Cmon manAZGrizFan wrote:Ooooffff....read the comments/tweets! To coin a phrase, poor Alyssa is getting PWNED on her own tweet.Pwns wrote:
Two scenes that the movie team was determined to re-create accurately, at my insistence, because they are important for people to see. The first is a CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) recreation of what I saw on the ultrasound screen when I assisted in the abortion procedure that convinced me of the humanity of the unborn. You will see what I saw: a baby on an ultrasound screen in black and white 2D. You will see the abortion instrument, which looks like a big straw in real life and like a dark line on the ultrasound, introduced onto the screen. You will see the baby struggle against it. You will see the baby first slowly, then quickly disappear into the instrument as it does what it is designed to do. It is important for you to know that this was a CGI recreation and NOT footage from a real abortion. But it sure looks like what I saw.
The second scene that was cited as a reason for the R rating is a scene that re-creates my awful experience with the abortion pill. Ashley, the actress who plays me, did a fantastic job capturing both my physical pain and my fear. I won’t lie to you; that scene shows some blood. In real life I hemorrhaged so badly I thought I was going to die. The movie captures that without being gratuitous or gory. I think the producers walked that line well.
Pwns wrote:https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/nati ... -r-rating/
Sure sounds to me like this movie was given an R rating for political reasons.
Two scenes that the movie team was determined to re-create accurately, at my insistence, because they are important for people to see. The first is a CGI (Computer-Generated Imagery) recreation of what I saw on the ultrasound screen when I assisted in the abortion procedure that convinced me of the humanity of the unborn. You will see what I saw: a baby on an ultrasound screen in black and white 2D. You will see the abortion instrument, which looks like a big straw in real life and like a dark line on the ultrasound, introduced onto the screen. You will see the baby struggle against it. You will see the baby first slowly, then quickly disappear into the instrument as it does what it is designed to do. It is important for you to know that this was a CGI recreation and NOT footage from a real abortion. But it sure looks like what I saw.The second scene that was cited as a reason for the R rating is a scene that re-creates my awful experience with the abortion pill. Ashley, the actress who plays me, did a fantastic job capturing both my physical pain and my fear. I won’t lie to you; that scene shows some blood. In real life I hemorrhaged so badly I thought I was going to die. The movie captures that without being gratuitous or gory. I think the producers walked that line well.
No doubt, but I'm working on the most important one right now.GannonFan wrote:Plenty of legal and moral issues.
I will take your silence as an admission of guilt.89Hen wrote:That's a cute chart Cleets. Just like your abortion doctors... works in a vacuum.
Even if the technology exists and a woman wants to abort it, let her. If she wants to pass it on to some machine for the state to take over, let her. But it should be her choice as it's her body.GannonFan wrote:"Grey's Anatomy" had an episode where the doctor's are working on the idea of an artificial womb where the baby could develop outside of the mother's womb. Since shows like that tend to take ideas from the real world it's not necessarily out of the realm that in our lifetimes we may have the technology to create artificial wombs and the baby wouldn't ever need to be inside a human mother. That gets us to where the science has really always been, i.e. that the fetus is a human being pretty much from the get-go. That might be the real bigger question the next generation behind us faces - what is to be done with all of the babies that were aborted before but now, with the technology catching up to science, can be jettisoned to an artificial womb? And the more troubling thing is what do you do with people that still abort pregnancies at that point rather than pass them off to an artificial womb? Plenty of legal and moral issues.
Only if the father gets his sperm back from the woman or signs off on the abortion. Then its her decision her body∞∞∞ wrote:Even if the technology exists and a woman wants to abort it, let her. If she wants to pass it on to some machine for the state to take over, let her. But it should be her choice as it's her body.GannonFan wrote:"Grey's Anatomy" had an episode where the doctor's are working on the idea of an artificial womb where the baby could develop outside of the mother's womb. Since shows like that tend to take ideas from the real world it's not necessarily out of the realm that in our lifetimes we may have the technology to create artificial wombs and the baby wouldn't ever need to be inside a human mother. That gets us to where the science has really always been, i.e. that the fetus is a human being pretty much from the get-go. That might be the real bigger question the next generation behind us faces - what is to be done with all of the babies that were aborted before but now, with the technology catching up to science, can be jettisoned to an artificial womb? And the more troubling thing is what do you do with people that still abort pregnancies at that point rather than pass them off to an artificial womb? Plenty of legal and moral issues.
That bears upon one of the biggest problems with the pro choice position. It's largely based on the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Hard to argue with a person's right to do what they want with their own body.∞∞∞ wrote: Even if the technology exists and a woman wants to abort it, let her. If she wants to pass it on to some machine for the state to take over, let her. But it should be her choice as it's her body.
What happened with that movie gives the people in the right wing echo chamber a basis for claiming media bias. Most networks would not air the trailer. From https://www.dailywire.com/news/45318/tv ... -paul-bois:Pwns wrote:https://thecatholicspirit.com/news/nati ... -r-rating/
Sure sounds to me like this movie was given an R rating for political reasons.
