Jim Caviezel: ‘I just don’t see abortion as helping women.’
by Big Hollywood
Catholic Digest has a fascinating interview with Jim Caviezel, star of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” Here’s an excerpt:
This guy I know said, ‘You’re pro-life. Tell you what, if you really believe in what you speak, adopt a child — not any child, he’s got to have a serious deficiency,’ (and I will become pro-life). He never changed his (position), but it convicted me. I don’t think he thought I would step up to the plate.
I was listening to Johnny Mathis the other day and I said, “What an amazing voice.” I have yet to hear another person sound like Johnny Mathis. How are we so arrogant to think the 51.5 million babies who have died in this country… Look, I am for helping women. I just don’t see abortion as helping women. And I don’t love my career that much to say, “I’m going to remain silent on this.” I’m defending every single baby who has never been born. And every voice that would have been unique like Johnny Mathis’. How do we know that we didn’t kill the very child who could have created a particular type of medicine that saves other lives?
There’s much more about both “Soraya M.” and “The Passion of the Christ.”
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
177 Comments
It would be interesting to know (from God's perspective) what so many of these children could have done for the world that weren't given the chance.
Honorable man. Quite rare, now a days.
I'm a guy…. but you gotta love this guy! Please, please put him in more movies, I thought he was superbly cast in the "Passion". Now I reckon I gotta see "Soraya M." too. Actually, I feel kind of bad I haven't yet come to think of it.
Caviezel is one heck of a good guy. It's amazing he hasn't been publicly stoned by the tolerant left on the Sunset Strip for his "crazy views". I think any reasonable person can agree with his statement. Even a pro-abortion activist must admit his assertion is correct and the only answer is that that's the "choice" the would -be mother makes and she has to live with that choice forever.
Just because we can, does not mean we should.
I always scratch my head at people who think pro-lifers must take care of children pro-aborts don't want or don't think are desirable. Uh, why? It's still just absconding responsibility. In any case, many pro-life people do adopt and I've read that the waiting list to adopt children with special needs/disabilities is pretty long.
How about this for a challenge? Pro-choice folks work the slop buckets for a day at the abortion mill.
Those babies that where aborted would have taken a place in our society and things could have been very different then they currently are!
If abortion were allowed at the turn of the last century, I wouldn't be here. I don't know one woman who has had an abortion who is OK with having had an abortion. Luckily, I am not one. If they say that they are fine with their decision, they are lying. I have seen that decision ruin people, and I'm not talking in huge dramatic shifts, more in slow decline all the way denying that it was that decision that started it. The same liberals who are saying 'hands off a woman's body" when it comes to abortion are the ones who want government intervention in healthcare decisions. The irony and the arrogance is both ridiculous and appalling. Hands off my body indeed.
Now, if they ever could come up with an almost full proof way to prevent pregnancy…./sarc
Huge Jim Caviezel fan here!
He was in a motorcycle accendent recently. Does anyone know if he's okay?
Someone here who can reach Mr. Caviezel should invite him to write for BH, even if just occasionally.
Wow, Jim must not be looking for more work…he's got some big marbles to speak up the way he does.
If Jim has a problem with abortions then he shouldn't have one. As long as he doesn't try to tell a woman what to do then no problem.
Then women should have absolutely no opinions about anything men do. Fair's fair.
How many other visitors have done what you have done: read the Bible cover to cover? It would change their lives as it did yours.
I've always had a bit of a crush on Caviezel. Now I have respect for him. .
nebby, it's not Jim that's going to be telling you, it's Uncle Sam.
That is such an awesome statement from Mr. Caviezel! Just like women posing nude in magazines I believe abortion degrades a woman because she refuses to be seen by a man as property but she regards her unborn child as her "property" that she can do whatever she wants to with it. Not only does abortion have physical repercussions (it's a major surgery!) but there are many more emotional and psychological issue that arise from having an abortion that the liberals want to hide.
I call myself a suffragette and not a feminist because even though I believe in equality and could be considered a feminist, to me the feminist movement that came out of the sexual revolution in the 1970's left a lot of the foundations that the original feminists stood on. For instance being feminine and still being equal as well as abortion. This is what Elizabet Cady Stanton, a suffragette, had to say about abortion: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Eliza Bisbee Duffey (another suffragette who believed in abortion until later on in her life) said this in a rather length chapter entitled "The Limitation of Offspring" in her book The Relations of the Sexes printed in 1876: "Nature has put this little creature—this small man or woman, as yet all undeveloped—in a place of seeming security, and has placed every guard around it to keep it safely until the hour shall come when it is fully prepared to make a complete change in its mode of existence. If by intent or accident it is disturbed before that period, the whole of nature’s plans are thwarted, and nothing is in readiness…. Natural parturation may have its perils, but unnatural parturation slays its hundreds where that slays one. Yet young married women consider [induced] miscarriage a trifling affair!….It is a sin against nature…. And it is a crime in the fullest extent of the term, because it is murder ….But no; I must not be too hard upon all these unwomanly women. Their ignorance must be held responsible for their sins. And men must share the responsibility too…."
Good for Jim. I can't help but notice the two things the Left is most against – war and having a child – are the two most sacrificial acts a human can face. No wonder we have a big chunk of selfish, clueless population.
That is such an awesome statement from Mr. Caviezel! Just like women posing nude in magazines I believe abortion degrades a woman because she refuses to be seen by a man as property but she regards her unborn child as her "property" that she can do whatever she wants to with it. Not only does abortion have physical repercussions (it's a major surgery!) but there are many more emotional and psychological issue that arise from having an abortion that the liberals want to hide.
I call myself a suffragette and not a feminist because even though I believe in equality and could be considered a feminist, to me the feminist movement that came out of the sexual revolution in the 1970's left a lot of the foundations that the original feminists stood on. For instance being feminine and still being equal as well as abortion. This is what Elizabet Cady Stanton, a suffragette, had to say about abortion: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Eliza Bisbee Duffey (another suffragette who believed in abortion until later on in her life) said this in a rather length chapter entitled "The Limitation of Offspring" in her book The Relations of the Sexes printed in 1876: "Nature has put this little creature—this small man or woman, as yet all undeveloped—in a place of seeming security, and has placed every guard around it to keep it safely until the hour shall come when it is fully prepared to make a complete change in its mode of existence. If by intent or accident it is disturbed before that period, the whole of nature’s plans are thwarted, and nothing is in readiness…. Natural parturation may have its perils, but unnatural parturation slays its hundreds where that slays one. Yet young married women consider [induced] miscarriage a trifling affair!….It is a sin against nature…. And it is a crime in the fullest extent of the term, because it is murder ….But no; I must not be too hard upon all these unwomanly women. Their ignorance must be held responsible for their sins. And men must share the responsibility too…."
I just read an interview with a pregnant Kourtney Kardashian on Foxnews.com in which she said her doctor told her something like "You will never regret having the baby, but you may regret not having the baby." One of the smartest things I ever read that came out of her mouth.
