PDA

View Full Version : Million Dollar Baby...spoiler alert


memyselfI
02-27-2005, 05:28 PM
I've heard this movie is fabulous and, like Spongebob and the bartender in Shrek 2, it's pizzing off the Religious Right because of the assisted suicide message.

Thoughts on the movie from anyone who's seen it? Does it glorify euthanasia (as has been alleged) or are the RR whackos again barking up the wrong tree.

Does it deserve to win the Oscar as I believe it will?

Herzig
02-27-2005, 05:32 PM
It's a good flick...good acting. It is not offensive. I liked Sideways better, but this is definitely worth seeing. I wouldn't say it glorifies anything. Eastwood's character only does what Swank's character wants in the end.

Cochise
02-27-2005, 05:43 PM
Never heard anyone complain about that angle. But... don't mis a chance to slip some political venom into the main forum.

As for the films, I've only seen Ray and thought it was pretty good, hope it wins.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 05:47 PM
How about using the word "some" when referring to the "religious right"? Not all of the "RR" are decrying the film. It was a very good film that encapsulates one person's decision. It does not glorify or belittle the moment.

Saulbadguy
02-27-2005, 05:49 PM
#2. How can you believe it deserves an Oscar if you have never seen it? Seems to me you want the message more than the movie to receive an award - exactly what you are complaining about the "RR" doing.

Heh. Having a bit of trouble, are we?

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 05:53 PM
Heh. Having a bit of trouble, are we?
Naw, I obviously caught it before you did.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 05:54 PM
Heh. Having a bit of trouble, are we?

Good, someone else saw that before he edited it out. ROFL

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 05:54 PM
Good, someone else saw that before he edited it out. ROFL
And?

That really takes away from the fact that you continue to display your ignorance and prejudiced against the "RR" as you have conveniently labeled an entire people, as usual.

Thank goodness people don't do that to Hispanics with you, eh?

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 05:54 PM
Never heard anyone complain about that angle. But... don't mis a chance to slip some political venom into the main forum.

As for the films, I've only seen Ray and thought it was pretty good, hope it wins.

Hum, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Medved?

http://www.newsday.com/custom/envelope/cl-et-goldstein8feb08,0,7319632.story?coll=ny-envelope-main

Judging 'Baby' by its politics is just artless
Conservative critics are sharpening their knives over Clint Eastwood's boxing drama.

By Patrick Goldstein, Times Staff Writer


For years, conservative commentators of all stripes, led by critic-turned-radio host Michael Medved, have noisily bashed Hollywood for mocking religion or ignoring it entirely, contending — and this is a big issue with Medved — that the entertainment industry is largely made up of left-wing Beverly Hills dilettantes and unbelievers out of touch with the real moral values of the country.

So imagine my relief when I saw "Million Dollar Baby," the critically lauded film that's now a major contender for best picture and other Oscar accolades. Not only was the film made by Clint Eastwood, a longtime Republican, but the movie's leading man, played by Eastwood, is a regular churchgoer who believes in hard work, rejects crass materialism, values honor and loyalty and wrestles with soul-wrenching spiritual issues in an honest, mature fashion. A tender, beautifully made movie about faith and hard-earned redemption — surely this would be cause for celebration among conservatives and religious figures who see Hollywood as a cesspool of sex and sleaze, right?

Ah, what a fuzzy idealist I am. When it comes to hot-button issues, conservatives are just as guilty of knee-jerk political correctness as their liberal foes. By and large they've reacted to the movie as if it were a starry-eyed drama with Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn as Marxist history professors indoctrinating coeds in the theory of evolution. (Spoiler alert: If you want to avoid learning any "Million Dollar Baby" plot twists, read no further till you've seen the movie!)

Medved has led the charge, blasting the film (and to filmgoers' horror, largely giving away its ending) on CNN, "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The 700 Club," calling it "an insufferable manipulative right-to-die movie." Rush Limbaugh chimed in, dubbing the film "a million-dollar euthanasia movie." Debbie Schlussel, another conservative talk-show host, called the film a "left-wing diatribe," claiming it supports "killing the handicapped, literally putting their lights out." And Ted Baehr, head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, described the film to Sean Hannity as "very anti-Catholic and anti-Christian."

It would be easy to write off these attacks as the ravings of people who probably think there are hidden North Korean missile plans embedded in "Shrek 2." After all, Focus on the Family leader James Dobson recently accused SpongeBob SquarePants of being part of a pro-gay agenda. Claiming he was misquoted, he managed to make things worse by attacking the group using SpongeBob to promote tolerance and diversity with schoolkids, saying that tolerance and diversity "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy."

