Gil's abortion comment rubbed me the wrong way - Parenthood (1989) Discussion

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

I agree it was a cop-out answer. But why do you feel it detracts from the movie? I can see Gil saying exactly what he said. She tells him she's pregnant, you can tell he did NOT want to hear that, she brings up abortion, and he doesn't want to be the one to say let's have an abortion so he says it is her choice. I think he was hoping SHE would come to that decision herself and then he would support her.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

But why do you feel it detracts from the movie?

Honestly, I think it was the creators shoving an agenda in my face.

Not to mention, that's probably my "least favorite" scenario for an abortion. I am not pro-choice, but understand there's circumstances where it's the "best solution" for all parties involved.

When someone says a man has no choice in the matter it enrages me. I cannot stand when a women (or a man whose pro-choice) makes it just about 1 person. We let jury's (who are not paid professionals) decide the fate of individuals, but somehow think it's ok for 1 person to decide the fate of this situation? Sorry, but it's not even remotely fair or objective.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

I see where you are coming from but respectfully disagree. It was a cop-out answer on Gil's part and that is how the wife reacts. It was not presented as "it's OK for one person to decide in this situation", it was Gil passing the buck, and getting a deserved negative reaction from his wife for it.

And given that she didn't have an abortion, and the final scene is an orgy of babies, I'd say any agenda this film has is very pro-birth, pro-baby, pro-family, etc.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Gil's reply may or may not have been a cop out but look at it like this. Ultimately what a man thinks or any input he may have is ultimately meaningless to a degree as its the woman who has to make the choice, not the man. Its not a pleasent fact particualrly if you're the man in the situation but its the case in this world wether you like it or not. Yeah, she got upset and arguably you can see why but he could say she shouldn't get an abortion but there was nothing to prevent her from doing so. Apart from the fact that it may have effected their marrige in the aftermath. Men have barely any rights in the matter apart from maybe having a say but in the end they're powerless. I'm not saying this to attack women, i'm not a mysogonist. I'm just pointing out what is a basic fact of life. Maybe what Gil felt was that there was no real point because ultimatly it was her decision although to be fair its another persons opinion that can influrence some one elses choices. So yeah it was a cop out as Gil should have said what he felt even though ultimately there was little he could do.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

Men have barely any rights in the matter apart from maybe having a say but in the end they're powerless.

Words cannot even begin to express how angry this mindset makes me.

We let 12 untrained citizens (jurors) make decisions that affect people's lives. Yet, when it comes to the right of life or not, it's basically down to one person. Arguably the 1 person who might be the least objective about it.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Fact is we do Kuato and George. That IS the way it is. What do you want to do. FORCE them to have the child and then what...where does it end then. Where do you then draw the line? It's not quite so simple. The whole It's there bodies is always going to be a factor wether you like it or not. As an indiviudal man you can't force them to have that child. And technically speaking it Isn't even a life if the mother finds out very early on that she is pregnant. Although you might argue that it just isn't her body but two bodies. One inside the other.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

Fact is we do? What kind of answer is that? For starters I'm not denying it. Additionally, claiming "that's the way it is" isn't any strong support for a stance. It's just a statement of the state of an issue.

"Whether you like it or not" is not an argument. There's nothign in that statement to back up anything at all. It's just a statement.

Murder, rape, corruption, and many other horrible things are going to happen in life. Always. That just is the way it is. I guess nobody should have an opinion about any of it since it's always going to exist though, huh?

If you want to disagree with me, by all means go ahead. I'm not afraid of a little friendly conversation. But this "Oh it's always going to be that way" type of statement is a total cop out.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Well you have a fair point with some of the remarks I made but I did make some kind of attempt to back it up, seems that either you've chosen to ignore it or you got so bent out of shape over my remarks that you didn't notice it.

