicers. I hear a lot from pro-lifers, and you always see them protesting on the news, so it appears that they are the more vocal group. I don't know what the actual statistics are, but I don't think that even if everyone were polled as to their actual stance, everyone would admit to their true opinion. On this thread it looks as though the pro-lifers are in the majority.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timashoe 18 years ago

My question in this whole thread would be, what about the alternatives? What about adoption? I totally agree that an unborn child is just that, a child, and that abortion is - murder... there's no other word for it.

My brother and his wife have tried for years to have children and can't, and are now turning to adoption agencies, only to find that they have to wait two more years on a waiting list, because there aren't enough. Why is this?

That's why they have crisis pregnancy centers now - so people don't have to go to places like Planned Parenthood. So those feeling trapped into a situation they don't want to be in have a way out - have support, and it doesn't have to be through abortion.

Choice? What about the baby's choice? Cliche intended... A baby developes nerve endings in their first trimester - and saline solution burns. If they had learned how to speak, I've got a feeling they wouldn't be sitting there saying, oh mom, I'm sorry this is so hard for you. Please, kill me now.

[–] timashoe 18 years ago

"As for birth control and religion, many religious leaders have claimed that birth control was wrong, however, and someone correct me, the Bible does not state that sex is just for procreation and you aren't allowed to enjoy. If it wasn't meant to be fun, it wouldn't feel so damn good. However the Bibles true message is to be responsible: get married, take care of your spouse sexually lest they stray, don't cheat. It was a gift to men and women. Yes, I know there is a sexual revolution and women like to brag about being sluts. You aren't supposed to repress your urges, blah, blah, blah. Fine, I'm not saying everyone is going to hell for not doing what I say. Religion has been replaced with sexual expression and it is now the most imporant thing in the world. But to deny that we are not paying a price for our new morals would be insane. How much does the government spend on welfare for single moms and their children? What price are we paying for unwanted children who turn to crime? And don't use the education argument. Thirteen year old boys and girls are more experienced in sex than any other time in human history. Don't tell me they don't understand what a condom is.

And for abortion? My wife and I just had our first baby. When she was about 3 or 4 monthes along, I saw moving pictures of my son in her stomach. His heart was beating and his little limbs were moving. His brain was sending a signal to his arms to move!! Now, to stick a vacuum into her womb and rip this baby apart limb by limb is killing a person. Diverting the argument to "women's choice" is B*llsh!t. It's a life. PERIOD. Killing a pregnant women is considered double homicide. I would respect pro-choices opinion more if they would just come out and say, "yes, we know it's killing the baby, but I don't care cuz it makes me feel like the govt is telling me what to do" "

Amen! You are right on target, CaptHilts. It's rare to find someone that will speak out that freely about the truth, and I'm glad you have. It's refreshing. Keep it up!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

I'm not going to go back and rehash any of what I said before, either. I've said what I had to, and will leave it at that. I don't think the fact that your brother and his wife had to be put on a waiting list to adopt a child was entirely because if a shortage of children to adopt because they're all being aborted, Timashoe. Their waiting could be attributed to several factors. Keep in mind, there's a lot of red tape to go through in this country when it comes to adopting a child, and there are many children whose parents don't want or care for them who are not even thinking of putting the child in an orphanage or foster care. The adoption process is long and requires a serious background check and several interviews with the prospective parents, and it's not something that can be done fast.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] jeffnancy1209 18 years ago

I agree with you timashoe and congratulations to you and your wife! It is interesting to me how this subject brings out so much anger in those who think the right to "choice" is such a high honor. I am a woman, and I believe that when a woman and man have sex period, they chose to potentially create life period. What choice does the baby girl or baby boy have in its Mother's womb? Choice Choice Choice that is getting to be a really stupid old argument. I have talked to many women that have had abortions, and they have shared with me their suffering from their loss of their unborn child, many of them over 20 years ago! I know of a place where woman can now honor their child who aborted. It is a place where the unborn child is honored and their name is put on a plaque and roses bloom. It is a place of healing. You see, things that have been broken need to be restored and since they will never hold their child, this is how they seek their own healing. It doesnt matter how far this argument goes, the truth is, it is WRONG TO KILL AN UNBORN BABY, and if you don't agree, IT IS STILL WRONG to kill an unborn baby!!! I am proud to believe LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!!!

