Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Why Doesn’t Hollywood Emphasize Abortions More?

That’s the rather ghoulish question asked by the New York Times:

But in another way, both movies go out of their way to sidestep real life. Nearly two-thirds of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion, data from federal surveys shows. Yet Jenna in “Waitress” is more likely to ponder selling the baby than to consider having the procedure. And Alison, who has just been promoted to her dream job as an on-camera television personality and asked to lose 20 pounds, is torn over whether to keep the man, not the baby.

The possibility of not having the baby is never discussed by either woman despite her circumstances. The word “abortion” is never uttered.

Could it be because Hollywood doesn’t want to turn a “good guy” female character into a “bad guy” by having her shirk her parental responsibility by murdering her unborn child in a disgusting medical procedure?  That seems obvious, even to those in Hollywood:

“It’s one of those topics that would alienate a portion of the audience no matter what you do,” Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, said of Hollywood’s reluctance to tackle abortion more realistically.

Perhaps directors of feel-good movies don’t want to risk portraying their heroines as unsympathetic characters.

Jonathan Kuntz, an American film history professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that for the entertainment industry, “It’s a no-win situation.”

Of course it is.  Abortion is always a no-win situation.  It kills the baby and turns the doctor/mother into the killers.  And despite all the rhetoric from the left about how “courageous” women are who go through the procedure, when confronted with the reality of the situation on the big screen (a mother choosing shirk the consequences of her own actions at the expense of her baby’s life) audiences just aren’t going to be sympathetic.

Comments

Avatar for Dave

Why Doesn’t Hollywood Emphasize Abortions More?

Because they don’t want to offend conservatives.

Similarly, what color was George Washington’s white horse?

Dave on June 13, 2007 at 11:04 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

They don’t want to offend people who think abortion is disgusting.

Which is a significant portion of the population, clearly, else they wouldn’t be doing it.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on June 13, 2007 at 11:28 am
Avatar for Dave

They don’t want to offend people who think abortion is disgusting.

Yet every year they release 10,000 movies about actual murderers. Do people find abortion that much more disgusting than the murder of actual persons?

Of course not. Hollywood chooses not to emphasize the one form of murder that specifically upsets conservatives.

Dave on June 13, 2007 at 11:36 am
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Shooting a bad guy, or movies depicting serial killings and random violence, still don’t quite rise to the emotional level of a mother offing her child while still in the womb.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on June 13, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Abortion isn’t courageous.  And it’s obvious since “nearly two-thirds of unwanted pregnancies end in abortion.”

The courageous move is done by the one-third of those mentioned that raise the child regardless of inconvenience or those who put their child up for adoption to the millions of U.S. couples who are waiting for a child.

That’s courageous.


Fileitunder.com

Hoodlumman on June 13, 2007 at 01:15 pm
Avatar for Dave

The courageous move is done by the one-third of those mentioned that raise the child regardless of inconvenience or those who put their child up for adoption to the millions of U.S. couples who are waiting for a child.

Common Good before the Private Good, as I always say.
Dave on June 13, 2007 at 02:43 pm
Rob
Rob
17185 comments
Send a private message

Common Good before the Private Good, as I always say.

Right.  Because finding children homes that want them is socialist, and not preferable to just killing them because they’re inconvenient.


The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on June 13, 2007 at 02:47 pm

Common Good before the Private Good, as I always say.

What an absolute crock!

To be sure, you are entitled to establish your personal priorities as you see fit… but then all of us are also so entitled.  Just don’t try and foist that smarmy altruism off on the rest of us.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on June 13, 2007 at 03:11 pm
Avatar for Dave

Bat:

To be sure, you are entitled to establish your personal priorities as you see fit… but then all of us are also so entitled. Just don’t try and foist that smarmy altruism off on the rest of us.

I assume that was directed towards Hoolumman, yes?

Rob:

Because finding children homes that want them is socialist

Children might have a preference on which home they live in, but I can guarantee you that fetuses don’t care either way.
Dave on June 13, 2007 at 04:24 pm

Dave,

No.  Actually I had you in mind the whole time.


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on June 13, 2007 at 05:10 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.