Film review: October Baby

posted at 8:40 am on March 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

When one hears about a film like October Baby, which deals with the aftermath of a failed abortion and the impact it has on the lives of those affected, certain conclusions about it will emerge before even entering the theater.  People will expect it to preach a pro-life message rather than tell a story.  The film will manipulate characters so that they are neatly divided between evil and good.  Religion will get shoved down the viewers’ throats.  All of the loose ends will get tied up in a neat bow. And all of those conclusions will be … wrong.

October Baby tells the story of a young college student, Hannah (Rachel Hendrix), who has had numerous health issues in childhood but emerged as a generally healthy young adult when supported with proper medical care — at least until she collapses during a school play.  The subsequent medical tests, and the reading of her private journal by her parents, lead to a clash in which she discovers for the first time that she was adopted, and that she survived an abortion at 24 weeks.  Shocked, angry, and lost, Hannah joins her childhood confidante Jason (Jason Burkey) on a quest to find her true identity and some real meaning to her life.

This could have gone the way of a Lifetime movie, or have earnest but second-tier production treatment.  Neither happens thanks to expert handling by co-directors Andrew and Jon Erwin, both of whom have a few years under their belts making values-themed entertainment.  In fact, both leads appeared in their TV movie/pilot Alumni.  The production values in the film are commensurate with theatrical-release drama, certainly on the same level as other romantic dramas for teens.  The story itself provides surprises rather than opting for more feel-good resolutions of some conflicts. Religion comes into the story, but much less than one would imagine.

October Baby isn’t about religion, or even abortion as much as it is about forgiveness and letting go of pain and hurt.  It never crosses over into a strident anti-abortion didactic as one might expect, although the subtext arises once or twice, especially in a heart-rending scene with a surprising performance from Jasmine Guy.  The film tells a story and lets the viewers reach their own conclusions, but it doesn’t go out of its way to condemn anyone — and in one scene, even makes reference to violent protests at abortion clinics.  The film has a point of view, to be sure, but it treats everyone fairly, with the possible exception of a minor romantic rivalry that is the film’s only real one-dimensional device and obvious cliché.

As for the performances, the cast impresses — especially Guy and John Schneider, who plays Hannah’s father and gives the performance of his life.  They are the most recognizable stars in the cast, and both deliver powerful and vulnerable performances.  I was amazed to discover after the film that October Baby is Hendrix’s first theatrical film and only her second credit; it won’t be her last.  Hannah is the emotional center and core of the film, even when she can’t find her own core, and Hendrix captures her beautifully.  However, special mention should be made of Shari Rigby as Hannah’s birth mother, who not only delivers a powerful performance, but also gives an emotional interview during the end credits.  Do not miss it, and be sure to bring your handkerchiefs.

October Baby opens a week from today and is rated PG-13, for “mature thematic material,” which is certainly true.  There isn’t anything in the film to which parents would object, like bad language or nudity, but it’s heavy material for kids and pre-teens.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Do not miss it, and be sure to bring your handkerchiefs.

Looking forward to it.

Electrongod on March 16, 2012 at 8:44 AM

will go see it ….

conservative tarheel on March 16, 2012 at 8:49 AM

John Schneider is a fine actor and isn’t given enough credit because of his Dukes of Hazzard days. He played a excellent Pa Kent in the Smallville series. Sounds like a movie to take time out to see.

itsspideyman on March 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Chick flick.

tommyboy on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I think I’m starting to understand something about conservative thinking right now. Its all about redefining the terms of “extreme,” “political” and “judgmental.” I haven’t seen this film, but Ed seems to be arguing that because no one on screen screams “ABORTION IS MURDER” that somehow it is not a dogmatic pro-life film.

But, as anyone knows, the most insidious forms of messaging are subtle. The entire point of avoiding going over the top is to make the political message of a film more palatable and ultimately, more persuasive. So, we see the usual tropes of the pro-life movement. The idea that abortion is something that needs to be forgiven, rather than a completely legal and acceptable choice. The film is also the pro-life advocates dream by finally allowing the unborn child to speak to and confront the woman who “tried to kill her.” Because, of course, is only these women knew they were actually pregnant and that pregnancy leads to the birth of a child, then they wouldn’t choose to “murder” it.

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I don’t even begin to fathom how being pro-life translates to some people to, “you want to ram your religion down our throats,” or “you want to go back to the coat hanger days” and the meme-de-jour, a war on women. I was reading a post on another site that was in support of abortion where the poster was telling a story of how awful it was her friend had to go through pregnancy only to deliver a deformed baby. The poster said it took the baby 4 days to die. I questioned why she didn’t say the baby lived for 4 days. Is life only valuable when you want it to be?