[–] padget24 18 years ago

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!! Great post!!!!!

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

People have different opinions on this, and I believe that life starts at birth. I might be the only one willing to say so on here, but there are others who believe this, too. I speak from having known women in these predicaments, women who had unplanned pregnancies and were in no condition, either physically or mentally, to go through with the pregnancy. They were also very young women (18 or college age) and having the child then would have created more trouble for them. They were not all happy after having the abortion, not because of the operation or the choice they made, but because of the situation in which they were put by having an unplanned pregnancy, and the anxieties they had when they were unsure of what to do. I could not honestly condemn them for what they did, or say they made the right decision or the wrong decision, but for them, they made best decision they could given their situation.

A women should have the right to control her reproductive cycles, and if she opts to have the child, no one is forcing her not to, but for a woman for whom it might not be feasible, she should have the choice to abort the fetus. It all depends on what you believe to be when life begins - conception or birth. If a woman believes conception begins at the former, she will not opt for an abortion, otherwise, she will. These are matters of opinion, and we will never all be uniform in them.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] timashoe 18 years ago

Okay, I understand your viewpoint, and there's probably nothing I can ever say to change it. What I want to make clear though, is that everyone's actions SHOULD be affected by what is right or not right. The fact that it is not right to end someone's life, no matter what, should command that we should respect the sanctity of life. Of course, I could sit here all day and make exception after exception - she was too young, they weren't ready to have children, the child had birth defects, whatever - but it all comes down to one solid point, and that is that one person chooses to end another person's life. Which is murder. Which is wrong. End of the point.

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

I understand your viewpoint, and I can't change the way I think on this issue, nor can I change what another thinks. What we think is right or not right varies from one person to another and is not rooted in fact, but opinion. What one person thinks is right may be wrong to another and what one thinks is wrong may be right to another. That is why the abortion debate is called just that - a debate. Each side has a different viewpoint. I'm not saying abortion should be used to get rid of children who might have certain physical or mental handicaps, but should be considered if the risk of birth is too great and it could endanger the mother's life, or cause the child to have serious defects which could damage their life and, in all probability, shorten it. This is not a means for all, but for some, and I could not condone telling someone how to procreate. I believe life starts at birth, otherwise I wouldn't support abortion. I can't say it's murder when I consider the circumstances of the mother. As a woman, it would be natural for me to think of the mother's predicament before the child's. I can't say what the mother is doing is wrong when I see why she might have had the abortion, given her situation. I believe that having a child is a conscious decision that a person makes, of which they know the responsibilities, and one they are determined to see through to the end, not decide on as an afterthought when an act of passion goes unprotected and pregancy is the result and take on becuase they have no other choice. You will disagree, but I say this not as an idea I thought up for this post, but after having seen women in these situations.

I have friends who are pro-life, and they know how I feel about abortion, and we respect each other for our views. We each know that the other has a reason for thinking the way they do, and we know that the solution to this debate is one which must satisfy all sides, which is not easy to create.

I completely agree that our actions should be affected by what we believe to be right and wrong, but I also want to make clear that those beliefs are are unique to each individual, and we must respect everyone's right to think differently. That is why there are people who think differently on this issue.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] timashoe 18 years ago

Okay, well I guess we're down to an "I believe, you believe" argument, which of course, goes nowhere. And we won't have proof of our arguments until we get to heaven anyway (providing, of course, that you will be there with me, I hope). Yes, people have the freedom to believe what they want to believe, which is the great freedom which I believe God has given us. But I still believe that there is one Truth, at least in this situation, and it's up to us to find out what that truth is. Of course, I believe I've found it. And you believe you've found it. So here we are back at the beginning... we both believe we're right. So I'll say congratulations on your assumptions if you'll congratulate me on mine. =D

Blessings!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] timashoe 18 years ago

I totally agree, CaptHilts. Abortion is not a matter of opinion. It is a life or a death. But how to end the debate if someone else doesn't come from that same premise? It only continues on into eternity with no ending, and becomes a matter of slinging words back and forth. Thus, my previous entry. But I remain steadfast on the principle of life at conception, and will continue to try to help others understand that this is the right, the truth.

