Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
PLEASE NOTE:THE POPE FRANCIS LITTLE BOOK OF INSULTS CAN NOW BE READ AT ITS OWN WEBSITE, click link below: THE POPE FRANCIS LI... -
How is your reply to the survey coming along? I have answered two questions and am nearly ready to hand in the towel. It's s...
-
Over the years on this blog I have offered some commentary on Pope Francis and his bizarre, scandalous and increasingly diabolical pontif...
13 comments:
How many cinemas will show a badly edited shoe-string piece of Tea Party propaganda which is quite possible libellous? Probably not many. Not many are going to show the Communist Party's latest 'The Truth about Land Ownership' or the Nazi Part's 'The Truth about Zionism' either. Because they are all made by mentalists.
Scene by scene let's examine this trailer.
1) It starts with a woman being interviewed. A picture of a baby is visible in the background. She says 'we gave out defective condoms and birth control pills so these girls would get pregnant and need an abortion.' Her testimony is not contextualised, but the advert clearly means to imply that this woman used to work for a sex-ed centre and that the agenda of such centres is to encourage abortion because the clinics make a good profit from it. OK, without seeing the film I can;t be sure here, but I f-ing guarantee that in the film itself, it will be revealed that she did not work for a sex-ed centre, but some wacky pro-life group that gave out defective contraception (or something similar). There is no way that the (implied) claim can be true, firstly, because they would get sued. Secondly, because they make it so ambiguous that you are left to fill in the blanks, while the rest of the trailer is quite explicit about what you are supposed to conclude.
2) A woman, then a man (both will be pro-life spokespeople/politicians allied with the pro-life movement) saying that abortion puts young women in unpleasant situations and induces guilt. OK, so the only solution I can think of is to make a film which intends to heap more guilt on them by defending a confused moral argument. Also, I love the way the guy (unnamed) says 'most women won't tell anyone they had an abortion for [with emphasis] 55 years' - no evidence for that claim though, just something he has made up when the cameras started rolling
3) The confused moral argument. Now we are read a US Senate Report in which doctors etc unanimously state that 'conception is the moment when a new human being, a being that is alive and a member of the human species'. Yes, and when a new biological spider is formed as a member of the same species, and a new biological whale, cat, dog, parrot, or any other species. I think we have known this for quite some time. But she reads it out like it was a recent discovery! What the report does not state, and does not state because no doctor defends it AS A MEDICAL DOCTRINE, is that this evidence has any bearing on our understanding of the significance of human life. Belonging to the human species is a purely taxonomical distinction, it is not an ethical one.
Oh yeah, let's not forget the vox pop of an unnamed source saying 'abortion is the biggest exploitation of women imaginable' (note how ALL their sources are unnamed? Probably because they ALL come from the same political think-tank). Great, so it's not only murder, but it is anti-feminist. This also comes up at the end with the tearful coda 'I can't imagine what abortion does to women, let alone the babies'
To be fair, if the arguments advanced by the anti-abortion sects weren't so laughably flimsy, or reliant upon sappy gimmicks to support the weak arguments [this short trailer includes stereotype, including rolling pictures of a) dead foetuses and b) sentimental shots children playing in meadows to create the zoetrope illusion of a life shattered by abortion] then we may see pro-abortion groups finance films of this quality. The thing is, the arguments advanced against abortion are so patently absurd (or in reality just an appeal to pity) that that will probably not be necessary
She's off again!
Believe me, Magdalena, its nothing compared to the 'women's choice/healthcare' bullshit Planned Parenthood and Marie Stopes put out every year.
Yeah but I just liked the conspiracy theorist undercurrents to both the video (implying that abortion is part of some shady plan to kill for money, which won't actually be pursued in the film itself for fear of the mother of all lawsuits) and your own insinuation that the Odeon/UGC are in on it by refusing to show the film. Or 'The Truth', as it/you rather pretentiously would say (all the bloody time) N.B., are you aware of the irony that your arguments constantly fall into the Stalinist mode of justification ('Truth' with a big T) or is it just an unintended treat for us non-brainwashed?
You're already brainwashed, love.
Like this film will get on at The Odeon!
Yes, exactly, it would be completely inappropriate to show this piece of low budget, poorly edited agit-prop at a family cinema. But you implied that mainstream cinema chains would not touch it because they do not want to 'upset the apple cart' of liberal, decadent yada yada yada (you know the list already).
I am glad now you acknowledge that the reason the Odeon will not show this film is not because they are part of some sinister cabal making money from abortion, but because it is an evidently poor-quality film founded on lies and fear. Like many cults, when reason fails, you need to turn to pity, emotion, and threats to sell your story (just LOOK at those poor traumatised teen abortion victims!)
Piss poor show when a cult, sorry religion, that claims to be the one absolute truth has to get into bed with Protestant American film-makers whose basic agenda is to encourage yahoos to vote for amoral oil barons. But now I am indulging in conspiracy
I don't think it will be refused showing for production reasons, Magdalena.
Remember Farenheit 9/11 or just about any Michael Moore documentary?
Not saying its a conspiracy - just a liberal agenda which is endemic.
Yes, that was a relatively big budget film with high production values and lots of promo, that's why they showed it. They also showed No Greater Love, a documentary about Carmelite Nuns at the cinema in Notting Hill, is that to be taken as a sign of some insidious Catholic conspiracy? Incidentally, did you see that film? It was pretty boring, but one of the nuns was great (the Scottish one). I did have to laugh at the Mother Superior though; the film-maker asked her if she had any fears concerning death, her answer: "[long pause] Yes, I do often think 'what if the atheists are right and there's just a void on the other side' [long pause and a smile] but then I would never know about it, but if I put my faith in God, I can't lose" - I believe she is 'having a bit' on Pascal's wager, but I was amazed that after 40 odd years in a nunnery that was the best argument for the existence of God she could scrape together.
Not a very good film I have to say but the handful of women I know who have had abortions are regretting it 40 years later.
Oh no, Magdalena and her fury again LOL
Pilgrim
Dang Magdalena! You should try and cut your comments down to more digestable bites. I fell asleep halfway through the first tirade.
I think (almost) every one regrets having an abortion; my friends do anyway. Of course one always muses on the 'what ifs'. I do not advocate indiscriminate abortion as an alternative to proper planning, and it is indeed something to be taken seriously. I simply don't think it is murder, and I really do not want to see the law changed so that people who do have abortions are deemed to have committed that crime. It would be legally and morally absurd. We should encourage fidelity and, given that people do not use sex simply as a means of producing children, safe sex.
I was simply observing that these radical neo-Protestant polemical doctrines (which really are just an attempt to get 'common folk' to vote for billionaires) ought not to be invoked when making sober assessments of law
Post a Comment