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 8:54 AM

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

You’re kidding, right?

thebrokenrattle on March 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Like all left-wingers you’re uncomfortable when faced with some basic truths. And when the productin is well done it just makes it hurt that much more for you. And it’s hysterical for your type to complain about “subtle messages” and “indoctrination.” That’s what your cult lives for.

cicerone on March 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Yeah, all those women would be running free in fields of wheat, frolicking, if those damn pro-lifers wouldn’t be shoving guilt in their face….

itsspideyman on March 16, 2012 at 8:57 AM

Margaret Sanger would say this gal (the abortion survivor) is just a “weed”.

Truth be known, this movie is part of the counter culture that we as Conservatives now find ourselves in.

Silent no more, Conservatives.

PappyD61 on March 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

First off, you haven’t even seen the film and you are already morally outraged about its subtle message?

Secondly if people like you were really pro-life you would promote all choices including adoption instead of demanding women exercise their right to kill innocent life. Hypocrite.

Happy Nomad on March 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Indoctrinate girls into NOT exercising their legal right to choose abortion? God forbid they should actually be introspective should they become pregnant and think long and hard before killing their own child? I’m gonna push my daughter’s school for a field trip to the movie. What a great idea! Thanks!

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Truth be known, this movie is part of the counter culture that we as Conservatives now find ourselves in.

Silent no more, Conservatives.

PappyD61 on March 16, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Excellent point. I was literally thinking about that yesterday. How ironic that the Conservatism is the new counter-culture because the Leftists who were hating America in the ’60s are now “the Establishment” in this country, in the government, in the media, and especially in academia. And they are as mindlessly, furiously reactionary as anything they complained about back in the day.

cicerone on March 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

As already evidenced in one of the comments, those who support abortion will scream about the movie – even if it is well done and not preachy. They are obligated to do this for several reasons. First, they simply cannot stand the though of more and more women understanding that abortion is truly killing a baby. It defeats their purpose of encouraging abortion. The second reason is related to the first. The movie shows that the abortion was botched, something pro-abortion people would rather women not think about, and that what resulted wasn’t just a “tumor” or “group of cells” but a baby. A movie like this, as is any pro-life movie no matter how well-done and no matter how subtle, is a threat to those who are pro-abortion.

lukjuj on March 16, 2012 at 9:01 AM

and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not exercise their legal right to choose an abortion.
libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Your screen name and your post…

LOL.

Electrongod on March 16, 2012 at 9:02 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

In the realm of rational thought, as it relates to your comment, second paragraph:

The film is also the pro-life advocates dream by finally allowing the unborn child to speak to and confront the woman who “tried to kill her.” Because, of course, is only these women knew they were actually pregnant and that pregnancy leads to the birth of a child, then they wouldn’t choose to “murder” it.

: you are absolutely correct – that IS how rational peiople think.

People who think like you really stink. You just don’t get it and probably never will, to your eternal detriment. If you people can call a microbe wriggling in a pond (or even on an asteroid), what is it about two organisms coming together to begin the development of a human being that does not make it – LIFE. Hypoctites and murderers. have the child and place it for adaoption if need be. People like us who believe it IS life would gladly raise them.

HomeoftheBrave on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM
You’re kidding, right?

thebrokenrattle on March 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

You said it before I got to!
Legal right to choose abortion? I pray for the day when these helpless murder victims are acknowledged in truth as human beings thereby being allowed to excercise their “legal right” to LIFE.

redlucy on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Ed, is any aspect of the film–acting, production values, writing, etc.–Oscar claiber? Because if they are, I’m thinking we may have a huge controversy ten months or so from now when Hollywood chooses not to give it any nominations.

radjah shelduck on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Secondly if people like you were really pro-life you would promote all choices including adoption instead of demanding women exercise their right to kill innocent life. Hypocrite.

Happy Nomad on March 16, 2012 at 9:00 AM

I didn’t say I was “pro-life” I’m not going to buy into your ridiculous sloganeering to characterize my feelings towards the sanctity of life.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

So you’re upset that the film might persuade (or at least allow for someone to consider that their actions might have unforeseen consequences) a woman to CHOOSE something other than abortion? I thought that’s what the pro-abortion crowd considered their holy grail? IOW’s, one’s right to choose whatever cource of action they wish? Or is it only a proper choice when said course of action leads to a terminated pregnancy? See, that’s the veil that the Choice folks hide behind – while arguing for a choice what they’re really arguing for is a preference for abortion over having a child.

volnation on March 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM

I didn’t say I was “pro-life” I’m not going to buy into your ridiculous sloganeering to characterize my feelings towards the sanctity of life.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

What feelings? Planned Parenthood talking points don’t count as “feelings.”

cicerone on March 16, 2012 at 9:05 AM

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM
You’re kidding, right?

thebrokenrattle on March 16, 2012 at 8:56 AM

No! You know who uses the schools for indoctrination.
Heaven forbid!

