MovieChat Forums > Sunlight Jr. (2015) Discussion > sick abortion propaganda

sick abortion propaganda

posted 11 years ago by aerrich
23 replies | jump to latest

It is utterly reprehensible that private adoption isn't even mentioned in this film. All she had to do is contact an adoption attorney and she would have had all of her medical and living expenses paid for while pregnant and would walk away with a five figure bonus after giving birth!

The fact that such an option is so underreported is to keep the abortion mills and adoption agencies in business screwing over expectant mothers.

Some of the performances are decent but unfortunately those aren't worth putting up with this dreck of a film to see.

[–] kidjay83 11 years ago

"Some of the performances are decent but unfortunately those aren't worth putting up with this dreck of a film to see" All the performances were decent this was a decent film.

My mother would show up on time and know all her lines but who wants to pay to see my mother?

[–] mercyonme 10 years ago

If what you took from this movie was that is was pushing some pro-abortion agenda then you are probably not smart enough to enjoy this film.

[–] C.S.Wood 10 years ago

sick abortion propaganda

Having seen the film, I disagree, given the fact the people in question are poor, practically homeless, and one is confined to a wheelchair.

Say, she could have had the baby and given it up for adoption, but do you realize how much it costs to have a baby in the U.S.? We're talking upwards of $3,000 bucks.

Yes they could have gone through the whole process of finding a wealthy childless couple to give/sell their baby to but then that would have been another movie like Juno. This was a relationship drama and the decision to get an abortion comes at a dramatically low moment for the couple. It is not seen as being a happy event either.

And not even putting a political spin on it, but the fact is women get abortions. This is not more a pro-abortion film than Juno is a pro-life film. The decisions made by the women in both films happen all the time. Neither is right or wrong.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] murad23 10 years ago

sorry but the characters in this film all qualify for Medicaid and have since rules in place since Reagan.

I don't think the film has a pro abortion agenda, but it does contain a pro abortion message and having a baby that will be placed for adoption in that income bracket costs nothing in the US for decades

By the way I support choice in these matters

[–] aerrich 10 years ago

As murad says it would not cost them anything. Also "going through the whole process of finding a wealthy couple" would only entail googling local adoption attorneys then calling one. They have lists of clients just waiting for the chance to adopt and it would have been by far the best option for the characters represented in this film.

Quit exhaling! You are contributing to global warming.

[–] Oleander2010 10 years ago

I don't really understand why you think that the writer was obligated to include the possibility of adoption in a fictional story.

It's not the job of a movie to educate the audience on available options for, well, anything. It can, but it doesn't have to. That is what books, the internet and customer service agents are for. The movie depicted the experiences of 1 family, it wasn't a documentary or a PBS line-up.

I watched a film about high school seniors going to an ivy league university- was it private higher education propaganda because the writers didn't include the availability of attending a public, community or technical college? That's silly.

[–] aerrich 10 years ago

I watched a film about high school seniors going to an ivy league university- was it private higher education propaganda because the writers didn't include the availability of attending a public, community or technical college? That's silly.

Using that example as it would apply to this film you would have to show high school seniors not going to college at all because they could not get into ivy leagues. Don't you agree that not even mentioning other options would make the film an ivy league propaganda piece?

Quit exhaling! You are contributing to global warming.

[–] xxhaimbondxx 10 years ago

All the world needs is more white trash babies that are fully supported by me and hopefully you, who eventually end up in the home of the "foster parent" like her mother. Abortion is the way to go, propaganda or not.

[–] kmgault 10 years ago

Not stating a judgment on abortion either way, but are we saying only certain people should have children? Who gets to make this decision? I know living in poverty isn't fair to a child, but is it not the same unfairness of telling a person who may only have the brain set to work a minimum wage job that he/she cannot have a child b/c of their finances?

[–] FirstBlood1982 10 years ago

The original poster is exactly right, I lost respect for Naomi (a long time favorite) after seeing this.

"abortion is the way to go..."

Absolutely disgusting that we live in a society that tries to pass off women and "doctors" killing children as some sick sort of compassion.

If we're to justify it by "well the child is gonna have a tough life anyway" I guess we might as well just legalize the killing of children we already know have tough lives.

A death sentence for an innocent human being that has committed no crime against anyone, based solely on what someone else feels works best for them at the time or because they've decided in their head that it's more compassionate to have their child killed than give them a chance at their life is NEVER the way to go.

This is a truly disgusting film, a shining example of why I'm hardly ever willing to watch mainstream Hollywood filth anymore.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] poirier_mark 10 years ago

So if an actor protrays a murderer or serial killer in a movie do you lose respect for them as well?

Also to your last point this isnt a mainstream Hollywood movie.

[–] Jerry-137 10 years ago

So if an actor protrays a murderer or serial killer in a movie do you lose respect for them as well?

C'mon dude, there is a lot of difference between parental infanticide and adult on adult murderers. And the poster said nothing about losing respect for an actor. He just made a comment on liberal Hollywood producers or Hollywood in general.

I'm not a believer in religions but science tells me that a human embryo is a living being. It is man's law that doesn't give this human personhood. Sure, at this point it is parasitic and can't live without it's host but that doesn't mean it isn't a human being. Almost all abortions are done for economic reasons and IMO that's a sad outlook on what we call civilization.

I don't think that abortions should be made illegal. In fact it is not the right of governments to be involved in a mother's decision to kill her child in the womb, for or against. It should totally be the mother's decision and the act itself performed by her.

Instead private profit or non-profit enterprises could provide self-abortion classes and provide rental "kits" to accomplish the act including sonogram devices so she could watch as the self-inserted vacuum device sucks the brains out of her child and collapses the skull and then to make sure all the limbs and extraneous material are sucked down the tubes. Maybe even a standby doctor in case things go south but the actual killing should be performed by the mother-that-could-of-been. A mother that could do that to rid herself of what she thinks of as a parasite would have to be a hardhearted bitch that society would or should steer clear of.

But what does our civilized society do? We pass laws that make abortion by state licensed medical doctors (mostly males) legal and even in some cases use our tax money to support the devilish act. Sounds like something out of a futuristic dystopian society sci-fi movie where as time progresses they allow infanticide from conception up to the age of 12...

*******************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[–] poirier_mark 10 years ago

I wasnt responding actually to the original poster i was responding to the comment above mine.

"The original poster is exactly right, I lost respect for Naomi (a long time favorite) after seeing this. "

My overall point was that its unfair to hold an actor responsible for a role they play even if it violates your code of ethics.

[–] Jerry-137 10 years ago

I concede your point but some actors are playing parts that specifically represent their way of thinking and by doing so are hoping that the viewing public will see it their way. That's taking a profession meant for entertainment into political propaganda.

If the propaganda is mainstream (not all propaganda is bad) there isn't a problem but say an actor plays a pedophile that asks for forgiveness and the actor thinks, that we should, as a society should be more lenient towards these people because "they are born that way". I don't think society would look too kindly on that actor, do you?

*********************************************
My favorite: Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]