Fact is, what do you do? You force a woman to have the child against her will. Force her to go through the mind numbing pain etc. But then where do you draw the line? As a man I think its easy for me to expect something of some one of the opposite sex when i will never be in their shoes. Its not an opinion, its a FACT. Yes, we make decisions in a courtoom that have a major influrence on other peoples lives but we don't necesarrily tell someone who might be considered relatively sane what to do with there body. You don't force someone who has a bad knee to have surgery even though it may be in there best interest. I don't necesarrily think abortion is necesarrily the right way to go but if you start forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy it can be twisted in to so many things what we can get an individual to do against their will ie. Having a man have to go through painful surgery so he may still be alive because its in the best interests of his family that they stick around. Can we force a woman to have a baby when she is in already a fragile state that it may very likely not put her at risk during the birth but her child as well? And then you wonder was it all worth it in the end when the child has ended up dying and put her through even more trauma. And what of if a woman has been raped? Who are we condemn her for wanting to rid her self of the child who when it enters the world and some day is going to know where it came from? It's not all black and white you know and believe me it can't be an easy decision to make. Its not all daft young girls who allow them selves to get pregnant. And don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the man isn't partly to blame and doesn't bear any responsibilty. Yes, abortion can and is on many ocassionseen as a get out free card and to be honest it is. But if we start forcing woman to do something physically against their what does that eventually make us as well? Forcing her to have the baby when she's already in a less than stable state and to go through the whole ordeal might be comparable to bullying someone to do something that you disagree with so you MAKE them do it. Like a man forcing his wife to stop smoking against her will. Woman go through birth all the time, yeah but the fact is that some have planned on the pregnancy OR if they've had a baby before they know what to expect already.

I've heard people say it Isn't the fault of the child if a woman is raped but then again it wasn't the fault of the mother either. If anyone is to blame its the rapist. The child wouldn't be their in the first place if she hadn't been raped which in itself is traumatic and because of some peoples principals you allow her to go through another traumatic ordeal. And imagine now if that was a thirteen, fourteen year old girl. You could potentially screwing that poor kids life even more than it already has been. And all so we can uphold our principals when we have one life hasn't even forced it self out of the womb yet!
That child might have a chance but we're possibly giving one life in exchange for another that's become totally screwed up to the extent that the girl may not be dead but might as well be.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

I've heard people say it Isn't the fault of the child if a woman is raped but then again it wasn't the fault of the mother either. If anyone is to blame its the rapist. The child wouldn't be their in the first place if she hadn't been raped which in itself is traumatic and because of some peoples principals you allow her to go through another traumatic ordeal. And imagine now if that was a thirteen, fourteen year old girl. You could potentially screwing that poor kids life even more than it already has been. And all so we can uphold our principals when we have one life hasn't even forced it self out of the womb yet!
That child might have a chance but we're possibly giving one life in exchange for another that's become totally screwed up to the extent that the girl may not be dead but might as well be.

For the record, I've never said people who have been raped should carry out a pregnancy. I've made my stances on abortion clear in my 2nd post.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Fair enough, you have to forgive me as my memory at times Isn't the best in the world and I either don't take certain things in. So i'll apologise for that, that said you haven't covered any of the other points that I made.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

It was not presented as "it's OK for one person to decide in this situation", it was Gil passing the buck, and getting a deserved negative reaction from his wife for it.

It was presented that way by Gil. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

It was presented that way by Gil [it's Ok for one person to decide]. Agreed, not by Karen, but certainly by Gil.

True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.

From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.

I thought they were making it pretty clear (through Gil) about the whole "my body, my choice." But I can also agree Karen presented another POV.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

True, but I thought your issue was that you felt an agenda was being promoted. I don't see that a character saying something is the same as the filmmakers pushing that agenda, especially when it comes across as lame and gets a negative reaction from the character's wife.

From other posts in this thread, you have made it clear that it angers you when someone expresses that mindset, that it's OK for one person (the woman) to decide in this situation. And it made you mad that a character in this movie expresses that mindset. But that doesn't mean that point of view was being pushed on us. That's part of why I watch movies: to see people who think and do things differently from me.

There were two characters in the movie who hinted at having an abortion. First was Martha Plimpton's character. The other was Gil.

While I agree with you that the Karen character, presented another POV, having two character pretty much say "It's the woman's choice and nobody else's" comes off to me like I was being preached to just a bit.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Ah, but did Gil really believe that? He actually seemed kind of sheepish as if he didn't really mean it when he said it. At least he was just uing it as a get out clause so he didn't have to say what he really fealt about the matter. Because if he said what he really fealt it might incur her anger only to find that not saying anything and attempting to pass the buck p*ssed her off even more. Either that or he just didn't want to accept any of the responsibility for the final decision.

