Hey Hollywood, please, no more movies "glamorizing young unwed mothers."

Be responsible, and make movies that glamorize young unwed women having abortions.

To me it is clearly the liberal abortion community and values they teach our young in school come to bite them on the butt.  I don't know what went through these young women, yes they ceased being girls when the ymade the choice, made the choice to get pregnant.  I blame the parents for allowing the school and society to raise their kids and now the parents are going to reap the wages of their childrens actions.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.

For decades, the film industry (which includes critics like Corliss) glamorized teen sex, unrestrained by any moral or social rules. They dismissed parents who warned that irresponsible sexual behavior will bring unwanted pregnanices. Now that the unwanted pregnancies are an issue, it is galling (and revealing) to listen to the film industry argue that the "real" irresponsibility is not killing the baby. In other words, they have nothing to say about the irresponsibility that caused the problem in the first place, because their industry profits from it. They're so eager to evade their culpability in glamorizing teen sex that they argue that it's irresponsible to take responsibility for your behavior. Logic weeps.

It's also revealing that Corliss doesn't like the fiction portrayed in movies like Juno and Knocked Up, but he thinks an equally fictional movie about chaos in Romania is somehow more true.

• For one thing, all these movies are fiction. These aren't documentaries. They're staged and choreographed to support the author's point of view. The author invented the scenes, and all the little straw men along the way, to lead the audience into the emotional perspective that the author wants to promote. The fact that Corliss prefers one fiction to another glosses over the fact that it's fiction. Corliss seems to have mistaken one fiction as "truth," simply because that fiction fits his prejudices.
• Second, it becomes clear that Corliss prefers to view teen pregnancy as a complete disaster, like a disease (or as Obama would call it, a punishment) that must be avoided at all costs. After all, by this logic, a teenager should have the right to live her life without the burden of a child, so she can ... what? ... enjoy all possibilities without responsibility?

"For an instructive dramatizing of the problem — and more important, for one of the strongest movies in recent years — they should see writer-director Christian Mungiu's Romanian film 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days." 

I'm seeing Oscar nomination here.  At some point in the movie is President Bush blamed for all the problems in Romania?  If so, it's a lock to take home the top prize, especially if it is in Romanian, with subtitles.

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."  - Sir Winston Churchill

...and another thing he says if we rid ourselves of abortion women will still do with the greater risk of injury and trauma????

As if the legal abortions today produce less of a risk of injury and trauma? Don't think so.

www.theholyrosary.org

"There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we can not resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary." -Sister Lucia

 "Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006—the first increase in 15 years—Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control."

"Currently Gloucester teens must travel about 20 miles (30 km) to reach the nearest women's health clinic; younger girls have to get a ride or take the train and walk. But the notion of a school handing out birth control pills has met with hostility."

This story became a story about birth control and not being able to get it at school.  BUT, the whole point of the story is that these girls wanted to get pregnant.  It has nothing to do with whether birth control was available or not. 

I guess this argument is almost the same people make in regards to violent movies inspire violent action or copycat acts.  I was always under the assumption that these things exists in the movies because they are only representing what is going on in our society.

I thought Juno was all right.  I wanted to turn it off after the first fifteen minutes because the dialouge and tone seemed too young for me.  I"m glad I didn't because it was an enjoyable flick.  I found the father, Jason Bateman, and Jennifer Gardner really good in it.

Knocked Up was funny too.

But like others have said, it is not about birth control it is about the fact that these girls felt the only way to get love was to have a baby....the LSM brushed right over that part....where are/were the parents?

 WRITE IN "None of the Above" this November

Can anyone tell me why this story is being portrayed by the MSM in such a negative light?  Even O'Reilly Factor last night portrayed it that way.  (And my wife and I changed the channel at that point.)

You cannot argue that we shouldn't pass a law against abortions because people will disobey the law. And then, having said that, you can't claim that people will ignore the law because it shouldn't have been passed in the first place. That is the textbook definition of circular reasoning -- and it's a logical fallacy.

The same logic applies to larceny or murder, or any other crime. The law presumes that some people will break the law, because if everyone was going to act in acceptable ways, we wouldn't bother to make a law against the behavior in the first place. You make the law precisely because people are already doing what you forbid. The law merely sets up penalties against the behavior. Basically, a law is the price you have to pay if you get caught doing the behavior. "They're going to do it anyway" simply hopes to stop society from attaching any penalty to the behavior.

And if you argue this analysis doens't apply because "abortion isn't wrong, like larceny or murder is," then again, you're guilty of a circular argument. You can't say that we shouldn't pass a law against abortion because abortion isn't a crime -- you would already be assuming that abortion is acceptable in your defense of abortion.

What you're really saying is that abortion is more important to women than the law. Well, that's debatable, but even it was true (which I doubt) we'd have to wonder why you care about the law. If you're going to disrespect the law anyway, you have no right to demand that the law make your life easier.