I think that if Jim C. DID step up & adopt a special needs child, his friend still wouldn't change his position. I thought it was a silly request anyway. We're not talking about going down to the local animal shelter and rescuing an abused puppy. This child, depending on their needs, would take a level of dedication and commitment that not every person has. I'm pro-life but I'm smart enough to know that I could not provide a good home to a needy child. That may sound like a cop out & an excuse but it's not. It's being realistic and it would be unfair to the child to adopt him and then not provide the best I could for him. I suppose a pro abortion person would say that's the reason we need abortions (better to never live that live a neglected life) but it's not the same thing and it's not always true. If these babies aren't even given the chance to live, then we'll never know how their lives might have turned out and how they might have changed the world.
thank you
Oh, and maybe if guys had cajones like Mr. Caviezel and spoke up, fatherhood wouldn't be viewed as some useless part time job.
Wow – great argument Socrates. How bout we try that same argument in a different venue? "If Mr. Lincoln has a problem with slavery then he shouldn't own one. As long as he doesn't try to tell a slaveowner what to do then no problem."
Okay, so if nothing else at least this guy puts his money where his mouth is. Gotta respect that.
Now, then…
"How do we know that we didn’t kill the very child who could have created a particular type of medicine that saves other lives?"
Firstly, isn't that kind of a utilitarian argument – implying that if we DID know and the answer was "no" the conclusion might be different? And are true pro-life believers 'okay' with that?
Secondly, WHY does no one ever have the stones to call people out on this particular commonly-made argument. Sure, it MIGHT be the next Einstein… but it also has the same exact potential to be the next Hitler. Or bin Laden. You just as easily be SAVING millions of lives. It's every bit as logical an argument.
A new American hero. Thank you Mr. Caviezel.
Gotta love pro aborts who say men have no right to an opinion on abortion. Guess they shouldn't weight in on anything at all then.
I do know quite a few men who use their gender ais as a cop out.
Real Men Don't Abort.
Way to go, Jim Caviezel.
The great divide on the issue of human life comes down to this: Those who declare themselves "pro-choice" see each new human life as competition for an ever-diminishing share of a shrinking pie of resources. Caviezel sides with those who recognize the unique gift which each new human life brings to the table.
We see a benefit; the Culture of Death sees a burden.
Actually it was a "popular" underground at the turn of the century. In my research I read that one woman had multiple abortions she did herself by drinking an herbal remedy and thought it was like drowning blind kittens.
(This was in a book written in the latter 1800's)
Someone really close to me had one 27 years ago. She went on to get married and have 4 wonderful children. It took her about 24 years to come to turns with it. That is part Planned Parenthood doesn't discuss.
Gotta love pro aborts who say men have no right to an opinion on abortion.
LOL I know…if he had no part in the conception that would be one thing but usually any female who goes through invitro doesn't want to conceive the child so she can then turn around and abort it.
So I guess if I'm opposed to bank robberies I shouldn't commit one, right? But I guess if YOU are okay with robbing banks, how dare I tell you not to. Or if I think animal cruelty is wrong, I shouldn't set my dogs on fire, right? But it would be fine for you to torture your pets? And I shouldn't judge you or tell you not to? See how easy that is?
All the intellectual depth of a tampax wrapper.
rant? hardly. A much more articulate response than I could have come up with.
And it makes me smile to know that there are still a great many in the medical profession who have not forgotten why they are there.
Interesting that the abortion proponent insisted Caviezel adopt a child with a severe deficiency when the vast majority of abortions are done solely out of inconvience and not some "deficiency" with the child (not that a deficiency is reason to abort at all). I agree with an earlier commenter too: Why don't the proabortion people work a week at an abortion clinic disposing of the bodies?
Thank you for your kind comment.
This a topic that has fallen in my lap over the past few years in my Speech, Sociology, and History courses so all of that information just exploded into one huge comment.
(I think the BH monster ate my reply to you so hopefully it will work this time!)
Thank you for your kind comment.
This topic is something that has fallen into my lap on several occasions in different college courses so all of that knowledge just exploded into a gigantic comment.
You're being sarcastic, but I wouldn't be surprised if the pro-slsvery Democrats actually DID use that argument!
I agree with his posistion on abortion, however, the arguement that what if the unborn babies were meant to find a cure for cancer? This is silly thinking. If so, I think we all agree we wish Hitler had of been aborted. The reality is that the vast majority of abortions are by people who wouldn't be a responsible parent anyhow, therefore, the odds of that child growing up to be a productive member of society are not likely. Of course there are exceptions, but we are talking about odds here. The key is birth control. If there are no pregnancies, there are no abortions. To expect people to refrain from sex is silly and ignores human nature.
well done
i hate to sound flippant here but at least STDs still provide a bit of disincentive to dnagerous behavior.
well done
i hate to sound flippant here but at least STDs still provide a bit of disincentive to dangerous behavior.
I've never been able to understand that argument from the pro-abortion crowd. If I have to adopt a crippled orphan to justify my views against abortion, then shouldn't THEY bring a rapist or murderer into their homes to justify their views against the dealth penalty?
Exactly Bill. Can you imagine what we might have missed? The next Beethoven? Another Einstein? A new Cary Grant? I can't even fathom what we've missed by these lives.
"If Jim has a problem with abortions then he shouldn't have one."
A man doesn't have an abortion. Show me one who has had it.
Tampax wrapper, indeed.
Jim Caviezel. A true class act. Not only enormously talented, but a man with solid footing and bold integrity. He reminds me of the Golden Era in Hollywood, with men like Jimmie Stewart – who left the glitz and glamor to fight for his country – or John Wayne – who never curved his convictions to appease his dissenters. Or Clint Eastwood, coming later in life, who by the sheer glint of his eye can beat back liberal absurdity.
We need more men in the public eye, not to mention actors, like Caviezel.
Jim blew me away in "Thin Red Line'" and then again in "Passion" ,we need to see more roles for him !
And yes, he needs a regular post on 'Big Hollywood " !
If a woman goes out in the middle of a busy street with a knife a starts slashing herself, we should not try to stop her?
Where did this silly notion that a woman can do ANYTHING she wants to do with her body and expect no backlash come from?
Jim Caviezel is certainly one of the Very Good Guys.
You know what is VERY interesting is, the same people who are pro abortion are the same lunatics that chastise us for cutting trees down. They actually think a tree is more valuable than a baby. They will actually say that what if mankind cuts down the forest that could have cured AIDS (cancer doesn't count because it is not a homo disease). They dont care if some aborted baby would have the been the one to cure cancer or aids or whatever else is out there. Just abort that baby because they don't count, but don't you DARE cut down that tree.
how 'bout from the kid's perspective? This was hard to find so I hope the link works…
http://www.amazon.com/gp/recsradio/radio/B0000031...
he was excellent in the Thin Red Line. one needs to watch the movie a couple of times to see the full scope of what Malick was actually attempting to accomplish. it falls short, but it's a good effort, and parts of the movie are hauntingly beautiful.
Thank you.
One would hope it would deter them from having sex…
Part II…
Development is a continuous process that starts at Fertilization and ends with the death of the individual.
So, in these times of ‘HOPE’ and “CHANGE’, we can’t afford to remain uneducated and look the other way. Every abortion kills an innocent human individual: that is horrible!
I do not care what Religion you are: Just answer this question: Are all human individuals equal? Yes or no.
If you are not a Nazi or a slave owner you must answer YES!
There is only one way forward: do not kill the babies, ban abortion and support the women who are forced to abort their own children, often by Planned Parenthood (an institution that profits from performing abortions).