I can't remember what Martha Plimpton's character might have said so you'll need to refresh my memory on that one. But some times writers don't necesarrily put things in a movie because that is what they personally believe in as muchtobegratefulfor as stated. Perhaps you've merely misunderstood their intention. And even if it did, alot of films do preach at their audience although some a little more than others. Look at "Philadelphia" for example which while I thought was a good film I thought got a little too heavy handed in its preaching. Although in fairness that was more or less whole point of "Philadelphia" while "Parenthood" I suppose was only supposed to be a comedy drama which wasn't potentially supposed to be making any political point in the first place.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

I think Gil legitimately didn't want the kid. Whether it's because he didn't want another child (expense) or didn't want the responsibility of making the decision, that's debatable (I can agree on that).

Martha Plimpton's character got into a fight with her husband. He storms off and she mentions something about "If he thinks I'm having this child now he's insane>." Or something to that effect. It was once again the whole "Only the woman has a say" thing.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

I think Gil's initial reaction was "NOOOOOOO!" when she told him. Since he later seemed genuinely happy that she was pregnant, I think it was the initial shock of getting this news when he had quit his job.

As for Martha's remark when she gets into a fight with her husband, I think this movie would have been unrealistic if the immature newly-married teens did not at least bring up the subject of abortion. And her making that remark is again, not pushing the "only the woman has a say" agenda. As mentioned above, it was just depicting the reality -- if she wanted to, she could have aborted her pregnancy with no input from him. And I did not see this presented as a good thing; here is this teenager potentially deciding to abort on a whim after a fight with the father.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

Two separate characters push forth the same idea. How is that not a little preachy?

Now I'm not saying I would be as upset if it was a pro-choice statement. I just don't like the "my body, my choice" part of pro-choice. I believe such an important, life-changing decision shouldn't be left up to 1 person.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy? That's potentially not what the writer was attempting to do. Put it like this. If two characters who are villains condone murder does that all of a sudden mean that the writer is trying to preach that it is?

These are fictional situations but based on fact and the writer has possibly thought, well what would more than one individual say or do in the situation. Doesn't mean he or she agrees with it but its what might happen.

Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda. I could write a movie where two characters push foward the idea that capital punishment is ok (something that I'm against), doesn't mean that that's an agenda that I'm pushing.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

You're making the assumption that the writer is being preacy?

I'm assuming they are, you are assuming they aren't. What's the harm?

Personally I think you're being a little narrow minded and not considering that it wasn't being preachy. Its just that two characters have said something that you don't like and you're ready to jump to the hasty conclusion that the writer has had some kind of agenda.

And you're all upset that I said it. So what's the f-cking problem? I said it. I feel that way. You are upset that I said it. What's the big deal?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

You're assuming that they are pushing foward an agenda on very limited and circumstantial evidence. You've made the assumption based on two characters who to be fair make comments that a lot of people in the same or similar situations would make. How is that pushing foward an agenda? I've chosen to point out why I think you're being narrow minded and not considered the fact that they MIGHT not be as has the fellow poster who shares my opinion.

I'm not getting upset just pointing out that I disagree, if any one is getting upset it's your self. Although if I was a writer/filmmaker and somebody made a bold accusation about something that I had written and came to a hasty conclusion I think I would have a right to be upset. Especially when there's really very little to back it up apart from two charcters who happen to make comments that YOU do not like. If any one is making a big deal out of this its your self. Don't get all bent out of shape just because I happen to disagree with you and explain why. You've felat a certain way without considering the alternative which has been suggested to you and yet you still cling on to the belief that you're being preached to. If you disagree then fine, but I'm still going to say in my view that you're being narrow minded.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

I agree. Having 2 people make comments you find similar does not make the movie "preachy". If something was going to be "preached", it would be presented in a positive context. Instead, you have one of the comments made by a immature teenager after an immature fight, the other made by as a cop-out by a married man and taken as such by his wife. If anything, the movie makes the "it's the woman's choice and the woman's choice only" stance look pretty bad.