[–] rao-4 18 years ago

Okay, well I guess we're down to an "I believe, you believe" argument, which of course, goes nowhere. And we won't have proof of our arguments until we get to heaven anyway (providing, of course, that you will be there with me, I hope). Yes, people have the freedom to believe what they want to believe, which is the great freedom which I believe God has given us. But I still believe that there is one Truth, at least in this situation, and it's up to us to find out what that truth is. Of course, I believe I've found it. And you believe you've found it. So here we are back at the beginning... we both believe we're right. So I'll say congratulations on your assumptions if you'll congratulate me on mine. =D

Blessings!

We both have our opinions, and neither one can change the other. I believe you believe in what you're saying, and I beleive in what I'm saying. You have to admit that you believe I believe what I've written as well. I'm not writing these things to make some pro-lifer angry, but to state what I believe, based on what I've seen and heard in my lifetime. As for the heaven part, a person's stance in this issue doesn't determine their eligibility to enter heaven, plus I'm a different religion than you and not that religious either. Neither of us, nor those who share our views, will change this situation entirely, because this issue will not be over if one side is left unsatisfied. I will say this, congratulations on finding what you believe to be the truth, and thank you for congratulating me on mine, and may we both find out that these differences should not keep us from living harmoniously, whether here or on the other side.

It is not a fact that abortion is murder. Don't even think you can change my mind on that. If it were a fact, we would not be discussing it here. You seem bent on accusing me of things I never said. Instead of promoting produci8ng more children in a world that is overcrowded, try focusing on the children who are already here and are neglected. Pro-lifers talk about making sure every child is born, but care little for them after they are. What are they doing for the children who are unwanted and end up languishing in foster care and orphanages or on the street? No one talks about them. Illegalizing abortion will not solve the problem of abused, abandoned, and neglected children. It will create more children who are in this predicament. I'm not saying abort every child so we don't have this problem, but before you go on telling other people that they have to have a child they don't want, think of where these children will wind up and what can be done for them. Illegalizing abortion is only suit your stance that killing an unborn child is wrong, but it's not going to make life better for some of those children who are born. We have to account for those who will not be taken care of by their parents. No one here is admitting to what can happen to an unwanted child or what can be done to alleviate their problems.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] mischa-barrista-sweethea 17 years ago

Oy. So many things to say here. You can say that abortion being murder is not a fact, but before you can you've got to look at all other facts. When does life begin? Because after life begins, to terminate that life is definitely murder. Life begins at conception, not 9 months later, not 9 weeks later and not 9 days later. Something does not suddenly go from being "not human" to being "human". If it wasn't human from conception, then what was it? Zygote, embryo and fetus are just scientific terms for baby, same as youth, teenager, parent, are other words that can be used for children and adults. Just because we call them something other than "human" does not mean that they cease to be human. So, if the baby is human since conception, any form of abortion (whether it be surgical or chemical, like birth control) would be murder. On a side note, you said if abortion being muder was a fact, we wouldn't be discussing it here. If this were true, then black people would still be slaves in the states. Or Hitler wouldn't have been defeated in Europe, because in those cases people believed the opposite of the facts that black people and jewish people are just as human as white people or germans. Just because something is a fact doesn't mean people don't choose to oppose it.

You also mention the world being overcrowded. Hardly a fact at all. In fact, the whole world (all 6 billion and some) could fit in Jacksonville, Florida or Texas and we would have the density of Paris. The problem isn't space or the amount of people, it's the people who aren't willing to share their wealth (whether it be in money, food, time or otherwise).