KOOLAID2 on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

People like us who believe it IS life would gladly raise them.

HomeoftheBrave on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state? I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Wow, a scene with a priest who appears as if he’s supportive and offering a message of hope and forgiveness. I’ll go see it based on that one clip alone.

Rufus on March 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

So much for the “Abortion should be legal and rare” stand. This read like an “Abortion first and foremost” advert.

OBQuiet on March 16, 2012 at 9:09 AM

So you’re upset that the film might persuade (or at least allow for someone to consider that their actions might have unforeseen consequences) a woman to CHOOSE something other than abortion?

I’m upset that conservatives seem hell bent on slut shaming women at every level of our society: from mandating ultrasounds (including transvaginal procedures) to 24 hour waiting periods, to screaming at women as they enter the door of a clinic, to trying to trick women seeking an abortion that they are entering a clinic when they are, in fact, entering a pro-life advocacy group, to movies where they recreate sick pro-life fantasies of the “baby’s revenge!” All of these things upset me.

But here’s the difference between you and me. I’m not calling for this movie to be banned, I’m sure that there are very few women who see it who already aren’t indoctrinated into the natalist cult called “pro-life.” Its preaching to the converted.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

I didn’t say I was “pro-life” I’m not going to buy into your ridiculous sloganeering to characterize my feelings towards the sanctity of life.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

The fact that you think that women need to be educated that aborting life is their right says all that anyone needs to know about your so-called feelings about the sanctity of life.

Happy Nomad on March 16, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state? I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Lame canard.

American orphanages aren’t filled with infants.

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

So much for the “Abortion should be legal and rare” stand.

I’ve never argued that. Abortion should be legal, easy to access and affordable. I take no stance on how many should occur, however many women need I suppose.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Any October Baby/The Undefeated double features out there? Would be verrry inspirational.

KeninCT on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

So much for the “Abortion should be legal and rare” stand.

Thanks for proving, once again, that the pro-life movement’s concern about children ends within a few months of birth.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Jasmine Guy: the Whitney Gilbert character from the Cosby Show spin-off A Different World.

BuckeyeSam on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state? I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

So this is about population control then? There’s just too darn many of we people so some of us will just have to die/prevent from being born? Eugenics anyone? The Nazi’s used that same argument that some within society weren’t “worth” preserving and as such must be “dealt with”. It’s a slippery slope dude.

volnation on March 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Oops my 9:12 comment is in response to CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:11 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Most of all, it’s a film about forgiveness. That’s how you heal pain–with forgiveness.

RBMN on March 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

John Schneider is a fine actor and isn’t given enough credit because of his Dukes of Hazzard days.

itsspideyman on March 16, 2012 at 8:50 AM

OK, we’ll try not to hold that career choice against him.
:)

Definitely a must-see film!

itsnotaboutme on March 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

I didn’t say I was “pro-life” I’m not going to buy into your ridiculous sloganeering to characterize my feelings towards the sanctity of life.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

That’s because you don’t have any.

ImmigrantConservative on March 16, 2012 at 9:14 AM

…have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system…

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

This is a sorry justification for killing more babies. I really don’t believe that if more women faced the truth of what abortion is the orphanages would be busting at the seams. I think it actually might have a profoundly positive impact on society by these girls thinking about consequences before engaging in sex. Abortion is too casual. It diminishes women and gives them a disconnect between their womb and their offspring.

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Wow, you really are a hate-filled troll, aren’t you.

You are reasoning that orphans and children in need are the onus of the right-wing because if we all felt like you, any inconvenient life would be snuffed out by some butcher in a Planned Parenthood abortion factory. I don’t think you even realize how warped your views are.

Happy Nomad on March 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state?

Since you believe killing kids is the answer to these problems, will you be visiting an orphanage with an M-16 soon?

I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved!

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Pro-lifers adopt far more kids than pro-abortionists.

itsnotaboutme on March 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Thanks for proving, once again, that the pro-life movement’s concern about children ends within a few months of birth.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

This coming from a person whose view wouldn’t even allow that child to exist in the first place. Pot meet kettle.

ImmigrantConservative on March 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I think I’m starting to understand something about liberal thinking right now. Any point of view that does not conform to a liberal’s narrow-minded perspective is illegitimate and can therefore be dismissed as “indoctrination” or “propaganda.” We saw this in the sneering reviews of “Act of Valor” and libfreeordie’s comments will no doubt be echoed several times in reviews of this movie as well.