I remember years ago an elderly neighbor saying she still thought about and regretted a baby aborted when she was a teenager. She had several children and many grandchildren, but still said prayers for the soul of the dead baby.
Part I
When it comes to the Abortion issue, I wish people could sit down, take a deep breath and consider the following: This is not really a religious issue.
If this was strictly about a ‘Religious” belief I would say: you know, you should do as your religion tells you, because I do not think people should impose their religious views on others.
But someone is getting killed in these abortions, and it is not a Religious belief the one being thorn to pieces: it is an individual of the human species.
You do not need to have two PhDs in Developmental Biology to check this out: you can go and investigate this by reading and understanding basic embryology: Science has demonstrated over and over that the human embryo –from implantation onwards- is an individual of the Human species.
This is not an individual developing into Human, but a human individual undergoing development.
Don't even get me started on PETA and their hypocrisy on this issue.
"Don't kill the baby calf because it's soooo cute!" *rolls eyes*
"Now, if they ever could come up with an almost full proof way to prevent pregnancy…./sarc"
They have. It's called marriage. (snark back at ya!
indeed, such preparation will never be wasted.
People who lose hands, feet, arms and legs usually find it rather traumatic, have phantom pains and are known to get therapy in order to cope with the loss. Yet, Pro Abortion people wants us to believe that when a woman has a baby killed an sucked out of them, it won't have any adverse effects? What a horrible lie.
Actually I agree. It''s immoral to force a women to have an abortion and to prevent her from having an abortion. Hear me out.
There is always going to be abortion. This issue will never go away, as sad as that is to say, it's true. We will always disagree on the subject. It's part of the human condition.
Here's what I propose: repeal Roe v. Wade, because its a judicial nightmare and makes the Supreme Court look like clowns – no disrespect to clowns. That kicks the issue back to the state levels, and to the voters. Some states will completely out law abortion, others will allow abortion on demand. Most will end up some where in the middle. And then, if you want, and I do, do what ever you can to convince pregnant women, as individuals, to choose life.
It's far from perfect, I know, but its the best I have been able to come up with.
My girlfriend and I had to search entire Kansas City area to find the “The Stoning of Soraya M." movie. The Glenwood in Overland Park had it for about a week. Powerful movie. Excellent acting. Pulled you in to story immediately. She and I were affected by it…..and incredibly sad that only about a dozen people were in the tiny theater to see it…..You are a real man Jim. You walk the Talk!
(You should see this film).
Wonderful post.
I completely agree with this. I don't look at the life of a child as a religious issue, though I'm surely branded a religious nut if I make my pro-life stance known. It's an issue of life, which I believe begins at conception. Left to its own devices that "bundle of cells" the pro-death side will flush out of a woman's body without a second thought will develop into a healthy child almost every time. I get really tired of all the excuses. I think it's a pretty solid guarantee that most aborted babies are not the product of rape or incest. They're the product of people who can't bother to think about something other than their own convenience.
The flip side of this though are the men who angrily say that if a woman doesn't have an abortion, then she should be willing to take on the responsibility of the child on her own if the guy wants to abort the child. I got into a big argument with a guy over this. I stuck to the point that if you don't want the responsibility of a child, then you better keep your pants on. He wouldn't acknowledge the point at all though. I guess it's just another example of the liberal mentality that no one should be held accountable for anything.
I just read this post:
"If Jim has a problem with abortions then he shouldn't have one. As long as he doesn't try to tell a woman what to do then no problem. "
This statement reminded me of a very old 'Pro-slavery' slogan: "If you do not want to have a slave don't own one, but do not impose your views on us".
It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, gay or straight, black or white: Honest people have the moral obligation to stand up and speak for those who can't, and to demand that all Governments recognize the Universal Principle stating that 'ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUAL".
Come on people, these are NOT the Middle ages! Get educated, reach out and make this a better World!
Amen to that! I love Susan B. Anthony! Plus you reminded me, I want to dress as a suffragist for Halloween! Better get busy on that costume. And since we are quoting suffragist, try this one my daughter turned in for a class assignment last year – It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union – Susan B. Anthony
The right to one's body is not absolute (most common pro-choice/pro-death argument is that "it is the woman's body, and her choice.").
Again, the right to one's own body is not absolute. Don't believe me? Try to commit suicide. It is illegal. If you fail, you will be arrested, charged, and committed.
For me it put all the missing pieces together. It filled in the gaps of what I knew, what I felt, and what I need to do. I still enjoy the studying and learning.
I love that quote by Susan B. Anthony!
This year for Halloween I'm going as Amelia Earhart! (I decided to go as her way before I knew there was a movie coming out about her.)
Thank you!
Good grief…let's hope that guy never procreates…we don't need anyone related to him running around in the world screwing things up.
"To expect people to refrain from sex is silly and ignores human nature."
No its not human nature, its animal instinct. As humans, we have reason, we are better than the base animals we started out. A male dog that has reached puberty can not ignore a female dog in heat. They are hard wired to reproduce. As a human male I'm quite capable of walking down the street with out jumping any and every woman I come across. I have the ability to reason and see why that's wrong.
The question is whether or not I chose to do what's right.
It was so interesting to listen to the some of the very people who exhibited vocal outrage at Vick for badly abusing and killing helpless dogs, but did not condemn the similar circumstances or reveal even mild concern at the ongoing bloody slaughter of thousands of innocent, helpless babies who are violently tortured and dismembered every day! To me their behavior is beyond rational.
Jim Caviezel knows who he is, what he believes, and that he was created by God. Certainly he has a right to express his opinion. Has the Hollywood Left ever not screamed their liberal views? And he doesn't have to adopt a special needs baby to be pro-life. The many millions of babies who have been snuffed out are in the presence of God, but that does not excuse those who ended their lives. There will be an accounting. Jim is right to condemn abortion and he's right that it certainly is not helping women. May God bless his career, as this gives him a louder voice to speak.
To follow your thought would you say Charles Manson or others of his ilk equal to you? I do believe all are born equal it is actions of a person is a differentiator.
Excellent point.
There will always be debates about where human life fundamentally begins and when society should recognize this even in terms of human rights.
While this debate goes on, its important that we agree about the merits of sexual responsibility. Many on the side of abortion rights point at the misery of life experience that unwanted children may be given. Well, such misery may be avoided if would-be parents act responsibly and use birth control or abstained from sex all together – whichever works best for the parties involved.
Certainly, if more people applied careful judgement about birth control, society may avoid seeing more "Hitlers" come into this world.
We Hold These Truths to be self evident, all men (people) are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.
As humans, we do not posses the unalienable right to determine an unborn child is not a human. That violates their right to life.
I'm trying to remember back, when the Passion came out, I think Jim Caviezel was on Rush's show for a rare interview (Rush does not like to share the spot light). He said when they were filming the scenes when he was on the cross, there was a thunderstorm and the cross was struck by lightening. He said something like he looked up and said "Was I that bad?"
I'm a bit surprised more posters here didn't know how conservative Jim Caviezel really is. Loved him in "The Count of Monte Cristo".
I once read (and I know you can't believe everything you read) that Caviezel refuses to do nude scenes in movies, out of respect for his wife. How's that for standing up for your beliefs???
He is a very, very impressive individual, and I hope to see more of him in the future.
