moviefreakedmind

darthrush said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

I think it’s a grey issue for me. Cause I know I am fine with someone taking a morning after pill for example but I’m not ok with an abortion of a baby when it is a day from being born. There is a point along the way where it becomes not ok and I still don’t quite know where that point is for me. Hence, the fact that I consider myself still undecided.

I say when and if it’s viable outside the womb. That’s a good one.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:
It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.

Like I said, who knows if that law was still supposedly applicable post-Christ. There were a lot of religious old testament laws that had extremely harsh punishments for sinful actions.

The morality is not the same and it isn’t a punishment. It isn’t like the New Testament condemns abortion, so that would replace the Old Testament prescription. It isn’t alluded to anywhere in the Bible except for when it’s condoned at least in that circumstance.

Also:

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?

What did you mean?

Well, no one’s best is enough to prevent any and all fuck ups.

TV’s Frink said:

moviefreakedmind said:

That’s pretty cool. You working on it, that is. I’ve always wanted to have meaningful job.

I consider my job meaningful, but it seems that one had much less meaning than it was supposed to.

Any contribution to knowledge and the exploration of our world or universe is not lacking in meaning and is infinitely more meaningful than 99% of the shit that most people do.

The building is super-cool though. The west half is semi-buried underground (you can see the shape still) to make it look like, as far as I remember it being described to me, a ufo that crash landed there.

If I ever leave my house again, I’ll check it out.

Dek Rollins said:

moviefreakedmind said:

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child.

I never implied that the woman is choosing to abort after waiting eight months. It was just general.

But they’re all more-or-less the same to you. I’m pointing out how absurd it is to compare these situations.

To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest.

There is a technical and, I suppose moral, distinction. But, a five-week fetus is still a human child in my mind, so still murder.

Okay, so what about what I said regarding sex-ed, birth control, and the welfare state?

And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this.

That completely ignores my context to purposefully paint me as unsympathetic towards rape victims. When regarding the argument of whether or not abortion at any stage is murder, anything that relates to other moral situations and not the central argument is a strawman.

It was your own words and you still say it’s murder so I don’t think it’s that out of context.

Bringing up a different moral situation doesn’t argue the idea that aborting a five-week fetus isn’t murder. It’s just confusing the central point.

It doesn’t confuse anything, it just shows that there’s an obvious difference from case to case. Not all abortions are the same.

Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Well, first, it’s hard to say if that would be considered applicable law post-Christ (unless I’m missing something?), and that isn’t the same as rape. It’s not that it has to do with religion (I hate the idea of “religiousness”), I just think that killing a developing child without good reason is morally wrong. And of course different people have different opinions on the definition of “good reason.”

It’s not the same as rape but it’s still a child. My point was that the only time God’s word ever mentions abortion, it’s condoning it.

Exactly, but I’m quick to anger. 😉

Shmi Skywalker, now that’s a terrible parent!

ChainsawAsh said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

Exactly! Always happy to see people open to changing their views when presented with new information or a different perspective.

Like I said, I take everything personally so when I heard that, I immediately thought of Boys Don’t Cry and that is a very, very important movie to me for a multitude of reasons. The lead, a transgender guy, is played by Hilary Swank, a woman. And I just imagined people disregarding that role and movie as “transface” and it pissed me off.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

It’s basically like grouping “people of color” together. They all have different experiences but the general goal is the same (tolerance, acceptance, etc).

Yeah, but trans people have much different goals beyond tolerance. There’s issues with their own birth certificates, passing, medication, health insurance discrimination, and stuff like that that doesn’t affect gay people. Personally I don’t care for the acronym. I don’t like that it’s all one movement. I’d prefer each identity or group voice themselves personally and individually the way black, hispanic, American Indian, and Jewish minorities have done over the years. You get what I’m saying? For example, there is no “people of color” movement.

DominicCobb said:

moviefreakedmind said:

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

The same thing with trans actors goes for disabled people too.

I definitely agree on that, unless it’s a story about an able-bodied person that at some point becomes disabled. That’s why I loved that they cast an actor with cerebral palsy to play Walt Jr. in Breaking Bad.

The sexual orientation thing isn’t really as pressing a concern (as you do see gay actors play straight roles fairly often) but I do think it’s fair in general that people are somewhat miffed when non-hetero characters are played by hetero actors, only because gay characters are still somewhat rare.

They aren’t rare on TV anymore, but they are in movies still.

I think it does. It takes three identities that face very similar situations and one much that faces a much different situation and puts them together. A lot of people, particularly in the media lump it all together. That’s why I don’t like the acronym at all.

