Necessary abortion debate - Citizen Ruth (1996) Discussion

[–] frontrangewriter 19 years ago

Don't know where you got your info on "most" Christians rejecting sick and deformed children. Christians were at the forefront of establishing orphanages for cast-off children. It was the surrounding pagan cultures that practiced infanticide.

reply

[–] Haifis 19 years ago

This was during the middle ages. And yes, some pagan cultures did practice infanticide as well.

reply

[–] myartemis1975 17 years ago

Do you even bother to study history? Or do you just spout off blatant lies that people tell you. Are we talking about the same christians who tortured and burned people? Yes. The same christians who kept slaves? Yes. The sames christians who also practiced infantcide? Yes. Try educating yourself once in awhile.

reply

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

Conservatives are pro-birth not pro-life. They don't care about increasing access to birth control to women or education for underprivileged children. They don't give a sh!t about the mother or the child's welfare after birth.

And they also favor capital punishment and resist sensible gun control, so "pro-life" is a hypocritical label for these people.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

reply

[–] LeetMovieBuff 19 years ago

I agree that Ruth should choose to keep her child and if she doesn't want the child, she should give it up for adoption. Also, it is her choice legally to choose to abort or not, but that doesn't make it morally right.

reply

[–] Haifis 19 years ago

Judging by the amount of drugs Ruth was taking, That kid would have been stillborn. Ruth probably would not have kept the child. She was a very self absorbed person and not what you and I would refer to as "parentally responsible."

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cheap_thoughts 19 years ago

Good thing she miscarried.

reply

[–] sanstereo 19 years ago

i hope all babies get aborted.

reply

[–] iamfinethx 19 years ago

me too. yum yum slurp 'em up!

reply

[–] Haifis 19 years ago

Call me cold hearted for saying this, but it is good that she miscarried. That kid would have been stillborn anyways.
Ruth would never have made a good mother. Before any of these abortion delegates took her in, She was homeless and huffing paint all the time. Pretty unhygenic too.
Can you imagine if she kept that kid?

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Frankenteen 15 years ago

I think even she felt relieved that she miscarried, as that took the burden of choice off of her shoulders.

"The dampness of the pants is how we know"
http://tinyurl.com/mtxge8

reply

[–] sadie_001 19 years ago

Hello all,

First, I want to start with the fact that I am pro-choice.

I think this movie did a good job showing the fanatics in both sides (pro choice & pro-life). I think sometimes that both sides (pro-choice & pro-life) and all of us forget how sometimes we try to butt in (Ruth) these individuals lives because we want to show a "message". Afterwards, we forget about these individuals after the "message" has been expressed. We butt in to their lives thinking we know better but we really don't know the whole story. We don't know these individuals pasts. We only learn a summary of their lives and then people start to judge what is the right decision. We don't even walk a day in their shoes and we think we know more.

For the pro-life,

Do you really care what happens to the Ruths after the child is born? Do you care about the child in five years? Ten years? Twenty years?

If the Ruths want to have the baby, would you like to provide support for the child until the child turns 18 years old? Isn't that why people want abortion because lack of support both financially and physically?

For the pro-choice,

Do you really care what happens to the Ruths after they have an abortion?

Will you be there to provide the emotion support that comes with having an abortion?

Do you understand what this decision would really mean to the Ruths?

I believe in pro-choice as a choice for myself. I don't think I could handle having a child if I was single and a drug addict. But that is me. But if someone in the same predicament decides the opposite, I would respect that decision. Would definitely hope that person decides not to continue to be a drug addict but it is their decision.

In Terry Schiavo, I see the same issue. Right to die or to live.

For both cases, definitely wish the press and all Americans would butt out of this case. What do we really know of the Ruths and Terry Schiavo? Nothing
Do we really care what happens afterwards? NO.

Just watch TV. Any mention of Terry Schaivo? NO Do we really care? NO

Another fact I like to share-----I am for the right to die respectfully (only for myself).But I do respect anybody who decide for the right to live (a decision for themselves). I don't think it was right for anybody to butt in to Terry Schiavo's life. We don't know crap about terry but everybody wanted to decide.