Isn't it odd the view of Pro-Abortion people? The example given would suggest that Pro-Abortion people do not think much of life after birth. They obviously think certain lives are not worth living and it would be better to kill this person.
Of course you can't see how it helps women. Look in a mirror, are you a woman and are you over 40? For those who don't remember the 70's the issue for abortion wasn't to have the right to kill your baby. It was about whether the GOVERNMENT has the right to tell a woman what to do with her life and her body. And back then if a woman was raped by her Republican Father/Brother she had to use a wire coat hanger and then died in an alley. Surprising how now that those who want the GOVERNMENT out of their lives want it back in the lives of their women. Gals? It's your body, you want to give control to the GOVERNMENT I don't give a damn. I think abortion is murder but I'll never have to make that decision. Back in the 60's I was considered a CONSERVATIVE because of my support for the government, our troops and our way of life. I haven't changed but conservatives have and I can no longer take part in the hatefest that the party has become. All a bunch of raging, pyschotic hypocrites getting tingly wheniver Rush talks. BARF!
the debate on when life begins and acting responsibly , birth control etc……….we had that discussion over and over since 1973
the people who see death as the only solution are loud and forceful
You can be pro-life and still not want the government involved with the medical decisions of a woman. For those of you who don't remember the 70's it was the fight to keep government out of these decisions that created Roe vs Wade and NOT the desire to kill unborn babies. There, will this pass the Big Hollwyood Big Censor board?
[...] the original post here: Jim Caviezel: ‘I just don’t see abortion as helping women.’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Exactly. These issues should never have been decided by judicial fiat. They should be decided at the state level by elected legislators. If you don't like the laws, you can work to change them.
I totally disagree with your opinion that it is immoral to prevent a woman from having an elective abortion, however, and your drawing an equivalence between that and forcing a woman to have one is ridiculous.
You're correct EdSki. If you have a membership to Rush's site, you can access the full transcript here: http://tinyurl.com/lpa6d8
Otherwise, here is the part you mentioned (from FEB 27, 2004). Also, Rush didn't even set this up with him. He states at the beginning of the call that Jim took the initiative to call Rush up on his own. Pretty cool.
*****
RUSH: You were struck by lightning as well, weren't you?
CAVIEZEL: Yes. I got struck by lightning, and (laughter) about three seconds before it hit I knew it was going to happen. It was like you were in the eye of a storm or something, like in a hurricane.
RUSH: Did you wonder (laughter) what was going on when these things were happening?
CAVIEZEL: Yeah, I looked up in the sky and said, "You didn't like that take, eh?"
RUSH: (Laughing) You know, I have read that Mel Gibson said to you when he offered you the role that it might be your last.
CAVIEZEL: Yeah, he did.
RUSH: Is that because of the nature of the controversy?
CAVIEZEL: I think so. But any time you're going to cover something like this, people are easily going to be offended. The guy that I chose to play didn't go walking around saying, "Hey, be a good person." "Hey, what are you telling me be a good person for? By God, let's kill him." He went after a regime, and there are many regimes, and still in the church and in the government, and he told the truth. And that's what I was interested in playing. So when I met with Mel Gibson, whether it was Mel or anyone else, it didn't matter to me. What was important was that we stayed with the gospels. That was too sacred to me for any director.
RUSH: And this isn't. Did you have any doubts at all before you said "yes" to this?
CAVIEZEL: Um, yeah, I mean, but I never let my fear rule me in what I'm going to do in my life. I didn't want to get to the end of and say, "Gee I wish I would have done this and that." Braveheart is one of my favorite Mel Gibson films, and that's what I liked about it, and he talked about, "When you get to the end of your life, would you exchange one moment from this day to that for one chance to come back here and tell our enemies that you may take our lives but you can never take our freedom." And something like that rang true to me a long time ago, and that piece of work was inspired about this story. Many a great stories that you see including the Lord of the Rings, are inspired from this story. It's the greatest love story ever told.
The abortion excuse – 'a woman has a right to her own body' – totally falls flat. That's because the unborn child is NOT the woman's body – the child is its own body that simply happens to exist for 9 months inside the woman's. And as a separate body from the woman's, the child's body has rights. The woman may choose to terminate her own life – but she has no right to terminate someone else's. No matter how you cut it, killing someone other than yourself is a crime. It's called murder. And NO one has a right to murder.
As for Jim Caviezel – damn, you can not imagine how wonderful it is to have an actor you can respect as much as for being an outstanding person as for being an outstanding artist. Oh, that is so wonderful. Thanks, Mr. Caviezel.
I'm glad you like my idea, and I respectfully accept your disagreement. (Imagine what it would be like debating a liberal like this? Polite!)
The moral equivalence between forcing a women to abort and preventing a women from aborting is the act of using force on the individual at all. It's the individual's decision. Not the state. Rather than promote the use of government force, appeal to them as individuals. I predict it will be a lot more effective.
Mr. Caviezel, Courage, honesty and integrity are all that's really required. After that, political persuation just doesn't matter. Thank you for walking the walk!
Here's one for the feminists: Knowing the cultural bias against women in Asia and India, unscrupulous genetic testing firms are aggressively marketing their gender-testing services to the Asian and Indian communities in the United States, Great Britain and Canada. Thus has abortion become the ultimate tool of sex discrimination.
Giving birth to a baby is 10X more dangerous to a woman than an abortion. Figure it out you moron.
you cant really go by that logic though, because statistically speaking it is far more probable that they will end up being a rapist, murderer, criminal, or some other threat to or drain on society. I do think that there are good arguments against abortion, but "what will they become" isnt one of them. There is just too many holes in it
Yet they don't teach kids to avoid the risks anymore, they just teach them how to minimize the risks.
For some reason, it's not appropriate to point out that ABSTINENCE is the only birth control method to be proven absolutely 100% effective against STDs and unwanted pregnancies. We'll tell them about Condoms, we'll tell them about The Pill, but we won't tell them about Keeping Your God Damn Pants On.
It's not a perfect argument.
But I think it's an argument that people come to naturally because they recognize that there is something fundamentally wrong in the mind-set that children are BAD. There is a very strong cultural… I'd say "demand"… that children are consumers, takers, and must not be useful, that it's actually *wrong* for them to be contributors or seen as something that makes us richer. Now, it could be that this started with the desire to get child laborers out of dangerous jobs, but it's gone from there to something that is warped beyond all reason.
If it were just a population issue, just an argument against abortion as population control, it really wouldn't make any sense to argue that the missing children might be creative geniuses, because the logical conclusion would be a need to have as many children as possible. (Pro-abortion as population control is a irrational argument anyway, since there is no reason at all to believe that women don't have just as many total children as they would have).
But the argument that children are BAD is pervasive. They are expensive and disrupt careers and having a child out of season is portrayed as the worst possible thing that can happen. Even WANTED children are portrayed as this huge sacrifice emotionally… not that there is more love, but less attention to go around… and financially… and this is where the odd warped-ness really comes in because there are people who will insist and will chew you out, even, if you suggest that children can be financial contributors to the family OR are a net-gain to the community even in the future when they are grown, much less as "children". Hey, *I* didn't have a child, they will say, I don't need anyone else to have children, nothing in our lives is dependent on on other people having children… which actually makes no economic sense if you think of it… The dynamic nature of our economy, communities, and culture absolutely depends on birth and growth. Not at maximum fecundity rates, but there *has* to be children or we die and are simply *gone*.