Just a reminder of how tolerant the left is… but only of people who think, say, and do exactly as they do.

Shadow on March 16, 2012 at 9:18 AM

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Happy Nomad on March 16, 2012 at 9:15 AM

volnation on March 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM

This was the comment my “oh American orphanages are empty then?” responded to.

People like us who believe it IS life would gladly raise them.

HomeoftheBrave on March 16, 2012 at 9:03 AM

Clearly not enough prolifers will/are.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:19 AM

. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I’ll bet that’s not your fear. You know the public school system will not allow another view to inform the youth.

No, your fear is that you are wrong about your views on abortion and therefore you won’t go see this movie.

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Pro-lifers adopt far more kids than pro-abortionists.

itsnotaboutme on March 16, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Congratulations. But adoption is still extremely rare. Most people, including the vast vast majority of pro-lifers, are unwilling to adopt kids. They don’t feel they could love a child who wasn’t their biological own. Believe me. If pro-lifers truly wanted to show their committment to ending abortion for the sake of the child, then every pro-life married couple would adopt regardless of race, age, health issues of the child. But, since we know that being pro-life isn’t actually about kids, but about shaming women who have pre-marital sex adoption rates remain low.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Here’s what I don’t get about people like libfreeordie, or liberals in general for that matter when it comes to abortion. They always jump on the whole “I should be free to do whatever I like” argument, especially when it comes to sating their apparently insatiable sexual satisfaction. This is all well and good I suppose, especially since one of the main planks of the pro-choice platform is that “mistakes happen.” Again, this is also well and good, but do they forget what the essence of a mistake is?

Isn’t a mistake a realization of something that did not happen as intended? A condom breaking is a mistake, user error is a mistake; but that mistake not only points to what should have occurred, it also does not negate the set of circumstances that come from making a mistake. Your choice to have casual sex is your right as an individual but it never negates the circumstances that stem from any mistakes that occur. Liberals need to accept the circumstances that accompany a mistake, namely that the circumstances that inevitably come in the pursuit of free love are never negated no matter how hard they try to re-define them.

Start accepting your mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions. If you can’t do that, then you clearly aren’t responsible enough to engage in the activities that lead to “mistakes” either.

ImmigrantConservative on March 16, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Thanks for proving, once again, that the pro-life movement’s concern about children ends within a few months of birth.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Um, no. It was a response to one of many illogical “pro-choice” arguments: the fact that older children are in the foster care system somehow proves that Americans don’t adopt infants.

Equally funny is that you are making this argument against a father of two adopted children.

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state? I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

I am raising my 4 year old grandson because my daughter, to her credit, could not kill him. You don’t want that “burden” so you would council a young mother to kill a baby.

The family used to help with raising a child but because of people like you, that is no longer the case.

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Start accepting your mistakes and taking responsibility for your actions.

Like by having an abortion? Great! We will!

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Just commented on this last night. This Conservative Family tried to adopt either infant or child just within the last decade. After a half year in the MAPP Classes and foster program, my family was unfit because I was still in the Army and deploying for OIF, OEF. This canard that pro-life families don’t do enough is bull. You want to see results in getting these children in homes, remove a couple hundred layers of bureaucracy.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Thanks for the review Ed, I’ll add it to my list of movies to watch. I can see from the comments before me that the battle of ideas wages on. It is interesting that the journal of biomedical ethics recently posted something about the next logical step in abortion being after birth abortion. I would link to the actual article but they removed it. http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/02/it-is-not-surprising-that-peter-singer-is-no-longer-alone-in-advocating-infanticide.html Pretty scary when you consider life an inherent God given right. When one has the perspective of rights being granted by government, those rights cease to be unalienable.

Imrahil on March 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Congratulations. But adoption is still extremely rare. Most people, including the vast vast majority of pro-lifers, are unwilling to adopt kids. They don’t feel they could love a child who wasn’t their biological own. Believe me. If pro-lifers truly wanted to show their committment to ending abortion for the sake of the child, then every pro-life married couple would adopt regardless of race, age, health issues of the child. But, since we know that being pro-life isn’t actually about kids, but about shaming women who have pre-marital sex adoption rates remain low.

Your narrow-mindedness and arrogance seem to have no limit whatsoever. You can re-direct all you want, but the issue with abortion is about the life of that baby in the womb, not what YOU say it is. I spent 40 minutes looking at my 19 week old baby in a sonogram yesterday, only a vile disgusting person would attempt to kill a human being, especially one so vulnerable and helpless.