But the assault on "Million Dollar Baby" by Medved is not as easy to dismiss. A self-described conservative whose new book, "Right Turns," argues that conservatives are "both happier and nicer" than liberals and that "a more Christian America is good for the Jews," Medved wields considerable clout, via his commentaries, which run in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, and his popular radio show, which airs here weekdays on KRLA-AM (870) from noon to 3 p.m. The day we spoke last week, his show had an exclusive interview with Bush political guru Karl Rove.

Not surprisingly, Medved didn't like a lot of the Oscar-nominated films. Writing in USA Today, he criticized "Vera Drake" as portraying abortion in a "positive, almost sacramental light." "Kinsey," he says, "ridicules the religious orthodoxy of the main character's father." As he put it, the Oscar nominations "illustrate Hollywood's profound, almost pathological discomfort with the traditional religiosity embraced by most of its mass audience."

But does he really believe "Million Dollar Baby" is a euthanasia movie, not a serious drama about the price people pay for their dreams? "I don't see it as a serious movie that grapples with serious moral issues," Medved told me. "Take the way it portrays the priest [that Eastwood banters with at church]. It's totally one-sided. He's portrayed as a bozo, as a shallow twit. I know Catholic priests, and if you're a priest, you're not thrown by basic questions about the Trinity."

Medved said the film was "heavy-handed, clumsy and for the most part — except for Hilary Swank — badly acted and full of clichés." A big part of his problem with the film was "that the studio has tried to hide the real story. They were afraid no one would come see it if they told you what it was really about."

To hear a statement like that you have to assume that either Medved is ludicrously naive or simply disingenuous. Even if "MDB" were about euthanasia, which it surely is not, what studio marketer in their right mind would position their new release as a right-to-die movie instead of a soulful boxing drama? That's not deception, that's Publicity 101. But that sort of slippery reasoning infects nearly all of Medved's critiques about the movie business. In numerous interviews, as well as his book "Hollywood vs. America," he has promoted the idea that Hollywood follows its own dark obsessions instead of giving the public what it really wants — good, wholesome entertainment. This leads to all sorts of wacky oversimplifications. Medved claims, for example, that movie attendance fell off precipitously from 1965 to 1969 not because film studios faced a complicated set of new economic challenges and were slow to adapt to a burgeoning youth market but because Jack Valenti introduced a voluntary ratings system that led to "the profligate use of obscene language, graphic sex scenes and more vivid, sadistic violence."

He often makes the same claims about movies today — that audiences reject dark subject matter foisted on them by the showbiz elite. It doesn't hold water. People flock to see films and TV shows that are far more graphic than anything 35 years ago. Americans also support a $10-billion-a-year pornography business largely supplied by cable and satellite TV conglomerates owned by people like Rupert Murdoch who hardly fit the Hollywood lefty stereotype. When I asked Medved why millions have embraced the smarmy sexual innuendo of "Desperate Housewives" or "Meet the Fockers," he explained: "It's a big country — America is not entirely populated with people with stable families who go to church every week."

I hate to break the news, but people who don't go to church are hardly the only people watching "Desperate Housewives" or downloading porn. Medved's ideology often gets in the way of his better judgment, as in a recent Wall Street Journal piece when, in the midst of a discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," he unleashed the whopper that Moore's attacks on Paul Wolfowitz and other leading Jewish neoconservatives "reeks of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing." This from the man who berated anyone who dared make the charge of anti-Semitism against the Gibson film.

For Medved, when it comes to Hollywood, there's a wolf behind every door. But in his eagerness to further his brief against "Million Dollar Baby," Medved betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of art. It doesn't exist solely to reinforce our faith. The most powerful art, from Sophocles to Shakespeare to Scorsese, seethes with provocation; it stirs our passion; pricks our conscience and tests our most firmly held beliefs. Medved seems to have forgotten that art isn't fair and balanced — it comes in shades of gray, and two sides of every argument are not always given equal weight.

What's really depressing about Medved's assault on "Million Dollar Baby" is that he's judging the film on its politics, not its art. Hearing him complain about its secret agenda, I couldn't help but imagine him in Shakespearean England, tugging on people's sleeves at the Globe Theatre, complaining that "Hamlet" was simply a play that endorsed Oedipal urges.