And I think that is what most people are responding to when they point out that the children killed, the babies aborted, would have made us richer, not poorer, that they would have been contributors at least as much as they were consumers, and that some of them may have been brilliant. We have not conserved our resources, we've squandered them. Killed them, actually.
No. It's not. However, an abortion is 100% more dangerous to a baby than being born.
I am sick and tired of this liberal dribble about daring pro-life or conservatives to do this or that..and then what?
Is his freind really going to have an ephinany then. I have to do the proving something is wrong? The burden of proof is on us? The problem here is too many of us just accept these idiot liberal premises from the start. Yes, turn toward them as say, why dont you participate in an abortion and then throw the baby in a trash can..then come back and if your still pro-choice..then maybe we can talk further and I will listen.
True, very true. That is what seperates the humans from the animals, our ability to reason.
Very nice indeed!
I am pro-choice, but I'm anti murder which is what abortion is. Wait, you may say, if you are pro-choice how can you be anti abortion? It's simple.. those who claim to be pro-choice aren't really.. they're actually pro-do over.. because the choice comes when you choose to have sex. A possible outcome of sex is a child. A person has to consider that before carrying out the act of sex. if you accept that and do the deed.. then when you get pregnant you say Oh wait.. I don't want to have a baby.. I'll have an abortion.. that's a do over.. not a choice.. the choice came when you had the fun.
Abortion is murder. Collectivist liberals will fight for the right to abort and against the death penalty… which goes to show that the left is on the left side of the bell curve when it comes to reason and brain power.
I am in awe of this guy. As a Catholic it makes me proud that he is a fellow Catholic and it makes me proud he is an American. See boys: This is a real man. Someone who actually says what he means and means what he says. Someone who is unselfish enough to put something bigger ahead of his own career and interests. This is what our younger men should be using as a role model. Not George Clooney or that idiot Bill Maher. Wanna impress a lady? Be like Jim Caveziel. A man who loves God is a man.
I want you to sit back and ponder what Caveziel said about the 50 million children butchered in abortion. The idea of these people not being responsible parents? Lyssa darlin you ever have an abortion? Ever meet someone who has? Ask them to be honest. They end up hating themselves over it. Its the worst thing a woman can do to herself. The denial of teh very essence of being a woman, motherhood. But hey its OK to buy the Gloria Steinem I hate my girl parts line right?
I'm anti abortion and think that the practice cheapens life. I'm not religious either.. I think that actually if the world was a rational place than those who are religious would favor abortion and atheists would not.. becasue this world and the breif time in it is all an atheist has..whereas to a religious person there is a heavan waiting.. and for those as young as abortion victims it is immediate without the suffering and trials of life on earth.. anywho..
You've said a couple times in multiple posts "All individuals are equal." That isn't true without qualifications.. "all individuals are equal under the law" perhaps.. but each of us are different and have strenths and weaknesses that no other match exactly.. this generalized statment of equality is a tool of the collectivist left.
Only someone with no clue would think the baby that became Hitler was destined no matter what which of course then leads me to question their belief in God, because people who believe abortion is just fine and dandy are mostly athiests or agnostics so how can someone born be pretedetermined to be a mass murderer if there is no God? Did I make you think. Good.
The real choice comes when a person decides to have sex. the possibility of having a child is a known side effect of sex. If you have sex and become pregnant because of it.. it isn't a choice to murder the outcome.. More accurate than calling it a choice or the position "pro-choice" would be to call it "Pro-do-over."
Used in a sentence:
"As much as I'm against abortion.. when it comes to our current president I am pro do-over."
Very poor argument. Each of those 50M+ aborted babies could have become the next Johnny Mathis, as each could have become the next Pol Pot. Some people grow up to be good, others to be bad. Adding more numbers does not change the proportion, only the volume. I'm not arguing for abortion, but this is a tired and basically silly argument against it.
This man is so damn good looking, I hope he has a dozen children. Seriously, he is a solid gold individual. We need more men in the world like him.
Women don't realize that once they become pregnant, it's no longer about them. It's about the new person they created.
How do you know that? And who's the moron for not providing scientific information??? What gives with the insults?
I'm not peta person, but I still cringe at the two frogs I killed in science labs (one at the university and one as a biology teacher). They struggled and one screamed. I can't imagine ANYONE with any shred of conscience conning themselves into thinking that abortion isn't a heinous process.
Jim is a fantastic actor—and an even better human being.
I hope he makes another film for Terrence Malick—he really stood out in Malick's "The Thin Red Line."
Also, there's a criminally unknown film he appeared in a few years ago with Joan Plowright, called "I Am David."
You have to suspend your disbelief about a couple "against all odds" aspects of the story, but other than that, it's a wonderful little film, and the role that Caviezel plays is very profound.
It would be interesting to know why god didn't save them if they were so important. We seem to have more than enough people already. Certainly have plenty wanting to tell others how to live their lives
If the basis of your argument is a study bible, then you should be fine. Christianity already says you can't have an abortion. If you want to affect the government, read the constitution from cover to cover. If you include the amendments you should find one that says your religion does not govern my life.
You must be getting pissed at how government is trying to tell us how much energy we can use (Cap and Trade), when we can or can't get health care (so-alled reform), what we can and can't do with our money (Porkulus, passing over tax cuts because – "Americans might not spend it correctly"), what we can and can't listen to on the radio (diversity doctrine) and whether or not something we say is "hatespeech" and worthy of prosecution (hate crimes law tacked onto a war spending bill as an amendment).
You know what? I agree with you. I'm getting tired of people in Washington telling me how to live too.
If you take your own advice, you'll also discover that all human beings are created equal with certain unalienable rights including the right to life which is in the Declaration of Independence. I don't care what your religion is or isn't; I do care that a pregnant woman carries another human being inside her that should have access to those rights including the one to live.
Do you have any empirical information to that effect? I've heard that number tossed by pro-choicers often, but no one can ever cite a credible, or, indeed, any source.
And, incidentally, insults do not further your argument.
And I've had two babies, both without any medications or pain relievers. I'm still here.
You really want to have fun take a delusional liberal friend to Soraya. You know the type I mean, the kind who refuse to admit that Iran's leadership is insane or believe that muslims extremist are merely misunderstood freedom fighters, take them to Soraya M and than show them some of the sick videos and stories you can find on the web related to honor killings. Its almost like watching a child when they discover Santa isn't real. It almost makes you feel bad about doing it. Almost.
As for Jim its good to see someone in Hollywood who escaped from the (Death) Camp of Tolerance.
I've always enjoyed and respected the work of Jim Caviezel the Actor. Now I can sit back and do the same with the Man. That's more that I can say for most of the It's All About Me Crowd in LaLa land.
Don't give that much credit…you don't know whether she removes the wrapper.
I always fought this issue internally. I at one point came to the conclusion that only women should voice an opinion and vote on this issue. Then I read a study bible cover to cover and have to say that no good comes from abortion unless it is done to save a dying life.
Excapt that the "Individual decision" arguement leaves out the decision of the baby. The baby has no choice whether male or female. The baby is helpless, so needs the protection of the state. In fact, we are obligated to protect the innocent and voiceless…even against the selfishness of the mother. We do this all the time with children that have already been born. Unfortunately, we don't with the unborn.