It bothers you, as you've stated, because characters SAID these things. I don't get upset when characters in movies say things I don't agree with, especially when
a) it is quite plausible that these characters would say that in those situations, and
b) it is not presented in a positive way as I've noted above.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 15 years ago

Sorry, don't see it. In one case, a married man makes a cop-out statement "giving" his wife the choice, when what he wants is for her to make the choice that he wants her to make, without him having to say it.

In the other case, an immature teen girl who is in a relationship with an equally immature teenage boy and pregnant by him, threatens to abort the baby after having an immature fight.

Sorry, I don't see what is "the same idea" being pushed here, other than (news flash) people with unplanned and inopportune pregnancies consider abortion. And when discussing it, say things that you apparently don't approve of.

But that's not preaching. As Gauis notes, depicting something in a movie is not the same as giving it the stamp of approval. There is no evidence that the director/producers agree with what either character thinks. But is it plausible that both characters would say what they said? Absolutely.

The other commonality is that both decide to have the baby, and appear happy they did. If anything is being preached here, it's "have the baby."

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 15 years ago

The other commonality is that both decide to have the baby, and appear happy they did. If anything is being preached here, it's "have the baby."

These are two separate issues that you are combining. They are both related to the same topic, but do not confuse the two.

Whether the character choose to have the baby or not is irrelevent, becasue I'm not disputing they did have the kids.

The outcome and the way they got there are two separate issues. I'm not debating the outcome. I'm not even debating the fact that the characters are seemingly pro-choice (I'm not telling anyone they can't be either). I'm debating over who gets a say - which according to the characters in these situations is only the pregnant party.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

Yes, and you were also debating that the makers of the film were pushing foward an agenda which may have not been the case. And what I have also said is that the father for instance might have a say but ultimately who's decision is it? Gil for instance could have said to Karen he wanted her to keep the baby but who do you think would have had the final say? Noone but the mother ever has the ultimate choice. Wether that's right or wrong I don't know.

reply

[–] CALICOWBOY1017 15 years ago

*8POILER WARNING*

I thought the whole point of that was that it was a cop-out answer on Gil's part. She says to him "Why don't you say what you're really thinking? That I should have an abortion?" He says "I didn't say that. That's a decision every woman has to make on her own," and her response to that is "What are you running for Congress? Don't give me that. I want your opinion." As for pushing an agenda, the scene in the movie raises the issue but it doesn't push an agenda either way, in my honest opinion. The movie does, however, ultimately present parenthood in a positive light, as a "roller coaster" in a way, but the movie, in spite of that one scene, I feel, doesn't present being either pro-life or pro-choice, even though it presents the issue, but it doesn't form a conclusion about that specific topic in general as a whole -- only in the life of that particular character played by Mary Steenburgen.

reply

[–] Gauis-the-wise 15 years ago

*Applauds* Couldn't have put it better my self Coyboy. Nah, I really couldn't lol

reply

[–] lpt0127 15 years ago

chill out..that obviously wasn't how he truely felt..of course he wanted her to have the baby..he was just stressed to the gills (no pun intended) when they were having that conversation...Gil had no game and coulnd't get clients laid like the almighty Phil Richards..so he quit his job..

in the end, everything worked out..they soon had 5 kids..then 6..then had a dozen and pretended they were doughnuts..

reply

[–] byteM3 14 years ago

hrm Killing people is easy...if you can forget the taste of sugar.

reply

[–] Director-21 14 years ago

Honestly, I think it was the creators shoving an agenda in my face.

So a guy who really doesn't want another kid just tossing the abortion decision back to his wife because he also doesn't want her to think of him as the one who wanted her to get an abortion should she keep the baby is shoving an agenda in your face?

reply

[–] Paul_Ke 14 years ago

Gil did not want the kid, but he knew his wife was going to do what she wanted, so he was trying to step out the way. I don't know why Karen even bothered to ask Gil when she had obviously made up her mind already she was going to have it.

reply

[–] livid_86 14 years ago

"I don't know why Karen even bothered to ask Gil when she had obviously made up her mind already she was going to have it."
I wondered the same thing. It's like she was trying to start an argument or something. She had her mind set on having the kid, and it's obviously her decision.

Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BlackHayate 14 years ago

So what would you rather they have done, smack the little thing around & call her a piece of sh!t?

HURHUR THEY LOVE THEIR BABY THEY DIDN'T WANT AT FIRST. DUH-THAT'S PARENTHOOD FOR YA!

You absolute moron.

Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 14 years ago

I don't know why Karen even bothered to ask Gil when she had obviously made up her mind already she was going to have it.

This is actually a really valid point. I guess you could say I was annoyed with bother characters. They're a married couple. I don't see how that decisions shouldn't be up to both of them, but both already had their minds made up.

Visit my movie review site!
http://hesaidshesaidmovies.tripod.com/index.html

reply

[–] soonerpike697 14 years ago

That's Hollywood liberals throwing their agenda in...

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] soonerpike697 14 years ago

Am I prolife? Yeah sure, its not the child's fault that his parents are *beep* morons...

reply

[–] lpt0127 14 years ago

Ok, teabaggers..we get it...

reply

[–] soonerpike697 14 years ago

You truly thought him saying that to his wife who he has three other children with felt authentic? That seems like a pretty *beep* up marriage to me...

reply

[–] rixter 14 years ago

I think Gill was being a total weasel in his response and she knew it.

Gil: That´s a decision every woman
has to make on her own.

Karen: Are you running for Congress? Don´t give me that. l want your opinion about what we should do. Let´s pretend it´s your decision, okay? Pretend you´re a caveman or your father. What do you want me to do?

Gil:l want...l want whatever you want.

Karen: l wanna have the baby.

Gil:Well, great! Let´s have it then. Let´s see how l can screw the fourth one up.
Let´s have five. Let´s have six! Let´s have a dozen and pretend they´re doughnuts.
l´m really happy about the way things are turning out, aren´t you?

You see, he really wanted her to have an abortion but didn't have the balls to say so. This way he could say it was her choice and he didn't have a say.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 14 years ago

You see, he really wanted her to have an abortion but didn't have the balls to say so. This way he could say it was her choice and he didn't have a say.

Completely agreed. He didn't want anything to do with making the call and that bothered me. Be a man. She was asking for your opinion, give it. He didn't give one either way, and pulled this faux "it's your choice" argument.

Visit my movie review site!
http://hesaidshesaidmovies.tripod.com/index.html

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 14 years ago

But I think the dilemma he faced was, what if he did say he wanted her to have an abortion? What if she did it based on him saying he wanted her to. . .and then regretted the decision, and then resented him for it?

Versus if he says (as he did), I want what you want, and if she were to decide on her own that she wanted an abortion. If she later regretted it, at least she wouldn't resent him for telling her to get it.

And since she later finally admits she wants to have the baby, I'm sure he's glad he gave a waffling answer. He'd really be in the doghouse to say he wants her to get an abortion, then have it turn out she wants to keep the baby. The only way a man would be safe in this situation is if the woman wanted the abortion in the first place, hence him giving the answer, "I want what you want."

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 14 years ago

I don't fail to understand his potential dilemma. Life is a series of dilemmas. Man up and make a decision. Especially when your wife asks you to. So many women don't even give a guy the right to have a say, but a wife is different. So when she asks your opinion, you should be a good husband and give it.

Visit my movie review site!
http://hesaidshesaidmovies.tripod.com/index.html

reply

[–] nutsberryfarm 11 years ago

i like her congressman comment. . he should have just said (if he could) 'yes, we can.' like obama.

also, his comment about how he has to hook customers up with hookers to get the job done was a real wtf? too.

'It's time for the human race to enter the solar system.'-Dan Quayle

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HinaElena 13 years ago

From the very beginning, it's made clear that the one thing Gil wants is to be the opposite of his father. Karen asks him his opinion, and to answer the way his father would (ie without considering her feelings). To do so would go against everything Gil stands for, so he simply says it's her choice and walks off. I don't think it has anything to do with the director's personal stance on the issue, but rather the character's own issues.

"I'm sort of having a good time doing the whole vulnerable whore thing."

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 13 years ago

From the very beginning, it's made clear that the one thing Gil wants is to be the opposite of his father. Karen asks him his opinion, and to answer the way his father would (ie without considering her feelings). To do so would go against everything Gil stands for, so he simply says it's her choice and walks off. I don't think it has anything to do with the director's personal stance on the issue, but rather the character's own issues.