If Medved and other conservatives think their attacks will hurt "Baby's" Oscar chances, they're in for a rude awakening. If anything, I suspect academy voters will go out of their way to show their respect for a gifted filmmaker under attack. After all, the academy ignored smears against "A Beautiful Mind" that accused it of whitewashing its hero's sexuality. It also honored Roman Polanski for "The Pianist," even when critics said he was unworthy of an award because he'd once had sex with a 13-year-old girl and fled the country to avoid prosecution. Elia Kazan may have been an informer during the blacklist, but that didn't stop the academy from giving him a long-overdue lifetime achievement award.

So far Eastwood has kept his cool, saying his film is simply "supposed to make you think about the precariousness of life and how we handle it." I'm with him. This probably isn't a politically correct pipe dream, but I can't help but fantasize about what might happen if Eastwood bumped into Medved, say at a chummy GOP fundraiser. Clint may not pack his fabled .44 magnum anymore, but that shouldn't stop him from urging Medved to air his views by gently nudging him in the ribs and purring, "Make my day."

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 05:56 PM
Hum, have you ever heard of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Medved?
Judging 'Baby' by its politics is just artless
Conservative critics are sharpening their knives over Clint Eastwood's boxing drama.


I have never heard of Medved nor do I listen to Limbaugh. Evidently you do both, or you listen to someone with an agenda against them.

Boozer
02-27-2005, 05:57 PM
I think everyone knows where I stand on the euthanasia/assisted suicide debate. Still, I can see where some people (namely paralyzed people) could be upset by the ending of the movie.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 05:59 PM
And?

That really takes away from the fact that you continue to display your ignorance and prejudiced against the "RR" as you have conveniently labeled an entire people, as usual.

Thank goodness people don't do that to Hispanics with you, eh?


Nah, I specifically said RR WHACKOS...

those would be the bunch targeting Spongebob, the transexual bartender in Shrek 2, or this movie. If you are not one of those then that label need not apply to you. So stop jumping to conclusions as you frequently do (and manage to correct yourself at times...)

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 05:59 PM
I think everyone knows where I stand on the euthanasia/assisted suicide debate. Still, I can see where some people (namely paralyzed people) could be upset by the ending of the movie.
I can honestly understand where SOME "RR" would be upset as well. Do I agree with their viewpoint? That is not germaine to the topic. I just never get tired of pointing out Duhnise's continual hatred and prejudice against an entire people horribly veiled as something other than what it actually is.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 05:59 PM
I have never heard of Medved nor do I listen to Limbaugh. Evidently you do both, or you listen to someone with an agenda against them.


Michael Medved is one of the top Christian/Conservative/Right Wing MEDIA critics.

redbrian
02-27-2005, 05:59 PM
The only problem with the ending is that it is false.

As Ms. Swank’s character is cognizant she could have, on her own refused treatment (i.e. have the ventilator turned off).

This was not a case of euthanasia, sorry to burst your little bubble, also of note is the fact that Clint is one of the biggest conservatives in the industry.

Cochise
02-27-2005, 06:00 PM
I have never heard of Medved nor do I listen to Limbaugh. Evidently you do both, or you listen to someone with an agenda against them.

Never heard of Medved and it's been a year or more since I listened to Limbaugh.

What's more, I've never heard Limbaugh utter a word about faith or his own religion or anything like that. Seems to me that he's what only an uninformed idealogue would call a member of the religious right...

And, for what it's worth, since the article mentions this group, I am a card-carrying member of the religious right and think the 700 club is a bunch of wackos. Might as well be Benny Hinn or something.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:01 PM
Never heard of Medved and it's been a year or more since I listened to Limbaugh.

What's more, I've never heard Limbaugh utter a word about faith or his own religion or anything like that. Seems to me that he's what only an uninformed idealogue would call a member of the religious right...

Did you read the article or are you pulling a Russ?


And Ted Baehr, head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, described the film to Sean Hannity as "very anti-Catholic and anti-Christian."

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:02 PM
Nah, I specifically said RR WHACKOS...

those would be the bunch targeting Spongebob, the transexual bartender in Shrek 2, or this movie. If you are not one of those then that label need not apply to you. So stop jumping to conclusions as you frequently do (and manage to correct yourself at times...)

Really?


I've heard this movie is fabulous and, like Spongbob and the bartender in Shrek 2, it's pizzing off the Religious Right because of the assisted suicide message.

hmmm, no "wacko" in the lead paragraph at all.


I guess if I post:

"Damned Mexicans need to get out of my country, I am sick of being frightened of what they will do.

After all the extremist railway serial killers need to be controlled".

Then you would not be offended in any way, right?

Cochise
02-27-2005, 06:03 PM
Did you read the article or are you pulling a Russ?