STOP THIS CRAP ABOUT EXPRESSING A "MESSAGE" (this goes for both sides).
At the end of the day, we forget about these stupid cases and go on with our lives. Because they really don't effect our lives. I hope u all can agree.

reply

[–] macklin-1 19 years ago

I just thought it was a great movie but I would like to say something. I'm a guy and will never have to make this kind of decision. Personally, I thimk that this is a woman's decission and men should be left out of it. I also believe that if a woman decides to have a baby she should know how she is going to raise and support the baby no matter what the situation is with the father. If it's a stable environment, Great! But if not ... It's not something you should enter into lightly or blindly. Also, I've seen many a men go in to a marrage insisting that they don't want children and believe they are taking the rights steps to prevent it but are tricked into fatherhood and later supporting an ex-wife and a child. Okay ladies, don't get your panties in a bunch, but I recently talked to a bunch of high school students (girls) and they truly were under the assumption the way to a better life was pregnancy for a varity of reasons ... all the wrong ones. Finally, I think God should be left out of it, completely. Ruth knew she should have an abortion. That was right for her and everyone should have stayed out of it. Imagine the kind of life that child would have had. My daughter recently got pregnant and we discussed all the options ... calmly. And in the end she decided to have it but as a family, we would all have to make an effort to make this work, financially, emotionally and spiritually. The father has become a part of our lives and I have insisted that they wait for marrage until they feel it is really what they want. In the end, I'm not sure if she made the right choice but at least she had a choice and the luxury to choose. If you have no help, don't try and raise a child. And adoption is not an anwser. For the rest of that childs life it will wonder why my mother gave me up.

Just a thought

Macklin Crew

reply

[–] MonsterAtThePark 18 years ago

Wait a second, Macklin Crew.

You're saying that adoption is not an answer because for the rest of the child's life it will wonder why it's parents gave him/her up?

Let me just say that I have two adopted siblings and another very good friend of mine who is adopted. They lived their entire lives growing up knowing where they came from and how they came to be in their different families. At times it was hard for them - but that's it- it was simply DIFFICULT sometimes. The idea that they should have been terminated in the womb because once they reached their teen years they would have wondered why their mother gave them up is ludicrous and disgusting. These are three awesome and happy individuals who are more than thankful to be alive. All three of them of them realize they could have been aborted right after conception, and it's great that they weren't.

And one more thing. One of my adopted sisters is blind and paralyzed on one side of her body, rendering any chance that she ever had of walking to nothing. Even with her struggles she is a fine, intelligent and very happy woman. She's in college as of right now and is actively involved in various clubs for the disabled. Obviously, her parents would have had plenty of 'understandable' reasons for an abortion, what with her being blind and paralyzed. The argument that she would never be fully-functioning, intelligent or happy could have been made. For whatever reason, she was spared. And all of the people who know her are very thankful for that.

reply

[–] macklin-1 18 years ago

First, I didn't say abortion due to physical or emotional handicaps. MOF - I'm not even saying abortion. I'm saying choice. And I believe that I did not clarify my intention on adoption. I thought that in Ruth's case, and similar situations, it might have been better to abort rather than to put that poor child through all the abandoment she demonstrated with her previous kids. Eventually, like before, they would have been taken away from her. Adoption can be a beautiful thing, but the kind of life that Ruth demonstrated shows me that any child she gave birth to would have been really messed up. Messed up to the point it could not relate properly to a family situation. I'm absolutely positive that under the right circumstances, adoption is the anwser ... but not always. And the same applies to biological families as well. Young people scar easily and some scars heal ... and some never do. As for handicaps. My aunt & uncle had a mentally retarded child and had the legal oppurtunity at the time to abort but the decided not to. Their child became the most beloved member of our family. In his 12 short years (emotionally 2 years old), this family demonstrated what true love and acceptence really is. His passing was not a relief, it was a blow to the heart for all of us. This little boy brought out the best in everyone he met. My aunt and uncle were strong and loving enough to turn this situation in to something very beautiful but I have often thought that this situation was not for everyone. MOF - It truly could have broken most parents making it a hell on earth for all involved. My point is "choice". All circumstances are different, all people are different and no matter what everything should be considered for the sake of the child.

Macklin Crew

reply

[–] drbuckley 14 years ago

I am so sorry to hear of your family tragedy. I have become acquainted with some of my daughter's playmates who, like her, occupy various points on the autism spectrum. She is severely disabled and the love of my life.

One of her playmates died suddenly last year of causes so far unknown (all natural, no foul play indicated). He was a beautiful, sweet kid, obsessed with Thomas the Tank Engine. That's all he ever asked for, Thomas. His passing not only devastated his family but everybody else in our community.

