Ever hear of an abortion? - The Back-up Plan (2010) Discussion

[–] helloeeze 14 years ago

Oh, sounds like you have some issues..

But that is a point. But perhaps she wanted the kids and the guy of her dreams, too. This is a chick flick and women get it all in chick flicks.

WATCH MY VIDEO - MICK - SECOND CHANCE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kcnex-A0O88

reply

[–] ashleyw8588-705-252735 14 years ago

If she doesn't believe in abortion, why would she get one. Plus the fact that she spent a lot of money to have the procedure done to begin with, it would basically be throwing the money out of the window.

reply

[–] BelieverToo 14 years ago

Also, abortion is wrong, it's murder. How can you be so flippant about killing a baby when even God's word says:
"Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you. Before you were born, I set you apart for my holy purpose"

reply

[–] nymichael2002 14 years ago

Not everyone believes in God and lots of people have been killed in the name of religion.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Aettea 13 years ago

LOL! Thank you. People are so quick to jump on the "abortion is murder" bandwagon and fail to actually acknowledge the murder going on around them and work towards changing that. I guess living in denial has its perks. And let me just say, it is not exactly glamorous, this world of ours. There are a lot of children brought into the world by horrible people who horribly abuse and scar the innocent children for life. If you ask me, they would have done them a huge favour by aborting. And what about those who bring children into this world who end up starving to death or losing their childhood and are forced into child labour and prostitution due to lack of finances? What should we name these scenarios?

Anyone can fuse a sperm and an egg but I don't think that everyone is cut out for parenthood and this whole "abortion is murder" talk is not helping matters! Too many people take the gift of parenthood for granted! Like it is just something that should happen- "grow up, get married and have kids"! There should be like an intensive and thorough class for people to pass before becoming parents to make sure the children will be in safe, mentally, socially, emotionally and financially (I don't mean rich, just that you can support the child) stable hands! A lot of world issues would be resolved if multiple birth control methods (and safe abortion) was made free to all and readily available the world over!

reply

[–] shannonus 13 years ago

WOW! I love your reply! Very nicely said! No one ever thinks about the other consequences of a birth, if abortion is not chosen. How about a child growing up without a father because he abandoned the mother! Also, you pointed out starvation...every 4 seconds a child dies of hunger in this world...why don't all the anti-abortion nuts focus on saving the children already in this world! Start donating to child organizations and anti-hunger organizations! Abstain from eating meat a 2-3 times a week (this will also help the environment)! There is more than enough food in the world to feed all the starving children and people, but a lot of the food grown goes to feeding American raised livestock because we can't go without our meat (I'm a vegetarian!). The anti-abortion front needs to realize that there are bigger issues going on in the world! A lot bigger issues than a woman who wants to terminate her fetus! That's her business and it's her body and I'm sure there are a lot of woman who have valid reasons for having an abortion...and I'm sure not all these woman are promiscuous, a condom breaking could lead to pregnancy.

Very good reply!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

Wow two truly twisted replies. Your response makes no sense. Abortion is OK because there is murder all around us and people are starving somewhere. Murdering babies makes killing go away?! It simply adds to the death toll. And who are you to determine which children should and should not be aborted. Sounds like you want poor people to all go away because they live horrible lives. When I was poor I was much happier than I am now even though I am loaded. What a racist and socially inept response. Why bother saving the most defenseless amongst us, unborn babies. Wouldn't that save world hunger. Wow you amaze me with your lack of intelligent reasoning. There are an endless list of inhuman and inhumane solutions to the world's problems. You want a planet with a smaller population probably filled with individuals like yourselves. Your position rejects the importance of human life at a very vulnerable stage when saving them is the most humane gesture a person can make. You also seem to forget that those whacked out Christian's believe that before they can get to the Heaven above they must make the world below a Heaven. Atheism has no such mandate before it. Even worse atheism is based on moral relativism where good acts are held morally equivalent to evil acts since there is no basis for truth except in the self. Or in other words if you think something is right then it is. What a sad way to live.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

BelieverToo.... firstly, there is no proof any type of deity even exists; secondly, the bible was written by humans and is no more valid than any other book of fiction (therefore it is not possible to know god's word); thirdly, don't judge people unless you've walked a mile in their shoes, and lastly, whether you like it or not, abortion is legal, people do it, it happens... get over it!

reply

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

It was legal at one time to deny women and African Americans the right to vote and African Americans the right to be free and to marry. Legal is not always right.