And Ted Baehr, head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, described the film to Sean Hannity as "very anti-Catholic and anti-Christian."

What does that quote have to do with what I said?

Boozer
02-27-2005, 06:04 PM
The only problem with the ending is that it is false.

As Ms. Swank’s character is cognizant she could have, on her own refused treatment (i.e. have the ventilator turned off).

This was not a case of euthanasia, sorry to burst your little bubble, also of note is the fact that Clint is one of the biggest conservatives in the industry.

I doubt it. Is anyone aware of a case where a quad was allowed to turn off his/her ventilator?

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:04 PM
What does that quote have to do with what I said?
It's a chance to detract from her usual bigoted biased statement.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:06 PM
I doubt it. Is anyone aware of a case where a quad was allowed to turn off his/her ventilator?
Yes, Richard Dreyfuss did a movie on it and won a court battle to shut himself down. Based on a true story back in the 1970s

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:07 PM
Yes, Richard Dreyfuss did a movie on it and won a court battle to shut himself down. Based on a true story back in the 1970s
Who's Life is it Anyway was the title.

Cochise
02-27-2005, 06:07 PM
It's a chance to detract from her usual bigoted biased statement.

I guess someone being on Sean Hannity's program = them being the opinion of all religious people.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:09 PM
Really?



hmmm, no "wacko" in the lead paragraph at all.


I guess if I post:

"Damned Mexicans need to get out of my country, I am sick of being frightened of what they will do.

After all the extremist railway serial killers need to be controlled".

Then you would not be offended in any way, right?

It would not bother me because I consider the source.

Here you go:

http://www.earnedmedia.org/sur0226.htm



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/25/193035.shtml
Is 'Million Dollar Baby' Anti-Christian?
by Ted Kavanau
Saturday, Feb 26, 2005
Is Clint Eastwood's Oscar nominated film "Million Dollar Baby" anti-Christian?

Christian doctrine does not permit assisted suicide, which is a major theme in the Eastwood-directed boxing film. Now, in the run-up to the Oscar vote, the liberal pundits are denouncing conservative critics who wrote about the film's sympathetic treatment of assisted suicide.
Story Continues Below



Movie critic Roger Ebert, for instance, said fellow critic-turned talk show host Michael Medved had committed an "unforgivable" error when he complained about the "deceptive packaging of Clint Eastwood's boxing-and-euthanasia epic."
The New York Times' Maureen Dowd also attacked Medved, asking whether he wanted to "Medvedize" the movie by turning it into an "Ozzie and Harriet" episode. Her colleague Frank Rich chimed in as well, calling the film critic a leader of "the usual gang of ayatollahs."

In the film Eastwood plays a smalltime boxing gym owner and trainer who very reluctantly agrees to train a neophyte female boxer, played by Hilary Swank.

With Eastwood's training and managing, Swank's character is on her way to great success until she is sucker-punched during a bout and ends up hospitalized as a quadriplegic.

Preferring to die rather than live with her disability, Swank persuades Eastwood to fulfill her wish and help her die. The movie portrays Eastwood's decision to euthanize Swank as an act of sympathy and love for her plight.

However, the assisted-suicide theme isn't the only aspect of "Million Dollar Baby" that might offend Christian sensibilities.

Eastwood's boxing gym owner, for instance, has some very unusual intellectual interests for someone in the fight game.

Though he attends Mass every day, the gym owner greatly irritates his parish priest by continually calling into question the basic tenets of the Catholic faith.

In one scene the priest gets so angry he curses the boxing manager and denounces him as a "pagan."

Another scene in the film shows Eastwood's character teaching himself to read from the works of the famous early 20th century Irish poet and playwright William Butler Yeats.

Yeats is an interesting choice, and the decision to interject his name into the film fuels suspicions of a hidden agenda.

Scholars say many of Yeats' poems focused on pagan Irish themes; he had a lifelong interest in Irish mythology and folklore as well as the occult. A dedicated Irish nationalist, he celebrated in his writings a pre-Christian, Gaelic-speaking Irish age.

According to noted author George Orwell, Yeats had "a hatred of modern western civilization and desire to return to the Bronze Age, or perhaps to the Middle Ages." He believed the era of Christianity was ending and that a chaotic period would follow.

Yeats' ideas were apparently well understood by the author FX Toole, whose short story "Rope Burns" was the basis for the Eastwood film.

Like Yeats, Eastwood's character rejects the Church, in the person of the film's priest, who warns of the dire consequences to Eastwood's conscience if he helps Swank's character die. Instead, Eastwood - portrayed as kinder and wiser than the priest - decides to defy Catholic teaching.