My thoughts are with you and others who are affected by autism.

reply

[–] thepartydjz 12 years ago

So she MISCARRIED ?? THANKS FOR POSTING THE SPOILER ALERT JERKS

reply

[–] ShizaMinelli 10 years ago

Well of course adoption from infant age will be different than an older child's having their parents rights terminated, but some if your ideas and opinions about adoption are woefully misinformed.

When you're 17 a cow can seem dangerous and forbidden...am I alone here?

reply

[–] The_New_Cancer 18 years ago

I think the woman has the right to choice, whatever the circumstances. It's very sad that some couples are not able to have children, but just because a woman falls pregnant by accident does not make her morally obligated to have a child! Having a baby affects the woman's physical state. She can't just have a baby and return to normal. Also, if she was a teenage girl she'd have to miss between 9-12 (?) months of school (I think most schools would insist on her being out of school before and at least a few months after having the baby, as not to damage it before the birth, and for her to recover afterwards. Not sure on the details.) Also consider if the woman was raped. I personally think it would be very painful for me to go through 9 months of pregnancy, especially if it was a result of sexual abuse.

However, the woman has as much right to keep the baby. If she feels that she wants to raise it herself, then that's her choice. If she wants to have the baby and then give it up for adoption, that's fine too. Both getting an abortion and having a baby puts a lot of psychological stress on the mother. In the end the final descision should be with her.

reply

[–] caramelflava313 17 years ago

I strongly agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest. I mean, who wants to have to look at their own child and see their rapist? So many negative feelings would occur: shame, contempt for the father and the child, hatred, the obligation to love and care for a child that you definetely never wanted to concieve in that manner. A kid that's your son or daughter, but also your sister or brother, your niece or nephew or cousin. that sort of thing would screw with anybody's mental state. Who should ever have to deal with that? I would definetely have an abortion if that were the case. I think that some pro-lifers take their beliefs a little too far. Why try to stop other women from doing what they feel they have to do? Chill out, you're not in that woman's situation. You don't know what her lifestyle or circumstances were, you don't know her mindset. Unless it's your child or someone that you're legally responsible for, it's not any of your business. There is only one mind attached to that uterus, if it isn't yours, stay out of it.

In consensual sex cases, I think that it depends on how you get pregnant. If the condom broke, sue the condom company. If you didn't use one, slap yourself, dumbass. If the guy you're with is sneaky about wearing one, DON'T KEEP SLEEPING WITH HIM!

Homer: [after hitting a deer statue] D'oh!
Lisa: A deer!
Marge: A female deer!

reply

[–] GypsyMoth688 17 years ago

I strongly agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest. I mean, who wants to have to look at their own child and see their rapist?

Just a little fact for you, but the rate of abortion for women who conceived via rape/incest is about the same for women who conceived consensually. 25%. That means about 75% of pregnancies from rape/incest are NOT aborted. Many of these women choose adoption, but some do not - they raise the baby. Many of them say that, contrary to the popular notion that they'd naturally choose abortion, they found the idea of aborting their baby abhorrent. Victimize their own child? After they themselves have just been victimized? And here's something interesting, what affect does the "abortion for rape/incest" notion have on those people who were conceived this way? Seems rather demeaning of their existance don't you think?

reply

[–] caramelflava313 17 years ago

You seem to misunderstand what I said.
I said, "I strongly agree with abortion in cases of rape or incest." I didn't say that absolutely every rape/incest victim who was ever impregnated by their rapist should get an abortion, No I did not say that.

What I basically said is that it is that woman's CHOICE. I said that if that were my case I would find the emergency contraceptive pill or have the abortion, because of the way it came to be.

Now, had it been consensual to have intercourse on both parts and the woman ends up pregnant then she should suck it up and take care of her responsibility. In the event that it was my choice to do what I did to lead to a pregnancy, then I should have to deal with the consequences of MY actions...

HOWEVER, if some a$$hole with boundary issues decides he's going to force himself on some unsuspecting woman and she happens to become pregnant, why should she have to deal with the consequences of HIS actions? All because he woke up one day and decided 'Oh, I think I'll go stick my d!ck where it's not wanted and f-up someone's life, maybe I'll even father a child, that ought to be fun.'