ShadowsPawn on March 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If pro-lifers truly wanted to show their committment to ending abortion for the sake of the child, then every pro-life married couple would adopt regardless of race, age, health issues of the child. But, since we know that being pro-life isn’t actually about kids, but about shaming women who have pre-marital sex adoption rates remain low.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

My ex and I took in a young teen. We wanted to keep her, but they found a relative who wanted her. My current and everlasting husband, and his ex, adopted a little boy who would have been shunned in the foreign country he came from because he is black/asian. A lot of pro-lifers do the same. People who can’t adopt for various reasons, including the cr@ppy economy, contribute in different ways.

All the pro-choice people have to show for their efforts is death. Have you ever considered that terminating one baby doesn’t end with that baby? All the generations that would have followed from that baby are eliminated as well. That’s the legacy of the pro-abortion movement.

Lightswitch on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Like by having an abortion? Great! We will!

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Wow, just wow.. such enlightenment. Please keep talking – would love to see how far down your throat you can shove your foot.

ImmigrantConservative on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

The family used to help with raising a child but because of people like you, that is no longer the case.

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Oh I’m the reason? I’m the one who caused the massive structural shifts in our economy that make it less likely children live near family support networks? I’m the reason parents waited later to have kids in order to fulfill career goals (upward mobility is a conservative value isn’t it) but as a result are less available to help with a potentially unwanted child? I’m the one who’s created this weird cultural phenomenon where parents believe that a two person nuclear family, with little outside influence or help, is the only way to be a real family and that if they reach out to others for help they are a failure? I caused all of that. I didn’t know I was so awesomely powerful.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Hey libfreeordie, why is that all pro-choice folks like yourself have conveniently been born already?

ImmigrantConservative on March 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Any October Baby/The Undefeated double features out there? Would be verrry inspirational.

KeninCT on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Why do you come to this site? You don’t add anything to the conversation. It seems you just like to make an ass of yourself for the sake of making an ass of yourself. I think the only thing that inspires you is being nasty and petty. It’s kind of sad.

Night Owl on March 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

First off, as another poster said, American orphanages and the foster system aren’t filled with babies. I greatly respect and admire the parents who do foster and adopt from “the system.” These kids have been through hell, and I know myself well enough to know that I would not be able to parent them properly.

Secondly, adopting a child is not easy, short, or cheap (nor should it be, quite frankly). The waiting time for a baby of any race or gender is on average two to five years. Sure, some adoptions take longer, some happen right away. But the wait time and scarcity of domestic babies is the main reason why Mrs. Crazy Legs and I are going overseas to adopt.

If more prospective mothers were open to the CHOICE of adoption, there would be more than enough parents willing and able to step up and raise these children.

crazy_legs on March 16, 2012 at 9:33 AM

All the pro-choice people have to show for their efforts is death. Have you ever considered that terminating one baby doesn’t end with that baby? All the generations that would have followed from that baby are eliminated as well. That’s the legacy of the pro-abortion movement.

Lightswitch on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Seriously? If Europeans hadn’t wiped out millions of native Americans then there would’ve been more of them around too. But I don’t see pro-lifers mourning those deadly campaigns. But now women who get an abortion are supposed to think of the mighty generations who would’ve come from their loins had they just sucked it up and become parents when they weren’t ready? You people are just weird.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Congratulations. But adoption is still extremely rare. Most people, including the vast vast majority of pro-lifers, are unwilling to adopt kids. They don’t feel they could love a child who wasn’t their biological own. Believe me. If pro-lifers truly wanted to show their committment to ending abortion for the sake of the child, then every pro-life married couple would adopt regardless of race, age, health issues of the child. But, since we know that being pro-life isn’t actually about kids, but about shaming women who have pre-marital sex adoption rates remain low.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Oh holy fecal matter! For your own benefit, please stop, because your ignorance would be hilarious if it weren’t so appalling.

At any given time, there are several million families waiting to adopt. Right now, many adoption agencies are not accepting new families because their waiting lists are so long.

And you speak about it flippantly, as if adoption is as easy as walking up to the display case at WalMart and saying, “I’ll take two, please.” The fees alone are well beyond the reach of many families.

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:36 AM

I’m not going to suffer another whole thread of this professional unemployed troll spewing it’s progressive talking points and cliches. The bottom line is it can’t even tell the truth about itself, let alone make an honest observation about us. Why it gets so much attention is beyond me.

It’s as if someone sent the most inept representative of the opposition view for the lion cubs here to bat around like a mouse.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Oh I’m the reason? I’m the one who caused the massive structural shifts in our economy that make it less likely children live near family support networks? I’m the reason parents waited later to have kids in order to fulfill career goals (upward mobility is a conservative value isn’t it) but as a result are less available to help with a potentially unwanted child? I’m the one who’s created this weird cultural phenomenon where parents believe that a two person nuclear family, with little outside influence or help, is the only way to be a real family and that if they reach out to others for help they are a failure? I caused all of that. I didn’t know I was so awesomely powerful.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Yes! You are the reason.