With Church teaching cast aside in favor of more modern sensibilities, "Million Dollar Baby's" anti-Christian message is an unmistakable theme in this year's Best Picture front-runner - an aspect that will only improve its chances of winning.

Ted Kavanau is the co-founder and former vice president of CNN

Boozer
02-27-2005, 06:09 PM
Yes, Richard Dreyfuss did a movie on it and won a court battle to shut himself down. Based on a true story back in the 1970s

Did he have no other medical problems than his paralysis?

redbrian
02-27-2005, 06:11 PM
I doubt it. Is anyone aware of a case where a quad was allowed to turn off his/her ventilator?

Happens all the time, heard it on NPR Friday night from a Hospital Pastor, she was discussing the ending to the movie.

It’s a simple case of a person refusing treatment, as opposed to one taking a drug whose only intent is to end life.

Christen Scientist do it all the time, when they refuse life saving transfusions.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:12 PM
It would not bother me because I consider the source.



Exactly my point, thank you Archie Bunker

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:12 PM
Did he have no other medical problems than his paralysis?
Too long ago, I really don't remember.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:13 PM
Focus on the Family:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035443.cfm

February 4, 2005

'Million Dollar Baby' Promotes Euthanasia
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent

Oscar-nominated movie ends with endorsement of assisted suicide.

"Million Dollar Baby" is being billed as a modern-day "Rocky," but viewers will leave the theater with a strong message favoring assisted suicide.

In the Oscar-nominated film, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood, a character is helped to commit suicide after a spinal cord injury—something sure to surprise audiences lured by the movie's advertising campaign.

"It is being sold as a feel good boxing movie, where it's actually a movie with a very, very strong assisted suicide theme that unequivocally portrays assisted suicide as a heroic act," critic Michael Medved noted. "There's no question that there is an agenda going on here and the agenda is consistently the opposite of what anyone would describe as a pro-life agenda."

That agenda angers disability-rights advocate Joni Eareckson Tada.

"Our adversary, the devil, is a liar and a murderer and a deceiver," she said, "and with this movie 'Million Dollar Baby,' he's attempting to deceive us even further."

Stephen Drake of the advocacy group Not Dead Yet said the message will likely have political ramifications as well.

"Right now, (Vermont, Hawaii and California) are actively discussing legislation of assisted suicide," he said, "and here's this movie where everybody comes out crying over this loving, wonderful act of putting down this woman with spinal-cord injury."

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Similar to placing a fire into a paper bag, the power to kill cannot be controlled once legalized, putting those most vulnerable—the disabled, elderly and poor—at risk. Find out the truth behind this disturbing trend in the broadcast cassette "Euthanasia Developments Worldwide," which offers an inside look into the consequences and implications of euthanasia.

redbrian
02-27-2005, 06:13 PM
Too long ago, I really don't remember.

Nor does it matter, you can refuse any medical treatment you wish.

BIG_DADDY
02-27-2005, 06:13 PM
Haven't seen the movie but I will. I firmly believe somebody has the right to take their own life and if their doctor will prescribe what they need, that is only being humane. This right is the most basic of all human rights period. Anyone saying otherwise needs to die a long slow death. As far as the Right Wing wacko's go I know very, very few people on the right that don't agree that this is a compassionate move. Put to a vote this would pass in every state in the Union right now. I actually think that this is great that it's being brought up so people can start putting a face on it and try to relate to their own loved ones.

Boozer
02-27-2005, 06:14 PM
Well, I stand corrected. Color me surprised (and impressed) by the state of New York's death jurisprudence.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:17 PM
Catholic Exchange

Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby Is a Brutal Euthanasia Film

http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=36&art_id=27013 01/14/05

The Christmas film release, Million Dollar Baby, starring Clint Eastwood and lauded by critics as a "love story" — as a ploy to ensnare unsuspecting viewers — is, in fact, a film championing assisted suicide.

The film is about Eastwood, as boxing manager Frankie Dunn, coaching boxing wannabe, 33-year-old Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank). The two fall in love, while Fitzgerald ascends her boxing career ladder.

In one fight, taking a dirty hit to the back of the head, Fitzgerald suffers an obviously severe injury. "Next scene: Maggie is hospitalized as a quadriplegic on a life-support respirator, with no hope of ever moving again, but with Dunn sitting faithfully by her side day after day, week after week — significantly missing the daily Mass he has attended for 23 years," as described by NewsMax.com columnist Joan Swirsky. In the end, Eastwood's character ends Fitzgerald's life by lethal injection.