Since no one can prove that God doesn't exist nor can anyone prove that God does exist the only intellectually honest position both sides can take is that both positions are merely opinions. That's why they call religious belief faith which is absent in atheism.
Morality does however exist and I would rather follow a philosophy (Christianity) which commands that its followers individually make this world a paradise (love thy neighbor, etc.) before being permitted to enter an eternal paradise (Heaven) rather than a worldview (atheism) that treats both morally good and morally evil behavior as equals (moral relativism). One cannot blame Christianity when its followers act outside its parameters as sometimes happens however you can fault atheism that lacks any behavior controlling mechanism (e.g. eternal damnation/purgatory) or instruction manual (Holy Bible) or a place for consultation and redemption (church/priest/minister/youth counselor/prayer/atonement/etc).
Atheism is not in itself a philosophy, it is a position that there is no God. No single philosophy flows naturally from that position or to put it another way there are as many atheist philosophies as there are atheists. Some are good some are nightmarish evil.

Even if religion is false it still trumps atheism.

This is why atheism creeps me out.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] LaGringa 11 years ago

--------
Since no one can prove that God doesn't exist nor can anyone prove that God does exist the only intellectually honest position both sides can take is that both positions are merely opinions.
--------

The way I see it, that is not the most intellectually honest position. Your opinion may be that one is more likely because of such and such reason but the options are mutually exclusive. A god(s) does exist, or it(they) don't. There cannot be no god and a god at the same time. The opinion added onto that can chip away at intellectual honestly quite quickly.

--------
Morality does however exist and I would rather follow a philosophy (Christianity) which commands that its followers individually make this world a paradise (love thy neighbor, etc.) before being permitted to enter an eternal paradise (Heaven) rather than a worldview (atheism) that treats both morally good and morally evil behavior as equals (moral relativism).
--------

Morality does exist, yes, but the absence of a god does not denote moral relativism in the way you are implying. Materialism accounts for morality as exhibited by many species outside of humans. Culture accounts for morality and Materialism accounts for Culture.

Beyond that, Christianity is a religion with moral philosophies as one aspect of the whole, which contains tradition and dogma and a myriad of other elements that aren't important to this discussion. What is more, is that you do not follow nor do you agree with many of the moral or pious positions the bible takes and implores. I know that because of your stance on abortion, the bible explicitly sanctions abortion and gives instructions on how and when to perform it on a woman who has no choice in the matter.

--------
This is why atheism creeps me out.
--------

And this says more about you than it does about atheism. :-/

-----------------------
The old lie: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori

reply

[–] dawnantonis 13 years ago

enjoy the rapture....

"We're gonna need a bigger boat"....

reply

[–] AngelRedhead 13 years ago

Yeah, killing your child when you can't cope anymore or for whatever reasons is so much more humane than getting an abortion:

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-11-26/us/body.found.arrest_1_riley-ann-sawyers-baby-grace-body?_s=PM:US

Get a grip & leave women have their own choice, it's their bodies not yours! Also killing your 2 year child IS murder, an abortion is not! get your facts straight & get over yourself!

If you don't believe in abortion that is totally up to you, I have no argument with that. When you say abortion in general is murder for whatever these women choose it for is none of you business. It's not your lump of cells they're having a procedure for!

