Anyone else seen "Unplanned"?

My wife and I went last night. I found it to be a powerful movie driven by the right to life argument, but was sympathetic to pro life persons. For example in one scene the lead "Abby" was put off by a woman's "git 'er done" attitude, but the movie did not criticize or focus on her. True, teens and young women who had unplanned pregnancies were run though like cattle, yet they were treated sympathetically at the same time. IMO, the movie focused on the lack of informed consent. The central message was the salesmanship used by PP to prevent any of these women from changing their minds. Much like a time share presentation.

Although my wife I are both against abortion, we look at it differently. My take a way is that as gruesome and disgusting as abortion is, the alteration of one's trajectory in life may be a valid consideration. And if you are a participant in a Christian culture, forgiveness is central. And if you aren't you can still forgive yourself. The biggest variable is how you feel about what you have done. Some just move on, some are traumatized, and the rest are somewhere in the middle. Time does heal all wounds.

I would encourage men and women, particularly the younger crowd to see the movie more as a precaution to not get someone pregnant. You can't unsee the ultrasound of the abortion. Men often take advantage of humanity's sex drive and practice unsafe sex with no clue as to the burden a woman may have to face by trusting him. It's her responsibility to look out for herself and make her own decisions on the use of effective birth control.

There was also a segment of the abortifacient, RU-486. Assuming the scene was relatively accurate, I had no idea how rough that was. Not quite easy peasy like we have been led to believe.

Cheers.

Yes, My wife and I saw it last night. It was very well done and well acted. It was a very moving movie. One thing that impressed me was that it was more nuanced and balanced than I expected. All pro-choice movies and TV shows
that I have ever seen always showed Pro-life people as one-demensional cartoon characters. Unplanned didn't do that, the Planned Parenthood people were shown much more well-rounded and weren't demonized. There were times when I
asked myself "Whose side is this movie on?" I never had that experience with pro-choice shows. They are always much more one-sided. Towards the end Unplanned becomes a bit more one-sided.

second thread about this movie, maybe they can be combined?

Peter King said:

second thread about this movie, maybe they can be combined?

Click to expand...

Can we combine all the scores of pro abortion threads too?

eace

The film's content was predictable and isn't going to change minds one way or another. It's just another preach to the choir type flick.

Johnson assisted with one abortion and then became pro-life. There are doctors and other medical personnel who witness abortions on a daily basis who are still pro-choice.

I was present when two of my son's teeth were extracted and I fainted from all the blood. Clearly I'm not cut out to be around surgical procedures.

Yes, medical stuff can be gruesome and it can taint the narrative. I remind pro-life people of that whenever they hand me a plastic, palm sized fetus for comparison. I remind them that they don't actually look that way. They are veiny, transulent blood sacs surrounded by slimy embryonic tissue. Not exactly something you'd want to cradle in your arms as you would an actual baby.

What's the point of this film again??

Oh yeah... that maybe we shouldn't let lay people be in the room during surgical procedures they aren't qualified to understand or perform.

Northern Light said:

The film's content was predictable and isn't going to change minds one way or another.......

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it will change many minds, especially of younger people

KAG2020 said:

I disagree. I think it will change many minds, especially of younger people

Click to expand...

In California parental permission is not needed. Schools have pushed for abortion without parents consent because the parents might wonder who got their daughter pregnant. A teacher, perhaps? A coach? Someone else connected with tne school? Rape? Incest? In California the parents have no parental right to know who knocked up their daughter, nor the circumstances under which it occured.

The staff is thrilled that they also get to counsel “Omerta” as to who did your daughter. They prefer to handle it “in house”.

KAG2020 said:

I disagree. I think it will change many minds, especially of younger people

Click to expand...

Abortion isn't a democratic thing though, it's a medical right as defined by the courts. It doesn't matter if the majority one day come to find it wrong, it's still decided by medical professionals in a medical setting. What part of that is not clear to you?

It won't change young people's minds. First of all young people are smarter than the older generation, in case you haven't noticed yet. The other thing is that abortion is an incredibly divisive topic and people seldom change their minds. Research and countless years of polling shows this.

The data shows that most women would not get an abortion if they got pregnant, but that they would not try to stop another woman from seeking one if it's what they wanted. The film may turn pro-choice people away from getting it for themselves, but most of them were privately pro-life anyway, so again, it's not changing much.

Movies like this are made for pro-life people to rally their base. That's about it. Pro-life people still don't understand the difference between public politics and private ethics. This movie will not change people's politics.

Also the data shows that pro-life people are a dying breed, in terms of politics. The most staunch pro-life people in America are evangelical Christians, and their numbers will be cut in half in the next generation, such that Christians will be a political minority for the first time. When that happens, do you think the GOP will pander to them anymore? Nope. Their loyalties go where the winds of change go.