Swirsky summarizes that Million Dollar Baby is really, "a film about a failed Catholic who is such a moral weakling that he vanishes after he commits murder. A film that both Hollywood and the media have knowingly lied about in order to entice people into movie theaters so they can cringe at its unending blood and gore and experience not enlightenment but pity at the heroine's fate and disgust at her trainer's cowardice."

The Catholic Tidings-Online critic Harry Forbes wrote: "What starts out as a formulaic, Rockyesque fight film takes a disturbingly downbeat turn, becoming a somber meditation on assisted suicide with a morally problematic ending which…will leave Catholic viewers emotionally against the ropes."

"This is the Christmas 'gift' that the secularist, anti-Christian powers-that-be in Hollywood and the media decided to foist on the public during the Christmas holiday season!" Swirsky warns. "If you want to have a very Merry Christmas, miss this faulty-inspired hoax!"

Read Newsmax.com's review of Million Dollar Baby.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 06:18 PM
Haven't seen the movie but I will. I firmly believe somebody has the right to take their own life and if their doctor will prescribe what they need, that is only being humane. This right is the most basic of all human rights period. Anyone saying otherwise needs to die a long slow death. As far as the Right Wing wacko's go I know very, very few people on the right that don't agree that this is a compassionate move. Put to a vote this would pass in every state in the Union right now. I actually think that this is great that it's being brought up so people can start putting a face on it and try to relate to their own loved ones.
BD - I don't mind if someone kills themselves. I do mind that Dr's like Kevorkian destroys the good name of medicine by stating something like depression is a terminal illness and uses it to get his jollies killing other people while avoiding the responsibility of his actions with the word "assisted".

Are there rare cases in which quads cannot kill themselves, sure? But most assisted suicide cases are completed by people who could have killed themselves without ascribing guilt and blame to the person helping by killing them. It is usually a greedy act performed by the person wanting to die.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:19 PM
Christian Broadcast Network

http://www.cbn.com/entertainment/screen/ANS_rottenmovies.asp

Look Out, Hollywood! Here Come the Rotten Bananas!
By Dr. Ted Baehr
Publisher, MovieGuide Magazine



CBN.com – HOLLYWOOD, CA (ANS) -- This year’s Oscar® nominations celebrated Clint Eastwood’s movie Million Dollar Baby and movies like Kinsey and Closer this Sunday, but they aren’t getting any kudos from leading Christians in Hollywood.

On the contrary.

The Christian Film & Television Commission’s entertainment magazine, Movieguide Magazine, founded by Christian media teacher Dr. Ted Baehr, named the three movies among the worst, most immoral movies of 2004. They, and 17 other movies, have received Movieguide's Rotten Banana Award for the Most Unbearable Movies of 2004.

The 20 Worst were selected not because of entertainment value, but because they contribute to an immoral culture which is anti-human, anti-God and opposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

“Some people think that Jesus Christ never lived while others think that the New Testament is not historically reliable,” Dr. Baehr said in a statement. “Modern historical research by many top scholars, however (like Dr. J. P. Moreland of Biola University and Dr. Gary Habermas of Liberty University), has shown that the New Testament documents are reliable witnesses of the truth, and that Jesus Christ was an actual historical person who died for all of our sins and rose from the dead because he is the only begotten Son of God.

“When Hollywood makes anti-Christian, immoral movies like Kinsey, which advocates a hedonistic, perverted lifestyle no matter who it hurts, and Million Dollar Baby, whose hero commits murder and euthanasia, Hollywood thoroughly undermines the Moral Law of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ, which are the foundations on which western civilization is built.”

Baehr added, “Movies like this also destroy the moral and spiritual purity and intelligence of millions of people, including many children and teenagers who may see them.”

Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film & Television Commission, pointed out, however, that 18 of the 20 movies on his list made very little money at the box office, in the United States or overseas.

“This shows that our biblical standards of excellence and purity match the moral and spiritual standards of the mass audience and most moviegoers,” Dr. Baehr concluded. “The public, especially Wall Street and Madison Avenue, should pressure the major media conglomerates to stop making these kinds of movies.”

Cochise
02-27-2005, 06:20 PM
Focus on the Family:

http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/news/a0035443.cfm

February 4, 2005

'Million Dollar Baby' Promotes Euthanasia
by Steve Jordahl, correspondent

Oscar-nominated movie ends with endorsement of assisted suicide.

"Million Dollar Baby" is being billed as a modern-day "Rocky," but viewers will leave the theater with a strong message favoring assisted suicide.