"I cannot live without my life! I cannot die without my soul".... Heathcliff

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

I completely agree with you, OP (snifalotopus)... she should have just had an abortion at the point where she met him and realized she wanted to be with him. The only problem I can really see with her doing that though is that it seems like she went through a lot of trouble and expense (AI costs a lot, from what I have heard), so it would be kind of hard to just easily get an abortion after all she went through to get pregnant in the first place. Plus, if she did get an abortion, then there wouldn't be much of a plot anymore. But yeah, I totally agree, that in theory, abortion would have been the best way to go.

reply

[–] cauldrons 13 years ago

So she should have an abortion of the baby that she waited all that time to have and paid all that money for, for a guy she had known for a couple of weeks? WTF.

reply

[–] angelkissed_Redhead 13 years ago

Women who want to get pregnant, who plan for it, pay thousands for it, and are invested in their future children do not get abortions in hopes of keeping some guy they've dated for a few weeks. Doesn't happen.

~Burn the land and boil the sea, You can't take the sky from me

reply

[–] AngelRedhead 13 years ago

Hi angelkissed_Redhead

I'm not getting into this discussion but just wanted to point out our similiar names! Never come across nearly a match to mine!

"I cannot live without my life! I cannot die without my soul".... Heathcliff

reply

[–] AllCreatedEqual 14 years ago

Wow. "simply terminate the pregnancy", he says. It's so sad and disappointing to see this attitude towards abortion - so thoughtless, so self-serving. While it's true that women can legally choose an abortion, that choice is not one to be taken lightly. It should not be watered down, covered up with euphemisms. That choice means you are terminating a LIFE, not just a pregnancy. That choice requires reasons that are substantial. A reason such as "for some good sex" does not cut it.
Besides, who says good sex can't happen after kids? snif person is clearly working off of limited data.

reply

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

A fetus is to a human being as an acorn is to a tree. That's the truth - it's not really much of a life. Get over it.

reply

[–] DoubtingMustafa 14 years ago

Do realize how ridiculous that sounds? A fetus isn't a life? Were you not a fetus once? Did you not become a living, breathing human? And by the way, after a month, a fetus has a heartbeat. I've never seen something with a heartbeat considered lifeless.
By the way, does an acorn turn into a freaking squirrel? Your analogy makes me cringe.

Oh yeah...that just happened.

reply

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

Yeah, I was a fetus once and was not sentient and did not deserve a say in anything my mother chose to have done to me. It's just that simple. A fetus is non-sentient and is really no different than an acorn or a virus or bacteria... it's the same kind of living thing. If you consider a fetus to be life then you shouldn't take antibiotics or get vaccinations because you are killing off living things. A fetus is no different than any of those three things. Sure, it turns into a human being eventually, but as long as it's in the womb it is NOT a human being!!! Its life means no more than any kind of virus or bacteria.

reply

[–] oldschoolmikey 14 years ago

(Claps) "That just Happened" getting Pwned by "Blood Tear".

reply

[–] DoubtingMustafa 14 years ago

Please. I don't consider someone telling me that a fetus isn't a human owning me. If you don't think a fetus is a human, you are a huge ignorant dumbass.

Oh yeah...that just happened.

reply

[–] oldschoolmikey 14 years ago

Have you ever seen a fetus? They look more like aliens than humans. Kill them all before they take over the world!!!

reply

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

lmao

reply

[–] raif-1 14 years ago

Abortion according to Islam (if you're interested)
http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?t=11453

Basically, before the soul enters the body, it is permissible (generally), also there are slight differences according to the sects within Islam . Anyway, if you're interested read on.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] novimovieman 12 years ago