KAG2020 said:

I disagree. I think it will change many minds, especially of younger people

Click to expand...

The people I know who've seen the movie have all expressed the hope that teenagers will see the film and think twice...and then thrice.

Northern Light said:

This movie will not change people's politics.

Click to expand...

The hope is to change hearts.

nota bene said:

The hope is to change hearts.

Click to expand...

I find shock tactics dishonest.

Nobody's saying abortion is glamorous but it's the end product of a deep relational problem in our society, between men and women. The problem doesn't start with abortion, it ends there.

Like how do you end up needing an abortion if you're in right relation with people and they're in right relation with you? Nobody wants to talk about this beyond calling women sluts who should keep their legs closed.

These films never attempt to dive deeper. They just continue to peddle the same superficial crap that requires shock value and emotional appeals to populism to try and gain points.

I watched a film a while back, whose name I'm forgetting right now. It was mostly from the perspective of evangelicals, but the director remained neutral. They successfully convinced a poor black woman whose children lived in a shack with their grandmother that she should not get an abortion, despite her already having 5 children with two other fathers. After the child was born, the head woman from the church would occasionally stop by to bring food and supplies. When she saw what a burden the extra child was to the already-impoverished family, she herself admitted on camera (without prompting) that it was a really bad situation that made her question what her church was trying to do.

My point? These issues are complicated.

Northern Light said:

I find shock tactics dishonest.

Nobody's saying abortion is glamorous but it's the end product of a deep relational problem in our society, between men and women. The problem doesn't start with abortion, it ends there.

Like how do you end up needing an abortion if you're in right relation with people and they're in right relation with you? Nobody wants to talk about this beyond calling women sluts who should keep their legs closed.

These films never attempt to dive deeper. They just continue to peddle the same superficial crap that requires shock value and emotional appeals to populism to try and gain points.

I watched a film a while back, whose name I'm forgetting right now. It was mostly from the perspective of evangelicals, but the director remained neutral. They successfully convinced a poor black woman whose children lived in a shack with their grandmother that she should not get an abortion, despite her already having 5 children with two other fathers. After the child was born, the head woman from the church would occasionally stop by to bring food and supplies. When she saw what a burden the extra child was to the already-impoverished family, she herself admitted on camera (without prompting) that it was a really bad situation that made her question what her church was trying to do.

My point? These issues are complicated.

Click to expand...

Yes, they are. But now you're preaching to the choir. You think that as a woman, as a mother, I am somehow unaware of just how complicated a pregnancy can be? Think again then.

As for what you call "shock tactics," the movie depicts what an abortion actually looks like. That isn't dishonest. It's graphic.

You're right; nobody's saying abortion is glamorous. :roll:

Northern Light said:

I find shock tactics dishonest.

Click to expand...

But what if they are true.

Do you know what helped stop child labor in America? The first ever big board images during a Congressional debate. These days big graphs and stuff are common behind congressmen making a speech, but a long time ago they were unheard of. The first time they were used in Congress, it was to show pictures of children chained to machines. Needless to say the shock value helped advance laws against child labor. I would say that was a good thing.

And if people were forced to watch what an abortion really is I dare say it would become illegal the next day. I want to know why the truth of what this abominable crime against humanity is has never been shown, uncut, to America. It needs to be. If it is such a great right for women, then why be afraid of showing it.

Northern Light said:

I find shock tactics dishonest.

Nobody's saying abortion is glamorous but it's the end product of a deep relational problem in our society, between men and women. The problem doesn't start with abortion, it ends there.

Like how do you end up needing an abortion if you're in right relation with people and they're in right relation with you? Nobody wants to talk about this beyond calling women sluts who should keep their legs closed.

These films never attempt to dive deeper. They just continue to peddle the same superficial crap that requires shock value and emotional appeals to populism to try and gain points.

I watched a film a while back, whose name I'm forgetting right now. It was mostly from the perspective of evangelicals, but the director remained neutral. They successfully convinced a poor black woman whose children lived in a shack with their grandmother that she should not get an abortion, despite her already having 5 children with two other fathers. After the child was born, the head woman from the church would occasionally stop by to bring food and supplies. When she saw what a burden the extra child was to the already-impoverished family, she herself admitted on camera (without prompting) that it was a really bad situation that made her question what her church was trying to do.

My point? These issues are complicated.

Click to expand...

Did you see the movie? I can tell that you didnt.

Northern Light said:

The film's content was predictable and isn't going to change minds one way or another. It's just another preach to the choir type flick.

Johnson assisted with one abortion and then became pro-life. There are doctors and other medical personnel who witness abortions on a daily basis who are still pro-choice.

I was present when two of my son's teeth were extracted and I fainted from all the blood. Clearly I'm not cut out to be around surgical procedures.