In the Oscar-nominated film, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood, a character is helped to commit suicide after a spinal cord injury—something sure to surprise audiences lured by the movie's advertising campaign.

"It is being sold as a feel good boxing movie, where it's actually a movie with a very, very strong assisted suicide theme that unequivocally portrays assisted suicide as a heroic act," critic Michael Medved noted. "There's no question that there is an agenda going on here and the agenda is consistently the opposite of what anyone would describe as a pro-life agenda."

That agenda angers disability-rights advocate Joni Eareckson Tada.

"Our adversary, the devil, is a liar and a murderer and a deceiver," she said, "and with this movie 'Million Dollar Baby,' he's attempting to deceive us even further."

Stephen Drake of the advocacy group Not Dead Yet said the message will likely have political ramifications as well.

"Right now, (Vermont, Hawaii and California) are actively discussing legislation of assisted suicide," he said, "and here's this movie where everybody comes out crying over this loving, wonderful act of putting down this woman with spinal-cord injury."

FOR MORE INFORMATION
Similar to placing a fire into a paper bag, the power to kill cannot be controlled once legalized, putting those most vulnerable—the disabled, elderly and poor—at risk. Find out the truth behind this disturbing trend in the broadcast cassette "Euthanasia Developments Worldwide," which offers an inside look into the consequences and implications of euthanasia.

It's the same guy you referenced previously, and two people associated with disability advocacy groups, one of whom is a quadraplegic herself.

That's quite an outcry from the whole of religious people in this country. Damn those people for expressing their alternative opinions.

redbrian
02-27-2005, 06:24 PM
It's the same guy you referenced previously, and two people associated with disability advocacy groups, one of whom is a quadraplegic herself. That's quite an outcry from the whole of religious people in this country.


She’s going to beat that dead squirrel to death, or at least until its good and tenderized, makes it easer to swallow.

Cochise
02-27-2005, 06:29 PM
She’s going to beat that dead squirrel to death, or at least until its good and tenderized, makes it easer to swallow.

Yep... well, I think the thread is good and D.C. worthy as it stands.

Seems to me like a thinly veiled attempt to expose those on the board who purposefully stay away from the D.C. forum to some good ol' fashioned demonization.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:32 PM
Crosswalk.com

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/weblogs/mohler/?adate=2/24/2005#1314506

Million Dollar Baby"--Assisted Suicide at the Oscars

Clint Eastwood has emerged as one of the biggest names in Hollywood, with a score of awards for both acting and directing. This year, he's up again for the Best Director award at the Oscars, and many Hollywood insiders believe Eastwood is the likely winner over his closest competition, Martin Scorsese. Scorsese, who has never won an Oscar for Best Director, was nominated for his film "The Aviator," and is seen as a sentimental favorite for the award. Eastwood's film, "Million Dollar Baby," surprised the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with its commercial success and artistry. Viewers of the movie are likely to be surprised by another feature of the film--its presentation of assisted suicide. The film tells the story of a female fighter, Maggie Fitzgerald, played by Hilary Swank, who achieves a meteoric rise in the world of women's boxing. As many observers have noted, the first part of the film suggests little more than a female version of the famed "Rocky" films starring Sylvester Stallone.

Of course, much of the star power is provided by Eastwood himself, who plays trainer Frankie Dunn, who serves as both coach and mentor to Fitzgerald.

The plot takes a dark turn when Maggie suffers a devastating injury in the ring, taken down by an opponent who blindsides her, leaving her paralyzed from the neck down. The great moral crisis of the film arrives when Maggie, confined to a wheelchair and a body she can no longer control, simply decides that she would rather die than accept her new physical limitations. Eventually, Frankie Dunn decides to assist Maggie in taking her own life.

The movie was billed as a fight film, not as a moral consideration of assisted suicide. As a matter of fact, the film's advocacy of suicide was first noticed by Michael Medved, an influential movie critic and talk show host. A Hollywood insider, Medved has been one of the most respected figures in film criticism for years, and his revelations concerning "Million Dollar Baby" landed like a bombshell.

As Medved told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, "What I object to the most is the dishonesty in the marketing campaign. Finally, finally, finally, the American people are getting the honest idea [that] this is a film that has a very strong assisted suicide theme." Beyond this, Medved argued that the film presented a decidedly manipulative and one-sided take on the controversial issue of assisted suicide. "This is totally over to one side where assisted suicide, euthanasia is a good thing," Medved observed. "In fact it is described by the narrator of the film as a heroic act to help somebody kill somebody else."