An acorn, a tree and a bacteria will NEVER become sentient, thus your comparison is lacking associative similarities. Harmful bacteria is at war with an organism and thus it is both moral and ethical to kill them since their most common goal is to kill the host organism. Bacteria kills or harms ten thousand times more people than all wars each year. It would be morally and ethically improper to destroy bacteria that is essential to human life. The two are as different as a murderer and a savior. The only time a baby is actively trying to kill the mother is in science fiction movies.
You apparently are a member of the Dr. Springer of Princeton club. He advocates human infanticide but he believes that chicks should be spared because they develop faster than humans. Since you use sentiency as a parameter for abortion then why not extend that and only allow the smartest babies to live. Oh wait lets let only the smartest white skinned, blonde haired, blue eyed babies to live. Sound like Nazi eugenics? It should.
Also if you require sentiency to describe life then if we were to anesthetize a person so that they could neither think nor feel then would it be morally proper to kill (abort) them? Consider this courtroom discussion.
Defendant: Yes your honor the person was given a large dose of morphine therefore I believed it was morally and ethically proper to kill him.
Judge: The victim would eventually come out of the anesthetized state and become sentient again.
Defendant: But your honor, they allow for the destruction of unborn babies and they eventually come out of their non-sentient state while still in the womb. I see no difference.
Judge: Since it is legal to abort fetuses I see a similarity to what you did and you are free to go. Case dismissed.
This scenario is a nightmare but in this over rationalizing world it could possibly take place.

In the absence of a concrete and uniform definition of life we owe it to the fetus to use a parameter that goes to the lowest common component of life: cellular active. Living cells are called that for a reason, they are living. Dead cells do not develop and decay. Living cells in a complete developing human organism is human life.
If we fail to describe life as living cells in a complete developing human organism then we may be seen to future generations as the most barbaric people to ever occupy the planet Earth since we destroyed the most helpless living entities: unborn babies! That is an legacy I do not wish to leave.

As an apologist turned authority I don't defend my comments because I am always right.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Hythlodaeus 12 years ago

Well, if you want to follow that to its logical conclusion - men like Peter Singer claim that up to several weeks or even months after birth a child is not sentient and can be killed at will.

For that matter, most Americans are not sentient - but we still give them human rights.

What hump?

reply

[–] kenzie72 13 years ago

Uhh no, the acorn would turn into a tree. There's nothing wrong with that analogy, you just didn't understand it. I have no idea where you got the squirrel from because people would not eat a fetus.

reply

[–] h_modisette 14 years ago

Yeah. Really scary that you think children are just so disposable! I am Pro-choice but I have to say your attitude is extremely alarming! You are a freak of nature!

reply

[–] thebloodtear 14 years ago

"Yeah. Really scary that you think children are just so disposable!"

They're not... fetuses are! Or did you not actually read all of my posts?

"Ok, I am pro-choice but I can't believe people can speak so carelessly about having an abortion. I will assume the original poster in this thread is a guy who's never had children."

Children have nothing to do with it because a fetus is neither a child nor a human. And what does the OP's gender have to do with ANYthing?!

reply

[–] cocobug1 14 years ago

I really couldnt even understand her dilemma in the first place- she had just met the guy! she had no way of knowing if he was the "right guy"

Not only this but the baby was what she claimed she'd wanted for years so you'd think she'd sacrifice a possible relationship for that

Do guys like "the thing"?
They like it better than no thing.

reply

[–] vegaoth 14 years ago

Ok, I am pro-choice but I can't believe people can speak so carelessly about having an abortion. I will assume the original poster in this thread is a guy who's never had children.

However, I will answer this: She WANTED a baby, she thought she wouldn't have a real relationship with a guy who'd truly commit to her and she chose to have it alone. Then she met this guy and she fell for him but, as much as she wanted to be with him, she also wanted to have her baby.

The thing is, she probably had been with other great guys before, we were never told that she had been disenchanted with men, just that she never met the right one before. What I got was that she was the one who ran away from relationships and commitment due to her own abandonment issues that came from her father leaving her and her mother when they needed him the most.

It is probable that, had she not been pregnant when she met Stan, they would have parted ways at some point because the only way he had to prove he would stay with her was by being for her during her pregnancy.

So ultimately, it is her pregnancy what made their love story successful. This story was never about meeting the "right guy" but about her learning to trust in him once she found it. As a reward she gained a family, which is what she always wanted.

reply