Gil quits his job without consulting his wife. That goes directly against what you just described. He's also not shy to offer his input throughout the movie.

I don't even necessarily care what he answer would have been. I just wanted to see one. I was not a fan of the whole cop out approach.

Visit my movie review site!
http://hesaidshesaidmovies.tripod.com/index.html

reply

[–] seanhawke 13 years ago

I agree with you OP.

His answer was spineless and it felt like the movie was trying to say that is the proper way a man should react in that situation.

Gil was shown to be a family man who took responsibility, yet when faced with a discussion on abortion he suddenly turns into some blubbering mess spouting off, "Your body, your choice!" and offers zero input of his own. It was totally unrealistic.

Sean Hawke: I'm the reason you come here.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 13 years ago

I don't know how you get that the movie was saying that this is the proper way a man should react. People to this kind of thing all the time: a character in a movie spouts some anti-Semitic (or whatever) comments, and someone posts saying the movie itself is anti-Semitic, or feel the director must endorse those sentiments, just because they were in a movie. Never mind that it would be realistic in that time and place for that character to make those comments, and the movie is only showing it, not endorsing it.

I also don't agree that Gil's comment was totally unrealistic. Remember, he was just coming home after quitting his job in anger after being passed over for partner. He was stressed and upset before he walked into the house. It was the worst possible time for him to get news of an unplanned pregnancy.

Perhaps on another day, he could have discussed things more rationally, but on THIS day, I find it realistic that he couldn't take one more thing and gave a cop-out answer.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] xcollbabyx 13 years ago

Definitely seems like the OP just feels very strongly about his or her view on abortion so you've perhaps taken this scene very personally. I'm female and didn't get the agenda vibe from this scene at all. But, to each their own.

And, if you are female, it's disappointing that the US consistently witnesses political debates over a woman's ultimate right to have an abortion under any circumstance, and you have the nerve to be angered at the fact that someone would leave the decision up to a woman alone.. Are you kidding?

Also, the comparison of 12 jurors deciding a criminal's fate to this decision is far from apples to apples.

reply

[–] Kuato_and_George 12 years ago

Definitely seems like the OP just feels very strongly about his or her view on abortion so you've perhaps taken this scene very personally.

It isn't about my views on abortion and truth-be-told, I don't have a hard-line stance on the issue. I'm not anti-abortion, but I wouldn't say I'm pro-choice either.

It's about the character being a total p-ssy to the point he played the pro-choice card all because he was too much of a coward to take a stance. What kind of husband does that? Putting that much pressure on your spouse and washing your hands of an issue you not only have a right, but an obligation to contribute an opinion on is totally unacceptable. Tell her you think an abortion would be best or that you want her to have the kid, but to refuse to give an answer is cowardly.

And, if you are female, it's disappointing that the US consistently witnesses political debates over a woman's ultimate right to have an abortion under any circumstance, and you have the nerve to be angered at the fact that someone would leave the decision up to a woman alone.. Are you kidding?

F-ck off with this sh!t. People like you are disgust me. You'll gladly not only take, but expect, a man's help with a child, but if he has an opinion over whether you should have the kid or not, you want nothing to do with him. You're a hypocrite.

reply

[–] EightiesKid 12 years ago

I don't think the movie itself was being pro-abortion at all... since she has the baby in the end, just the opposite. They simply reflected how lots of couples feel in tough situations. Gil was already under lots of pressure, trying to be the best dad he could, when all 3 of their kids needed extra attention (especially Kevin), and the added stress of him quitting his job showed that it wasn't a good time for Karen to tell him she was pregnant.

I agree with previous posters, based on how he reacted ("lets have a dozen and pretend they're donuts!") you could tell he wanted her to have the abortion at the time being, but didn't want to actually say it and sound uncaring.

That's exactly what I love about this movie (and ones like it). Even though it's entertaining and has some funny parts, it really is more serious, and it makes you think by showing both sides of the issue.

What Gil said was no more pro-abortion than saying American History X was pro-racist, when the overall message showed why it isn't good to be racist.

reply