There have been plenty of movies that have broached sensitive subject matter. A movie like "Guess who's coming to dinner" dealt with sensitive material. I watched the trailer after seeing that it was being suppressed and there is no reason not to run that trailer. You may disagree with the position. But if you suppress that trailer you're censoring the free exchange of ideas.The networks have reportedly given the makers of "Unplanned" ambiguous excuses for the decision. Lifetime, for instance, said they would not run ads due to the "sensitive nature of the film,"
You're just ignoring the moral aspect of it. Today you can say it's her body and her choice, if you want, because the baby needs to be there in her body for somewhere around 22 weeks, and in reality a lot longer for a healthy birth. Science still says it's a human being in her, so a separate person, but at least there's the fall back of a woman having to have the baby in her body, and her body changing as a result of having to keep it for as long as she does. Once an artificial womb exists and the baby can be transferred at any step in the process then any abortion is without argument the ending of a life. There's no difference to the woman in terms of removal of the baby to an artificial womb or an abortion so still allowing an abortion to happen at that point truly is murder. Can't see a philosophical argument to counter that.∞∞∞ wrote:Even if the technology exists and a woman wants to abort it, let her. If she wants to pass it on to some machine for the state to take over, let her. But it should be her choice as it's her body.GannonFan wrote:"Grey's Anatomy" had an episode where the doctor's are working on the idea of an artificial womb where the baby could develop outside of the mother's womb. Since shows like that tend to take ideas from the real world it's not necessarily out of the realm that in our lifetimes we may have the technology to create artificial wombs and the baby wouldn't ever need to be inside a human mother. That gets us to where the science has really always been, i.e. that the fetus is a human being pretty much from the get-go. That might be the real bigger question the next generation behind us faces - what is to be done with all of the babies that were aborted before but now, with the technology catching up to science, can be jettisoned to an artificial womb? And the more troubling thing is what do you do with people that still abort pregnancies at that point rather than pass them off to an artificial womb? Plenty of legal and moral issues.
While the cells are unique to human beings, they haven't connected the dots yet to create consciousness or self-awareness. Pain at a certain point is felt, but it's pain without consciousness (an abstract concept, but not pain in how we react to it). It's a living member of our species as much as any other collection of cells is.JohnStOnge wrote:That bears upon one of the biggest problems with the pro choice position. It's largely based on the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Hard to argue with a person's right to do what they want with their own body.∞∞∞ wrote: Even if the technology exists and a woman wants to abort it, let her. If she wants to pass it on to some machine for the state to take over, let her. But it should be her choice as it's her body.
The problem is that there are two bodies involved. The unborn individual is a living member of our species. The woman is not making a choice about her body alone. She is choosing to end the life of another individual.
It's a very inconvenient situation. A very difficult situation. But the argument "it's her body" just doesn't cut it because there is another body involved. She's not making a choice for herself only.
A new born is not a fully developed human. A 10 year old is not a fully developed human. A 21 year old is not a fully developed human. Development is a process that continues throughout the life span.∞∞∞ wrote:While the cells are unique to human beings, they haven't connected the dots yet to create consciousness or self-awareness. Pain at a certain point is felt, but it's pain without consciousness (an abstract concept, but not pain in how we react to it). It's a living member of our species as much as any other collection of cells is.JohnStOnge wrote:
That bears upon one of the biggest problems with the pro choice position. It's largely based on the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Hard to argue with a person's right to do what they want with their own body.
The problem is that there are two bodies involved. The unborn individual is a living member of our species. The woman is not making a choice about her body alone. She is choosing to end the life of another individual.
It's a very inconvenient situation. A very difficult situation. But the argument "it's her body" just doesn't cut it because there is another body involved. She's not making a choice for herself only.
Want to argue the spiritual route because you're religious? I can at least understand that conviction.
But I'm coming from a very sterile viewpoint. I won't give rights to a bunch of (parasitic) cells instead of a fully-developed human who is born, conscious, and protected by the Constitution.
Is this a part of the argument tapestry you have for abortion?∞∞∞ wrote:Also, I do find it fascinating that throughout human history, abortion was never really a moral issue. Only until the 1800s or so, did it become a problem with large populations of people around the world. And even up to the late 1800s, Americans had zero issues with it (until the AMA lobbied and propagandized against it as a reactionary attack to the early stages of feminism).
Consciousness or self awareness are not criteria to be a member of the human species. Today you can call it parasitic, but once an artificial womb exists it's no longer that, not anymore than an infant is. It has nothing to do with religion. A bunch of cells that are uniquely human and are in the process, absent negative impact from the outside, of forming into what you recognize as a human body is just the earliest part of the human life cycle. It's science, not religion, driving this.∞∞∞ wrote:While the cells are unique to human beings, they haven't connected the dots yet to create consciousness or self-awareness. Pain at a certain point is felt, but it's pain without consciousness (an abstract concept, but not pain in how we react to it). It's a living member of our species as much as any other collection of cells is.JohnStOnge wrote:
That bears upon one of the biggest problems with the pro choice position. It's largely based on the idea that a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body. Hard to argue with a person's right to do what they want with their own body.
The problem is that there are two bodies involved. The unborn individual is a living member of our species. The woman is not making a choice about her body alone. She is choosing to end the life of another individual.
It's a very inconvenient situation. A very difficult situation. But the argument "it's her body" just doesn't cut it because there is another body involved. She's not making a choice for herself only.
Want to argue the spiritual route because you're religious? I can at least understand that conviction.
But I'm coming from a very sterile viewpoint. I won't give rights to a bunch of (parasitic) cells instead of a fully-developed human who is born, conscious, and protected by the Constitution.
That's just silly. For most of human history we didn't have any idea how the biology was even working. And for most of human history life was (I forget where the quote came from) short and brutal. We didn't really care a great deal about most human lives, let alone one we couldn't even see. There are tons of things we are far more concerned about now that we, at least in parts of the world, don't have to worry about surviving tomorrow everyday. Heck, women's rights, child labor, slavery, genocide, etc, were all things we didn't really get worried about for much of the timeline of human history. Fascinating indeed.∞∞∞ wrote:
Again though, fascinating that abortion being immoral to a lot of people is a recent thing in the timeline of human history.