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

You people are just weird.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Says the person that advocates killing defenseless babies in the womb.

ShadowsPawn on March 16, 2012 at 9:38 AM

It’s as if someone sent the most inept representative of the opposition view for the lion cubs here to bat around like a mouse.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Well stated.

ShadowsPawn on March 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Vince, I know first hand a couple of women, girls at the time, who were teenage, pregnant, and the parent of the pregnant teen stepped in. Not only did the grandparent raise the child, they taught the mom how to be a parent too. I applaud you. You are right. This is what more families should be doing.

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Thanks for proving, once again, that the pro-life movement’s concern about children ends within a few months of birth.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Shut up freak. Don’t even try to say you sick pukes have any concern for anyone. The entire march towards communism in this country has done nothing but enrich the left with taxpayer money and power. You pukes keep people in poverty and blame the right. You kill children then bleat hogwash about “concern”. The government should have no role in society’s business. Get out of our lives you twisted sicko.

If … if, you bastards actually did care about anyone you’d spend your own damn money helping them. But you don’t. You use the power of government to forcibly take from people then pat yourself on the back for being so “concerned”.

darwin on March 16, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Vince, I know first hand a couple of women, girls at the time, who were teenage, pregnant, and the parent of the pregnant teen stepped in. Not only did the grandparent raise the child, they taught the mom how to be a parent too. I applaud you. You are right. This is what more families should be doing.

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Seconded here Vince. What your family did is the reality to the cliche.

hawkdriver on March 16, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Here’s a joke for libfreeordie:

A well-dressed, attractive, and rich man goes into a bar and, walking up to the first attractive woman he sees, says “Would you have sex with me for $2 million?”

“Of course” says the woman.

The man then says “Would you have sex with me for $10?”

The woman says “Of course not! What kind of woman do you think I am?”

“My dear,” replied the man, “we’ve already established the kind of woman you are, now we’re just haggling on price.”

Your statement that you don’t care how many abortions are performed just so long as there is easy access to them reminded me of that joke. One life lost is too many and your main concern is how easy it is to obtain. We know what kind of person you are from that statement, I guess we’re just haggling on how many lives would be too many for you (if such a number exists).

Rufus on March 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Can’t remember…were they upset about Juno too?

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:44 AM

If Europeans hadn’t wiped out millions of native Americans then there would’ve been more of them around too….
libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Holy cow……

BigWyo on March 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

Oh I’m the reason? I’m the one who caused the massive structural shifts in our economy that make it less likely children live near family support networks? I’m the reason parents waited later to have kids in order to fulfill career goals (upward mobility is a conservative value isn’t it) but as a result are less available to help with a potentially unwanted child? I’m the one who’s created this weird cultural phenomenon where parents believe that a two person nuclear family, with little outside influence or help, is the only way to be a real family and that if they reach out to others for help they are a failure? I caused all of that. I didn’t know I was so awesomely powerful.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Note all of the excuse making here. This lib’s only solution is the final solution.

There are many ways to shoulder responsinility and all of them are harder than killing a child.

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Polling of adoption agencies suggests that there are an estimated two million families waiting for adoptions, or about 40 for every one child adopted (~50,000 adoptions in the US each year).

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Congratulations. But adoption is still extremely rare. Most people, including the vast vast majority of pro-lifers, are unwilling to adopt kids. They don’t feel they could love a child who wasn’t their biological own. Believe me. If pro-lifers truly wanted to show their committment to ending abortion for the sake of the child, then every pro-life married couple would adopt regardless of race, age, health issues of the child. But, since we know that being pro-life isn’t actually about kids, but about shaming women who have pre-marital sex adoption rates remain low.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You must be very young and very, very ill-informed not to know how much more difficult it is to adopt now than it was before Roe vs Wade, due to the fact that there are more people wanting to adopt than there are babies to adopt. Adoption is not rare at all. You apparently know nothing about Crisis Pregnancy Centers or Nurturing Centers, just to name two organizations that deal with adoption all the time.

shaloma on March 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Polling of adoption agencies suggests that there are an estimated two million families waiting for adoptions, or about 40 for every one child adopted (~50,000 adoptions in the US each year).

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2? People want pseudo reproduction, not adoption.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Holy cow……

BigWyo on March 16, 2012 at 9:45 AM

libfreeordie is an advocate of critical race theory. libfreeordie is a confirmed racist. Everything libfreeordie talks about, or does revolves around race.

libfreeordie is Al Sharpton Junior.

darwin on March 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM

I think I’m starting to understand something about conservative thinking right now. Its all about redefining the terms of “extreme,” “political” and “judgmental.”