The thing is that not all babies that are aborted have special needs. Sometimes it is just convenient. A friend of mine had been married three years and got pregnant, her husband had his own business and he earned good money, they owned their own home, she only worked part time because she could, yet, to have a child at that time was "inconvenient" because she still wanted to be able to have no responsibilities. A year later, a friend of hers got pregnant and then she decided that she should also. I guess when her friend had a baby it stopped being "inconvenient" for her.
That is such an awesome statement from Mr. Caviezel! Just like women posing nude in magazines I believe abortion degrades a woman because she refuses to be seen by a man as property but she regards her unborn child as her "property" that she can do whatever she wants to with it. Not only does abortion have physical repercussions (it's a major surgery!) but there are many more emotional and psychological issue that arise from having an abortion that the liberals want to hide.
I call myself a suffragette and not a feminist because even though I believe in equality and could be considered a feminist, to me the feminist movement that came out of the sexual revolution in the 1970's left a lot of the foundations that the original feminists stood on. For instance being feminine and still being equal as well as abortion. This is what Elizabet Cady Stanton, a suffragette, had to say about abortion: "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."
Eliza Bisbee Duffey (another suffragette who believed in abortion until later on in her life) said this in a rather lengthy chapter entitled "The Limitation of Offspring" in her book The Relations of the Sexes printed in 1876: "Nature has put this little creature—this small man or woman, as yet all undeveloped—in a place of seeming security, and has placed every guard around it to keep it safely until the hour shall come when it is fully prepared to make a complete change in its mode of existence. If by intent or accident it is disturbed before that period, the whole of nature’s plans are thwarted, and nothing is in readiness…. Natural parturation may have its perils, but unnatural parturation slays its hundreds where that slays one. Yet young married women consider [induced] miscarriage a trifling affair!….It is a sin against nature…. And it is a crime in the fullest extent of the term, because it is murder ….But no; I must not be too hard upon all these unwomanly women. Their ignorance must be held responsible for their sins. And men must share the responsibility too…."
And yes, I believe that abortion is a "get out of jail free card" for men who want to continue to sleep with women without any consequences or being held to a higher standard. It's a way for "men" to control "women" and the women still feel like they're "feminists" because they have a choice. Uh No. You're a feminist because you believe in equality especially for women. Yet 50% of aborted babies are female…doesn't sound to me like you're fore equality. Just for equality when it's convenient for you.
(sorry for ranting on like this…it's a topic I'm passionate about…)
Just a random factoid before I go into my on topic response to your comment:
Hitler followed Margaret Sanger's (The woman who started what is known today as Planned Parenthood) beliefs and example in the use of abortion and eugenics during his regime. I believe if the attitude towards abortion was different that Hitler would not have been able to get so far in his campaign against Jews, blacks, and other "undesirables". It was a wide spread belief in that time to preserve the "master race" and one way to do this was use abortion for unwanted pregnancies (of "mixed children") then from there it progressed to concentration and death camps. They didn't see the unborn as human, then they didn't see mental or physical handicapped people as human, then the "old" people weren't human either, and finally they didn't see people in other "races" and "religions" as human beings.
(Because most abortions happen to women who are unmarried, that is the context I'm speaking in…)
The real key is students/unmarried people keeping their pants on and making right choices. As a Christian I don't expect everyone to follow that God has outlined about sex but to flippantly state that self control isn't an option because it is "silly" is giving an excuse for their behavior. Even birth control doesn't always work (My younger sisters (twins) and myself were all conceived under birth control.) so pregnancies can and will result even though a contraceptive may be used. The only sure fire way not to have children is not to have sex but people don't want to practice self control…plain and simple.
I'll use another example: Obesity is rampant in the U.S. because the lack of self control and just because people take diet pills doesn't mean they won't get fat. It all goes back to self control.
If you have a problem with rape then you shouldn't do it. As long as you don't try to tell those men who do want to do it, then no problem.
Do you see how ridiculous this statement is? Probably not.
Although I have great respect for Mr. Caviezel's words here and admire his heart, he did not need to feel guilty when his friend said that to him. Whether or not he personally adopts a child has no bearing on whether the act of abortion is right or wrong. This is simply a trick the pro-abortion crowd loves to throw out to divert attention from the actual act of abortion to you, the person opposing it.
Don't fall for that trick! When this happens to you (and it will) don't let them corner you with it. Always keep the conversation on topic of whether it is right or wrong to kill an unborn child.
I just read the full interview. The more I learn about this man, the more respect I have for him!
We have no idea what a child is going to grow up to be.
***
"To expect people to refrain from sex is silly and ignores human nature."
To expect people to have no self control and behave like animals is insulting and ignores the side of human nature that is able to reason and make behavioral choices.
Simply refuse to allow them to frame the debate on their terms. This is classic liberal ploy, I'm well versed in it, having been raised by, and surrounded by, liberals all of my life.
Throw that line out, when a pro-life person says "um, but" cut them off at the knees by screaming hypocrite, and then saunter off into the sun set.
They've got a million of them, and they keep them locked and loaded in their heads, just lying in wait to ambush. Against higher taxes? You hate the poor. Didn't vote for Obama? You're a racist.
There's no end to this type of attacks. And that's because we let them frame the debate. Refuse to allow it. When they try to launch one, stop them dead in the tracks. Change the rules of the debate, take control of the conversation, and steer them towards reason and logic. When you get them there, they're dead because liberalism is all about emotion.
Here's an example. If you don't support a women's right "to choose" then why don't you adopt a child? Answer: Why on earth are you objectifying children, especially special needs children? They're human beings you know, right?
Abortion is 100% more dangerous to a child than birth. Figure it out. (See how I am able to say this without adding the insult of "moron" at the end?)
Learn some manners, provide some factual backup for your outrageous statements and stop defending the murder of children.
He was also in a sci-fi movie called "Outlander" that I saw a few weeks ago. I thought it was awesome. One could see that it had a little "green" message but other than that I loved it.
As a Lutheran, I don't always see things eye to eye with the leadership of Roman Catholicism. However, I am refreshed and encouraged to see people of faith AND fame like Jim Caviezel stand up for the simple truths of God's moral laws handed to us.
Thanks, Jim. And by the way, your movies "The Count of Montecristo" and "The Passion of the Christ" rank as #1 and #2 of my all-time favorites, and you're competing with the likes of John Wayne and George C. Scott.
You're a phenomenal actor. You really brought those characters to life. Thanks for enriching my life with your performances. May God continue to bless you well, friend.
Moron: If you would read any of the Supreme Court opinions holding that there is a constitutional right to abortion, you won't find any of them justifying that right on the principle that one should be insulated from another's religious beliefs. Not even the modern day Supreme Court is that wacky.
"Back in the 60's I was considered a CONSERVATIVE because of my support for the government, our troops and our way of life."
Back in the 60s, abortion was outlawed by the governments of many states.
"I haven't changed but conservatives have and I can no longer take part in the hatefest that the party has become."
See above. Oh, and let us know when your 17th birthday rolls around.
So "Jane Roe" was not pregnant and seeking an abortion? Damn, her lawyer perpetrated a fraud on the court!