Yes, medical stuff can be gruesome and it can taint the narrative. I remind pro-life people of that whenever they hand me a plastic, palm sized fetus for comparison. I remind them that they don't actually look that way. They are veiny, transulent blood sacs surrounded by slimy embryonic tissue. Not exactly something you'd want to cradle in your arms as you would an actual baby.

What's the point of this film again??

Oh yeah... that maybe we shouldn't let lay people be in the room during surgical procedures they aren't qualified to understand or perform.

Click to expand...

Shabby Abby didn't assist with any abortions. Receptionists do not do that, unless they are also nurses or other trained medical professionals. She's lying.

I obviously hate abortion and see it as a great evil, and I'm sure that the movie is really moving. But this goes to show that the right does not know how to play the media game. If you make an 'anti-abortion movie', people are undecided on the issue or people who are against you on it simply will not got to see it. It doesn't matter how moving or powerful it is, because hardly anybody will pay money to go see a movie which is designed to challenge their deeply held beliefs, and people who are undecided on abortion are likely uninterested in it. This movie will make a lot of money off of pro-life people, and perhaps galvanize them, and that's about it.

If you want to change people's mind, you need to make a piece of media which is just a story, a story which is entertaining to watch on its own, and weave your message into that story. The left is really, really good at this. Look at Star Trek; on the surface it's a ragtag crew of cosmopolitan federation members having adventures in space, but scratch the surface and it's chock full of liberal messaging. That's effective, that will change minds because people who aren't liberals will see it because they are engaged with the story. A good example of conservative media is Lord of the Rings (real, old-school traditionalism, not the capital-worshipping crap that passes for conservatism in the US). It's an engaging story set in a dynamic world, but it reinforces values of romanticism, pastoralism, environmentalism, redemption, rightful authority vs wrongful authority, and the idea of original sin and a fallen world (The One Ring is an amazing allegory for sin).

Scrabaholic said:

Shabby Abby didn't assist with any abortions. Receptionists do not do that, unless they are also nurses or other trained medical professionals. She's lying.

Click to expand...

What got me was her facebook post the night of her epiphany. She was angry because she was not perceived as more valuable to PP and they were disciplining her.


I actually can get that after that she had a change of heart. But it is pretty clear she "changed sides" to be a thorn in her employers side.

I do not think she "saw" anything.If I was a patient and had a non clinical worker come in during a procedure I would be damned pissed.

I just hope she is on a more truthful path now. But her origin story is full of holes.

I accept that she is a believer in the pro-life movement now - however she got there.

I just do not like liars.

Young people today aren't smarter. Back in the day, our schools taught that a person should listen to both sides and than decide for themselves. That view is now dead. Now the Liberals who run the education system believe children should only be exposed to
the 'correct' side of issues (that is their side). Children can go through their whole education, including college, without ever hearing an opposing thought. This does not make the smarter. It makes them ignorant, brain-washed, and intolerant. Young people are only
"pro-choice" because they have only ever been fed lies about abortion.

Scrabaholic said:

Shabby Abby didn't assist with any abortions. Receptionists do not do that, unless they are also nurses or other trained medical professionals. She's lying.

Click to expand...

She wasn't a receptionist; she was the clinic director.

nota bene said:

She wasn't a receptionist; she was the clinic director.

Click to expand...

The clinic director wouldn't do it either.

Scrabaholic said:

The clinic director wouldn't do it either.

Click to expand...

Why would anyone but a doctor or nurse or surgical tech be in the room at the time. Seems like a terrible violation of privacy at a time a woman is most vulnerable. Can you imagine having a pelvic exam and having unneeded staff in the room? I would be pissed.

I take it that you haven't seen the movie. She was asked to assist by operating the Ultrasound machine for the doctor doing the abortion because of a staff shortage. Although she had been a clinic director for eight years, had had two abortions, and had sold
22,000 abortions, she had never seen one. When she saw the unborn baby try to move away from the probe and saw it torn apart, she changed her views.

year2late said:

Why would anyone but a doctor or nurse or surgical tech be in the room at the time. Seems like a terrible violation of privacy at a time a woman is most vulnerable. Can you imagine having a pelvic exam and having unneeded staff in the room? I would be pissed.

Click to expand...

Oh God, me, too. It's bad enough the doctor is in the room for those LOL.

JessCurious said:

I take it that you haven't seen the movie. She was asked to assist by operating the Ultrasound machine for the doctor doing the abortion because of a staff shortage. Although she had been a clinic director for eight years, had had two abortions, and had sold
22,000 abortions, she had never seen one. When she saw the unborn baby try to move away from the probe and saw it torn apart, she changed her views.

Click to expand...

It's bovine excrement. She's not a trained u/s technician. Good grief.