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

That’s called projection. Welcome to the 21st century, since us conservatives have been same this about you liberals for years.

I haven’t seen this film, but Ed seems to be arguing that because no one on screen screams “ABORTION IS MURDER” that somehow it is not a dogmatic pro-life film.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Ed said no such thing. He said it is not a pro-life protest movie. Instead they deal with the subject in a more subtle and heart wrenching manner.

But, as anyone knows, the most insidious forms of messaging are subtle. The entire point of avoiding going over the top is to make the political message of a film more palatable and ultimately, more persuasive. So, we see the usual tropes of the pro-life movement. The idea that abortion is something that needs to be forgiven, rather than a completely legal and acceptable choice. The film is also the pro-life advocates dream by finally allowing the unborn child to speak to and confront the woman who “tried to kill her.” Because, of course, is only these women knew they were actually pregnant and that pregnancy leads to the birth of a child, then they wouldn’t choose to “murder” it.

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I certainly hope no one is fooled. But only a fool would write with such high concern over pro-life issues as somehow being subversive. We aren’t pretending there is no agenda. Again, you are projecting. I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but just about all pro-lifers are ready, willing and able to have this debate anywhere at anytime.

NotCoach on March 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2? People want pseudo reproduction, not adoption.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Who knows? Perhaps they should be aborted too?

Vince on March 16, 2012 at 9:51 AM

You apparently know nothing about Crisis Pregnancy Centers or Nurturing Centers, just to name two organizations that deal with adoption all the time.

shaloma on March 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

The Catholic Church runs adoption centers … except in Massachusetts where you freaks ran them out. Your concern for children is very underwhelming.

darwin on March 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2?

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

How many children who would otherwise be aborted are born over the age of two?

CDeb on March 16, 2012 at 9:52 AM

shaloma on March 16, 2012 at 9:48 AM

Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be directed to you but the sicko lib freak.

darwin on March 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

They don’t feel they could love a child who wasn’t their biological own.

Wow… just… wow…

It must really suck to have your outlook on life.

crazy_legs on March 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

I may have mentioned this on another thread.

But you really are a idiot.

HumpBot Salvation on March 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

Seriously? If Europeans hadn’t wiped out millions of native Americans then there would’ve been more of them around too. But I don’t see pro-lifers mourning those deadly campaigns. But now women who get an abortion are supposed to think of the mighty generations who would’ve come from their loins had they just sucked it up and become parents when they weren’t ready? You people are just weird.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM

Lolz. Seriously? Of course it’s lousy that Indians were killed. It’s lousy that Europeans were killed. What the he(( does that have to do with killing one’s own baby? I notice you had nothing to say about my actual post, since it disproves your rant about pro-lifers not caring about babies after they are born.

But now women who get an abortion are supposed to think of the mighty generations who would’ve come from their loins had they just sucked it up and become parents when they weren’t ready?

Generations don’t have to be “mighty” to deserve to exist. I was making the point that ending one life ends many more than one. As for parents using abortion because they are not ready…dear God, that’s a lame excuse to kill your own kid. What incredibly selfish people leftists are. Except with other people’s money of course.

Lightswitch on March 16, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Sorry, that wasn’t meant to be directed to you but the sicko lib freak.

darwin on March 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM

LOL, I kind of gathered that!

shaloma on March 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

It must really suck to have your outlook on life.

crazy_legs on March 16, 2012 at 9:55 AM

you really are a idiot.

HumpBot Salvation on March 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM

dual threadwinners.

redmama on March 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Oh, have American orphanages been emptied by eager pro-life advocates? Do we no longer have/need a foster care system in any state? I didn’t realize that pro-lifers were even willing to adopt, let alone that the problem had been solved! Guess I’ve been spending too much time in reality.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:06 AM

How come we don’t round up the homeless and exterminate them? How come we don’t install gas chambers in all emergency rooms? How come we don’t implant cyanide capsules in all newborns so they can instantly commit suicide when the going gets tough? Why exactly is death an acceptable solution in one instance but unacceptable in all others?

I would personally rather we have 50 million orphans instead of 50 million dead babies, because killing babies solves nothing.

NotCoach on March 16, 2012 at 9:59 AM

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:22 AM

You need to stop reading reallybadliberaltalkingpoints.com. Many families want to adopt for a variety of reasons, but the number of children available for adoption has decreased dramatically since the 1970s. International adoptions have been skyrocketing as a result.

There really is no more tread left on these extremely tired liberal talking points.

NotCoach on March 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2? People want pseudo reproduction, not adoption.