"If there are no pregnancies, there are no abortions. To expect people to refrain from sex is silly and ignores human nature."
Uh, if there are no pregnancies, there is no humanity. We will cease to exist. The birth control mentality leads to abortion. If one sees pregnancy as an accident/disease/mishap/unplanned blah blah blah…then the natural step is to get rid of the accident/disease/mishap/unplanned… See the connection? When the natural consequence of sex is avoided artificially, then artificial means of ridding this consequence — through abortion — makes sense.
Anyway, Jim rocks! A real man.
(continued)
Also, and this is more of a philosophical point, I'd differ with your rosy vision of "humanity's progress." HUMANS – as in, individuals – have progressed; the broader "humanity" has just been brought along for the ride. Statistically, the majority of "humanity" is flotsam of little benefit to itself or anyone else. It's always been a minority of extraordinarily smart, extraordinarily brave, extraordinarily visionary and even extraordinarily strong-willed individuals dragging the rest of the horde – usually unwillingly – across the yard-lines of evolution since the first guy looked at fire and saw a tool to be harnessed instead of a god to be feared.
"Caviezel sides with those who recognize the unique gift which each new human life brings to the table."
This assumes that each human DOES bring a unique gift to the table. Very few of us actually do, and half the time the "gift" is poison or a bomb or something equally unwanted. We are NOT "all in this together," and "all men are created equal" does not mean that they all stay that way for very long. To quote from a rather beloved recent film: "Everyone is special is just another way of saying nobody is."
What seperates man from animals is his imagination, it's ability to conjure new and more-sophisticated forms of comfort/gratification, to conjure a system which can make such things possible and call it "civilization," and to conjure up 'reason' as a justification for keeping it all running
A smart-alec would point out that something like 99% of trees are currently acting with great benefit as air-filters; while a far, far, far, far, far, far, FAR lower percentage of humans are (or ever will be) acting with similar benefit.
That's what a smart-alec would point out, anyway
"It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, gay or straight, black or white: Honest people have the moral obligation to stand up and speak for those who can't, and to demand that all Governments recognize the Universal Principle stating that 'ALL INDIVIDUALS ARE EQUAL"."
Except that all individuals are NOT equal – if they were, they wouldn't BE individuals. There are PLENTY of people who are worth both less and more than others. For one example: If ME and Steven Spielberg are both hanging by our fingers from a cliff… save Spielberg.
At best, all individuals are "created" equal… but from that point on we start distinguishing ourselves.
"I once read (and I know you can't believe everything you read) that Caviezel refuses to do nude scenes in movies, out of respect for his wife. How's that for standing up for your beliefs???"
Yes, because there's so much demand for MALE nudity in the movies these days…
"I haven't changed but conservatives have and I can no longer take part in the hatefest that the party has become. All a bunch of raging, pyschotic hypocrites getting tingly wheniver Rush talks. BARF! "
Boy Boomer, you're really a bundle of love, aren't you?
Your analysis is one-dimensional. Legalizing abortion was not a libertarian action, but a totalitarian one. Inventing an abortion "right" by finding a non-existent "choice" under the sofa cushions of the 4th Amendment EXPANDED the role of government over life and death decisions, and weakened the whole concept of inalienable rights. Those rights are now dependent upon the State recognizes as a "person". The Left only grants rights below the waist.
You express perfectly the logic of the Culture of Death. You know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
Free will I guess
Moron,
I refer to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights all the time. What I did was share how I have come to an opinion. I'll share one other thing with you: We Determine death occurs when Brain Waves are not present and/or a heart beat no longer exist. Within 31 days both Brian wave and heart beat are present in a fetus so does that not then determine life? So instead of looking at religion if YOU look at facts of science then there is a single conclusion of life by day 31 of conception.
If you are a hopelessly concrete thinker, then of course you will revert to such an argument. But what JC is saying, distilled to its essence, is that people should never abandon hope because no good comes from despair.
Yes, the world is chock full of problems, some of them caused by people. But problems are also solved by people. With our advanced technology that can scan the vast heavens and probe the tiniest specks, and our agriculture efficient enough to feed the world, just to name a couple things, on net, humanity is showing itself to be pretty good to have around. The mythical healing herb which could cure cancer if not driven to extinction by evil developers in the Amazon rain forest couldn't cure cancer by itself. Only a human being could find it and figure out how to solve problems with it. Humanity'sprogress is proof that people are on balance more good than bad. Always stick with the hope that the good will prevail and avoid the despair that makes abortion an attractive means of salvaging convenience from "just another mouth to feed," and be amazed at all the new solutions people manage to devise to formerly intractible problems.
"Hope and despair" are so melodramatic. I'm talking about wanting and not-wanting.
My outlook on the subject is very, very simple: Women who want to bear children should be able to, and women who do not want to bear children should not be forced to. Yes, even if they were sexually "irresponsible" – what kind of sense does that make? That's like saying I shouldn't be allowed to splint my own broken leg if I sustained the injury while walking off the marked path. Especially since – and I'm well aware I'm opening myself to people with "oh but wait" exception-proves-the-rule personal anecdotes here – a solid majority of the people who get "accidentally pregnant" in America are exactly the sort of people least equipped to handle all that comes with it.
(continued)
Here we go again, equating abortion to killing babies. What about the gays and lesbians who are persecuted by the religious right ? Don't preach about human rights, while ignoring other people's rights.
[...] Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Jim Caviezel: ‘I just don’t see abortion as helping women.’ bighollywood.breitbart.com/bighollywood/2009/08/21/jim-caviezel-i-just-dont-see-abortion-as-helping-women – view page – cached Catholic Digest has a fascinating interview with Jim Caviezel, star of “The Stoning of Soraya M.” Here’s an excerpt: — From the page [...]
I know a woman who had an abortion. She was pregnant and her husband left her. She and her family decided she couldnt take care of herself much less a child. Since the abortion, the woman has decided not to have any children. She believes God is punishing her and wont forgiver her. I've told her many times this is not true but she wont hear me. I doubt if any woman who has an abortion escapes unscathed.
This is without question the dumbest statement I've ever seen. Abortion is the taking of a life, period.
There are SO many things wrong with your statement that it would take pages to address. So I'll just point out that abortion, which is not 'equated' with killing babies, but actually IS killing babies, kills your protected gays as well. No discrimination. Just carnage.
Well MovieBob, the extraordinary talented couldn't get anywhere if they had to spend their time acting as their own support staff and scrubbing the toilets after hours. Everyone has a part to play, and they also serve who only stand and wait. Without the less talented to carry out the more mundane chores, the more talented would not be able to make full use of their talents.
Hope and despair aren't melodramatic at all, they are two opposite starting points for viewing our very existence. Your vision by your own unwitting admission is one of despair – that only a choice few are worth anything and the rest wouldn't be missed. You fancy yourself a champion of the individual, but your worldview is endemic among collectivists. You shouldn't have to ponder long to realize why.
Okay, how about a love scene where he has to lie in bed with a mostly naked actress? I should have been clearer, sorry.
A few years ago in the midst of a discussion about abortion, the same words were thrown in my face. If I was so pro-life, why not put my money where my mouth was and adopt an unwanted child. Well, those words worked themselves through and a few years later we did adopt. Then a few years later we did it again, this time we got a "special-needs" baby. "God is present all through the adoption process"; words I would like to take credit for, but I read them in an article about Steven Curtis Chapman.