DominicCobb said:

suspiciouscoffee said:

I’ve always wondered why trans folk are then lumped into LGBT since it’s such a different thing. Not that I have a problem with it, I’m just curious.

Well it does make sense if you think about it. It’s all about sex/gender. The “norm” is cis male/female relationships. Whether you’re homosexual or transgender, you’re breaking gender “norms.”

I think they’re too very different issues. Other than life in the closet, the experiences seem completely different to me.

You know what, I’m kind of won over to that point in the case of trans people. I don’t think orientation is a problem at all in the film industry these days and I don’t think it needs to be considered for a role. But I think trans could potentially be similar to race. The exception would be in the case of a low budget movie where perhaps the director can’t find a trans actor, but in Hollywood and big-budget things I think I get it now.

suspiciouscoffee said:

Abortion is such a horrible topic to argue because there is no grey area. You either believe life begins at conception and it’s murder, or you don’t and it’s not.

The latter can be a gray area. I think almost everyone would agree that an abortion of a viable-outside-the-womb, but still unborn child for no real medical reason is “wrong” however you want to define that. Of course, that is a rarity.

Dek Rollins said:

I just want to make my own stance clear. Eggs and sperm are wasted all the time, naturally. I don’t think that’s what people are upset about when it comes to abortion. When an egg is fertilized, there is a spark of life. A human child begins growing. If it wasn’t a living human being, it wouldn’t be growing more cells, and it wouldn’t turn into someone like me or yourself. Destroying a fertilized egg/fetus when there are no medical problems causing harm to the child or mother is murder in my book. Anything else is just a strawman.

What about plan B? Other than that, my question was more geared toward Catholics, who typically are against birth control. It took them forever to even condone condoms for the purpose of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.

The rape situation is difficult for me to answer. I still think it’s murder and that it’s wrong to do, but regarding law, I honestly don’t know what’s best. I’ve never been raped, and even if I was I’m a male, so I have no ability to empathize with the psychological affects of birthing a rapists child. At the same time, I think birthing the child would be one way to bring good into the world out of a horrible and traumatic occurrence. Again though, I have no idea how such an idea would sit with the woman in question.

Here’s the problem: it’s not just birthing a rapist’s child, it’s carrying it for nine months. I’m going to guess that most abortions of rape pregnancies are very, very early in the pregnancy. (Most abortions in general are that.) I doubt that many, if any to be honest, women have chosen to carry a pregnancy almost to term and then decide at the nine month mark that they can’t have a rapist’s child. To me, to deny that there’s any difference between aborting a viable baby (and it’s fair to call it a baby once it’s viable outside of the womb) and an abortion of a 5-week fetus is totally absurd and dishonest. And by your own admission a pregnant rape victim is “just a strawman,” so I guess I don’t really know why I’m going into this. Also, the Bible, in Numbers 5:22, condones abortion in tests for infidelity so it isn’t even like abortion has anything to do with the Christian religion.

Also, I could tolerate anti-abortion “it’s all murder” people if they at least support very generous welfare-state policies. Oh, and they have to be in favor of comprehensive sex-education in all schools and free birth control and condoms too.

TV’s Frink said:

Everything counts as murder. Actually, I’m reasonably sure if you think about having a kid and then decide not to, that’s murder too. But don’t worry, as long as they accept Jesus later it’s all good.

I’m not done with this one yet. I have a question that I’ve asked people before and have never gotten a real answer from it, and to be fair it only really applies to people that think birth control is wrong and plan B is wrong. Is it also wrong for a woman to not get pregnant (or try to get pregnant) every nine months. Because happening is that those eggs are being wasted and she’s denying potential beings their right to exist.

moviefreakedmind said:

your goddamn ass I do.

You bet your goddamn ass I do.

Maybe. I’ll consider it before I make the final judgement.

I thought Albuquerque was just the fictional city that Breaking Bad took place in.

I disagree. I think you could say that about any identity. Race is different from ethnicity and gender/sex identity. Acting is all about becoming a different character. Making an actor appear to be a different race because you don’t want to hire people of color for a non-white character is offensive and exclusionary, but an actor for any other role is different. An actor pretending to be gay or trans is no different than a gay actor pretending to be a straight character. It’s a lot different. Maybe I’m just taking it personally because Boy’s Don’t Cry is among my favorite movies.

Neglify said:

My fanedit will be titled “$leaze City $howgirls $elling A$$ 4 Cash”. It will be approximately 69 seconds long.

Just make sure there’s a good Saved by the Bell joke in there.

It depressing that it’s empty now though, that’s for sure.

That’s pretty cool. You working on it, that is. I’ve always wanted to have meaningful job.