And now you’ve revealed the truth about yourself – you’re simply an ass.

crazy_legs on March 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

But, as anyone knows, the most insidious forms of messaging are subtle. The entire point of avoiding going over the top is to make the political message of a film more palatable and ultimately, more persuasive. So, we see the usual tropes of the pro-life movement. The idea that abortion is something that needs to be forgiven, rather than a completely legal and acceptable choice.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Why are you assuming that she is forgiing her mother for trying to abort her? Maybe she is forgiving her for giving her up for adoption. Once again you make assumptions without knowledge…typical for you.
As for your comments about unadopted children, there are many reasons but one of the major ones is its difficulty. Yes it should be a careful process but currently it is self-defeating. That’s why so many turn to over-seas adoptions. I know several couples with more than substantial credentials who waited two to three years for any American child and eventually decided to adopt overseas.

Deanna on March 16, 2012 at 10:12 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2? People want pseudo reproduction, not adoption.

No, what people want is a child without having to go through the stage where he/she wakes them up 5x during the night and needs diaper changes every other hour.

And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

MelonCollie on March 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

How come we don’t round up the homeless and exterminate them? How come we don’t install gas chambers in all emergency rooms? How come we don’t implant cyanide capsules in all newborns so they can instantly commit suicide when the going gets tough?

Please, don’t give them any more ideas. Sadly, I can’t use a sarcasm tag with that.

Lightswitch on March 16, 2012 at 10:15 AM

And how many unadopted children over the age of 2? People want pseudo reproduction, not adoption.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM

Are you talking about the ones you welfare queens keep to get free stuff from the government, abuse and neglect for awhile before they are taken away from you by child services? Sweeping generalizations suck, don’t they?

Night Owl on March 16, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The new trolls on this blog are like parodies of themselves.

NoLeftTurn on March 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM

“I think I’m starting to understand something about conservative thinking right now . . .”

- libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

No.
You think incorrectly.

But you are to be commended for saying that you are trying to.

TimBuk3 on March 16, 2012 at 10:41 AM

My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

Yes, abortion is legal. But no, it is rarely “acceptable” and should not be for many reasons not least of which is that it is the one area in the law that I know of where one person (mother) is permitted to take the life of another (fetus) for the mother’s convenience. That is depraved.

So as to this comment, my hope is that films like this will promote an understanding that a life is at stake and help teach young girls that procreation is a gift not a burden and that their bodies are temples not playgrounds (the collected wit and wisdom of Meghan McCain notwithstanding). We will all be better off if we can restore a sense of humanity to what our schools teach instead of the present indoctrination that “it’s all good, so do it all.”

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on March 16, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Because, of course, is only these women knew they were actually pregnant and that pregnancy leads to the birth of a child, then they wouldn’t choose to “murder” it.

No one is fooled. My only fear is that this movie will find its way into the public school system and further indoctrinate girls into believing that they should not excercise their legal right to choose an abortion.

libfreeordie on March 16, 2012 at 8:51 AM

Saying that you sicken me is the grandest possible understatement.

Hawkins1701 on March 16, 2012 at 11:15 AM

That a liberal would “fear” that this movie would convince anyone not to have an abortion? That says enough right there about the liberal mindset to me.

gryphon202 on March 16, 2012 at 11:21 AM

I spent 40 minutes looking at my 19 week old baby in a sonogram yesterday, only a vile disgusting person would attempt to kill a human being, especially one so vulnerable and helpless.

ShadowsPawn on March 16, 2012 at 9:31 AM

I’m pleased that you are expecting, but you need to be careful who you call vile. Some of us made a tragic decision when we were young that we deeply regret and torture ourselves over to this very day.

GeorgiaBuckeye on March 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

You need to stop reading reallybadliberaltalkingpoints.com. Many families want to adopt for a variety of reasons, but the number of children available for adoption has decreased dramatically since the 1970s. International adoptions have been skyrocketing as a result.

There really is no more tread left on these extremely tired liberal talking points.

NotCoach on March 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Also worth mentioning, Roe V. Wade was decided in 1973. Coincidence? Perhaps, but I think not.

gryphon202 on March 16, 2012 at 11:24 AM

I’m pleased that you are expecting, but you need to be careful who you call vile. Some of us made a tragic decision when we were young that we deeply regret and torture ourselves over to this very day.

GeorgiaBuckeye on March 16, 2012 at 11:22 AM

This is why liberals should be ashamed. They want women to make this choice while being in denial about what they are doing. When I was younger I never gave this issue a thought. I could have easily been one of these women. I look at my son today and realize what a horrible mistake it would have been to selfishly take his life for my own convenience. I feel for any woman who made this choice only to later fully understand what they have done.

dmn1972 on March 16, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2