If anyone has ever thought about adopting, I can tell you that you will thank God every day once you do it, there is nothing like it.
[...] Big Hollywood Sphere: Related [...]
I understand, and personally I agree with you. But the argument that a woman's body is her our business and no one else's concern is very valid too. That's what I mean when I say this issue is never going to be resolved to every one's satisfaction. Seems the way the US law has it worked, it satisfies almost no one. Which is why I think government should stay out of it as much as possible, leave it to individuals, and work to convince them that life is in their best interest.
That would also go a long way to shutting up the likes of planned parenthood and the other abortion mills. They'd loose their federal subsidies. Less money would mean less resources to indoctrinate young men and women that it's nothing more than a clump of cells.
If the issue was left to the state and you completely disagreed with the majority of the voters in a state, you could move to one more agreeable. It's far from perfect, but I think it would be an improvement over the current law.
A woman's body is hers to control. However, once she becomes pregnant, her body belongs to that baby. Have the baby and give it up for adoption. But don't kill a human being. That is called MURDER. There is no difference between having an abortion and shooting someone on the street. They both end in the death of a human being. As soon as the baby is conceived, it's alive and is a full human being. It may not be very big yet, but the whole package is there. Infanticide is a horrible thing.
Recently, I rented the original "Alfie" (1967), starring Michael Caine, to watch with my 17 year old daughter.
In the abortion scene, the "back-street abortionist" (played by Denholm Elliot) gives the philandering couple a lecture on the crime they're committing against their baby. Very effective scene.
This scene was not in the remake.
Hmmmm, wonder why…..
Oh, come on, Movie Bob. I've seen more than a few bare male butts in mainstream movies. And I wouldn't mind seeing Jim in the buff. He's not only a very good man, he's eye candy.
Kudos to Jim for sticking to his beliefs.
Uh, that was true 100 years ago. I've worked in a hospital with a very large L &D unit for 12 years now. I have never once heard of a woman dying during childbirth at my hospital. Yes, complications are fairly common, but they normally effect the baby, not the mother.
I once knew a woman who nearly died during labor. She was a lefty hippie who insisted on giving birth to twins at home with only a midwife present, despite the fact that she was warned she might have a hard time of it. She wanted it to be a "beautiful experience," you see. Apparently giving birth in a hospital with trained experts and high tech equipment readily available to save her and the babies if necessary just wasn't beautiful enough – so she nearly bled to death in her bedroom.
I'm a woman and I'm over 40 and I believe abortion is murder. What I wonder about is how anybody born after 1972 can be for it. One-third of their generation was killed by abortion. If you were born after Roe v. Wade, you are one of the lucky ones – you could have ended up in a slop bucket.
As to the rest of boomer's incoherent rant – yeah, sure, you used to be a conservative. I'm sure you thought about it between bong hits and dropping acid. No wonder you don't have a problem with destroying babies – you've obviously destroyed most of your own brain cells.
I had a discussion with a friend the other day about this subject. She said that sometimes abortion is the answer when the child is "defective". I asked her then, what do you do with a two year old who is diagnosed with autism. Do you just go ahead and kill it?
Right, simon. I note his friend didn't change his pro-abort views after Caviezel adopted a special needs baby. No, the goal posts then immediately shift from "You're a hypocrite if you don't adopt a baby" to "every pro-lifer must adopt, or their arguments aren't valid." What can you expect from people who can view high -def ultrasound pictures of a baby that show its face and expressions clearly and still insist that that baby is not a human being with rights?
Mother Theresa:
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself. And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another?
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching itspeople to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today — abortion which brings people to such blindness.
The child is NOT part of "her body." This is a big frickin lie and I'm sick of hearing it repeated.
The child relies on the woman's body for its growth and sustenance.
So does a newborn.
Because a baby needs his/her mother to survive does NOT mean that the mother should be free to murder it.
Actually, yes… shooting is far more humane. The abortion procedure is sickeningly, shockingly HORRIFYING.
You are one sick dude.
Murdering a baby is like splinting a broken leg?
Seriously, seek help.
You don't need to point it out, you illustrate it quite nicely.
Homebirths with trained midwives have better fetal and maternal mortality and morbidity outcomes than hospital births.
Women with high-risk pregnancies (and multiple births qualify as high risk) should not have babies at home. I have nothing against trained midwives, but I would use one only for a delivery that is expected to be routine and low-risk. If an emergency C-section is needed (which was the case in the situation I described), a midwife is useless. The only reason hippie mom didn't die was the midwife had the good sense to call 911 when she saw things were starting to go bad.
Lea was arguing that childbirth is dangerous – you, on the other hand, mimimize the danger. Childbirth is not generally dangerous these days because of modern medicine and technology. If you have a high risk pregnancy, you are a fool to dismiss what medical professionals tell you and have the kid at home. If you don't have a high risk pregnancy, then be my guest.
If abortion is not the killing of a baby, then what is it? Calling it a "fetus" does not take away from the fact that it is the killing of a baby; it is a baby. Lots and lots of abortions are performed on a "fetus" that is quite able to survive outside the womb on its own. This is bleak information to contemplate, which is why many people turn their heads and refuse to see.
As far as perseuction of gays and lesbians by the religious right, do you have any evidence of "persecution"? ; you know, something like trainloads of gays and lesbians being sent to a special camp, or does the "persecution" simply take the form of harsh words?
Harsh words on the one hand, a dead body of a baby on the other, yea I can certainly see the similarity.
And then there's Adolf Hitler, Cesar Chavez, Fidel Castro, Josef Stalin, Son of Sam and scores of others. Stupid argument. Abortion is a sin not a crime.
Hmmm….where do you live, because I want to avoid it.
So far, no one has knocked on my door to tell me how much energy to use. No one in the government has dictated any health care limitations (though my insurance company, doctors and dentist have). No one has told me what to do with my money. And the only limit on my radio depends on the reception. No one has busted me for hate speech, possibly because I don't say hateful things.
So where is this place where YOU live where the government tells you what to do? I would guess in your immagination.
An actor I like, a man who lives by his principles and beliefs. I love this man.
I agree. But a very significant portion of the American population believes otherwise. And this is a democracy, which means they get their say, whether we like it or not.
As a matter of fact, isn't that the problem? The other side has used the courts to shut our side out. Do you honestly think doing the same thing to them is going to resolve this issue? No. As long as government is choosing one side or the other, the issue will never be resolved. Which was my original point.
I think you should think about what value a human live has, and what its worth.
What value do you place on Adolf Hitlers life?
What value do you place on the life of a miserable unwanted child that grows up in the ghetto, and winds up being addicted to drugs? What value do you place on THAT life?
HOPE THAT MAKES YOU THINK!
The typical liberal argument of "A woman has the right to do what she wants, it's her choice!" OKAY, WELL WHAST IF THAT BABY INSIDE THE WOMB IS FEMALE, DOESN'T SHE GET TO CHOOSE LIFE???"
I like how Ronald Reagan said, "I have notice that everyone who is for abortion has already been born"
God Bless Jim and Eduardo for being men of true character, instead of these maggots infecting our world with reality tv celebrities!
You must be logged in to post a comment.