If she wants to keep it then hey, more power to her, it isn't my life, I don't have to live it. It isn't my child, I don't have to raise it. It isn't my decision, I don't have to deal with it. But if she doesn't want to deal with it that is her CHOICE, no one should come down on her for doing what she feels is necessary.

Homer: [after hitting a deer statue] D'oh!
Lisa: A deer!
Marge: A female deer!

reply

[–] ShizaMinelli 16 years ago

Howexactly woudl they go about that one?
"Welcome to Family Planning, just a quick question before we begin, this IS a child of rape or incest, right?.....Okie-dokie, let's do this thing"

It's unfair that only a woman who conceives under violence shoudl be allowed the option. MANY women get pregnant who don't have the responsibility or respect for their own bodies to be a parent, why should it only be raped women who get to make that decision?

Roxanne
1993-2007
You'll always be with me

reply

[–] caramelflava313 16 years ago

The debate in question was about a specific point of view I expressed.

That being said, I'm still on the fence about 'just for the hell of it' abortions. I mean how does it sound in this case..

"Hey, just a little question beforehand, this is a product of you being completely irresponsible, isn't it?

The question here isn't "Are they going to ask me why I'm getting an abortion?"
That isn't the point at all.

My point is, that if the woman in question didn't plan for this fetus to come to fruition by a rape or an incestual case, then why should she have to deal with it if she did not consent to the act in the first place?

My other point is if you took every precaution to make sure you didn't become pregnant, and you got pregnant anyway, I don't know how (maybe the condom broke and the birth control pill was taken with an antibiotic, preventing it from working, maybe the diaphram had a tear in it, etc whatever) then sure go ahead, get rid of it, that's your choice.

"why should it only be raped women who get to make that decision?"

You say that like it's some sort of privilege to kill a child. Making the decision to have an abortion is never easy. period.

If you're making the choice to go have sex with your partner with no condom, no pill, no diaphram, no Norplant, no female condom, no birth control patch,no protection whatsoever, then you're potentially creating a life just destroy it, all because the moment might have been ruined by stopping to use some sort of precautionary aid. And since there ARE so many pregnancy prevention methods, why in the world wouldn't you take advantage of them instead of running to the clinic every other month and literally letting them suck the life out of you?

Homer: [after hitting a deer statue] D'oh!
Lisa: A deer!
Marge: A female deer!

reply

[–] cjcarter87 15 years ago

"My other point is if you took every precaution to make sure you didn't become pregnant, and you got pregnant anyway..."

this statement is part of the ignorance that leads to people trying to justify abortions. the only true precaution to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex at all. birth control methods aren't 100% protective. a woman makes her body engage in sex and possibly puts her body in a situation to become pregnant, and now she wants to terminate the pregnancy because it's her body? she made herself be pregnant in the first place! people who have consensual sex know that a pregnancy can happen from sex and know that birth control doesn't work 100% of the time

reply

[–] caramelflava313 15 years ago

SHE didn't make herself pregnant. Yes, she put herself in the situation for it to happen, but it takes two to tango.

It's obvious that birth control methods are not 100%, any idiot knows that.
But they are just that. Idiots. Since when does an idiot know the best way to do anything, let alone prevent pregnancy?

My point was that no one can make this decision for a woman other than that woman. Is it wrong to have an abortion? YES. Is it wrong of us to tell her she's wrong? NO. Will she regret it? MUCH MORE THAN LIKELY.

Bottom line, yes, abortion is murder anyway you put it, but so long as it's legal, none of us can make the decision for any other woman.

(BTW, as you may be able to tell, my views on the subject have changed since my original posts)

I'm Chuck Bass

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

In consensual sex cases, I think that it depends on how you get pregnant. If the condom broke, sue the condom company.

Or just get an abortion.

If you didn't use one, slap yourself, dumbass.

Yes, and then you could get an abortion.

If the guy you're with is sneaky about wearing one, DON'T KEEP SLEEPING WITH HIM!

Agreed. Stop sleeping with him and consider getting an abortion because YOU WERE TRICKED INTO A PREGNANCY THAT YOU DON'T WANT!

It's really quite simple. If you aren't an OB/GYN or f-cking a woman with her consent, you have no business being in her pussy. If she wants to carry the pregnancy to term and either keep the child or give it up for adoption, it's her choice. If she wants to have an abortion because pregnancies are physically tasking and expensive (especially with some employers not recognizing maternity leave) and she doesn't want to have a child, that's also her choice.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]