To accuse prolifers of not caring for the children after they're born is very wrong. We care very much. We have homes where mothers can go, we make clothes for the babies, donate food and diampers and other things for them. We raise money to support them. It's true, we can't help every child after they're born, but we do our best. And what is wrong with orphanages? There are 7 year waiting lists for couples who want to adopt children. You all talk about choice, so if you are all so much for it, why do you believe it's your choice to decide whether someone else lives or dies? It's their life, shouldn't they be allowed to CHOOSE for themselves whether they live or die? Just because things might not turn out to be the best for them after they're born, why should we kill them? Is that any better? Why not kill the two year old with abusive parents instead of letting him suffer ten more years before someone helps him?

Just because someone is "unwanted" does not mean we can kill them. The poor are "unwanted", but we aren't going to go and shoot them because of that. No, we try and find a better solution, so why aren't we doing this with the smallest and most vulnerable in our society? Why are we killing those in the most need of our protection?

mischa

[–] rao-4 17 years ago

I never said to kill anyone with abusive parents, nor was I attracking orphanages. I was referring to a post from a previous poster who was stating that abortion was wrong, and I was disagreeeing with him. I never said to get rid of anyone unwanted, but before going around saying, "It's a life, abortion is murder," to look at the big picture. I was not generalizing about pro-lifers, but pointing out the reality that not every child who is born is going to be cared for. One previous poster said people who want to adopt babies can't because there aren't enough babies to go around because of abortion. It's more because more people want to adopt babies than older children. These children are the ones who most often end up drifting through the sytem when they are too old to be adopted. The pro-lifers I have come across only talk about saving babies, not about these babies when they get older.

I believe life starts at birth, and I'm not going to change my mind about abortion because of what some people on a message board say. My reason for being pro-choice came about after a lot of thinking, of the world, people, the treatment of women and children, and I'm not about to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their body. I am not deciding whether someone else lives or dies, but am saying that the decision should lie with the mother. Where does being pro-choice mean that anyone outside of the mother has a say in who lives or dies? If abortion is kept legal, the mother has a choice to terminate her pregnancy if having the child could kill her, or if it is a case of rape or incest. Outlawing it takes away that choice.

A person can oppose a fact of they want, but they can't change everyone else's minds about it. I'm not, nor do I want to, change my mind about abortion because I've seen and heard of too much suffering and misery in this world to ever tell another human being they should reproduce.

Dreaming is nice, but it's time to stop dreaming and start doing.

[–] jawaclone 17 years ago

I think its hilarious that something innocent like this in a movie can cause a huge argument about this. If the original creators of the film could see this, they'd probably be like wtf?

[–] RainAndTangerines 18 years ago

yeah i totally agree! yes they had lots of kids, but that woman who was not suppose to be judgemental totally was being rude to the family. she was all disgusted, i mean i think she overreacted a bit.

[–] loveoldmovies22 17 years ago

The whole thing, according to the book (and that the movie tried to bring across) was that it was a practical joke! The neighbor of the Gilbreths had told this woman from Planned Parenthood about this very civic minded "career woman". At that time, that usually meant unmarried and certainly without children. In Mrs. Gilbreth's wedding announcement, it had mentioned "although a college graduate, Miss Moller is nonetheless an attractive young lady". You must remember the times!!

So this woman (in the book, they mention that she was very unattractive and had a mustache!--the exact opposite of Mrs. Gilbreth!) comes to the house and starts talking about birth control--and you must understand, in many areas of the country this was a subject you simply did not talk about at that time!
But Mrs. Gilbreth realizes that she has been had by her neighbor, who could not refuse the opportunity for such a great joke, and shows this woman that yes indeed she is civic-minded, she has a large house, she is a career woman and she does have children too! That they are not mutually exclusive--but that she would not make a very good spokesperson for birth control!

[–] musicnina 17 years ago

The portrayal in the movie was very similar to the scene in the book. From the perspective of the children who wrote the book, the lady who came to their house _was_ disgusted by multiple-child families. She had mentioned to Mrs. Gilbreth a family with eight children, which she described as utterly irresponsible in multiple ways: environmentally, economically, and in regards to the children's health. Whether or not this was the position of Margaret Sanger or Planned Parenthood, this was what the children remembered of that interaction.