The cultural left responded with a vengeance, defending "Million Dollar Baby" and Clint Eastwood and suggesting that Medved was a "spoiler," out to ruin the movie's commercial prospects.

The New York Times was especially vitriolic in denouncing Medved, with Op-Ed columnist Maureen Dowd coining the word "Medvedized" to insinuate a reckless attack from the right. Frank Rich, formerly the paper's theater critic, identified "the usual gang of Ayatollahs," including Medved, whom Rich compared to the Communist-hunters of the 1950s.

In the end, the assisted suicide theme is impossible to ignore. It becomes the major theme of the movie, with Maggie Fitzgerald no longer willing to live, if living means that she can no longer be the boxing phenomenon she once was. Maggie tells Frankie, "I can't be like this, boss, not after what I've done. I've seen the world. People chanted my name. I was in magazines."

Writing at National Review Online, Frederica Mathewes-Green summarizes Maggie's real situation--she "can't bear to be a has-been." As Mathewes-Green warns, "By this standard, anyone who comes to the end of their 15 minutes of fame is justified in seeking suicide. Truth is, a real-life Maggie would be far from unknown. A beautiful, feisty young woman is tragically paralyzed in a boxing-ring accident? She'd be another Christopher Reeve."

Beyond all this, the worldview of "Million Dollar Baby" represents a direct repudiation of Christianity's respect for the dignity of human life. Compare this movie to the real-life story of Joni Eareckson Tada, who triumphed over her own paralysis and has become a witness, both to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and to the true dignity of human life, even among those who have suffered disastrous spinal injuries.

Writing at "Joni and Friends," Joni's on-line community, Sanda Allyson takes on the movie. "Here's the thing," Allyson notes. "When we begin taking life when someone is depressed or has a devastating injury, because it seems so reasonable, or some say, kind, what then would prevent us from taking the life of someone we assume would want to die when they cannot respond in a way that seems reasonable to us? What may seem reasonable to one person may not seem reasonable to another. We're then confronted with the question, who should die? Based on whose opinion? What about those who can't speak?"

The real scandal of this movie is its insinuation that the able-bodied owe the disabled the gift of suicide. What kind of message does this send? First, it suggests to the disabled that their lives are really not worth living. This point has hardly been missed by disability advocates. Groups like "Not Dead Yet" have protested outside theaters showing "Million Dollar Baby."

"Unfortunately, a message like the one in 'Million Dollar Baby' just perpetuates exactly what we work so hard to dispel," said Marcie Roth, Executive Director of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association. That group has been at work since 1948, but Roth laments the fact that, "yet lo these many years later, many people still think having a spinal-cord injury is a fate worse than death."

Disability advocates are outraged that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has nominated "Million Dollar Baby" for seven Oscars. "I really can't imagine this kind of awards attention for somebody who put out a film that relies on the worst stereotypes the audience holds about homosexuality," noted Stephen Drake, a researcher for "Not Dead Yet." Nevertheless, disability advocates do not have the clout that homosexuals possess in Hollywood, and thus they represent a group easily targeted by this kind of movie.

Eastwood is undeterred by the criticism. In this week's edition of TIME magazine, he simply brushed off the criticism as evidence of "extremism." Eastwood, who is also nominated in the Best Actor category for his role in the film, stated: "Extremism is so easy. You've got your position, and that's it. It doesn't take much thought. And when you go far enough to the right you meet the same idiots coming around from the left."

In other words, Dirty Harry is telling those who don't like the assisted suicide theme of his film to take a hike--or worse.

Eastwood's dismissal, predictable as it is, is disappointing enough. Nevertheless, ambivalent reviewers are even more disappointing. Take, for example, reviewer Kevin Miller, writing in Relevant magazine. After reviewing the moral quandaries of the film, Miller asserts, "God has given us the power of life and death over our fellow human beings. Isn't it possible that there are some instances in which exercising this power is not a sin but a blessing? Many people think so when it comes to war, capital punishment, and abortion. Why not euthanasia?"

Keep in mind that Relevant bills itself as a Christian magazine, and Miller presumably means to be understood as a Christian reviewer. He seems to understand the problematic nature of his review. "Lest anyone think that I am endorsing euthanasia in this review, I am not. I'm not advocating against it either, though, because, frankly, I don't think I have answered the above questions well enough for myself yet. However, I do know that as I watched Frankie bend over and kiss Maggie one last time, he had no motive other than love in his heart. I also realized that no matter how miserable she was, there was no way I could have brought myself to reduce this beautiful, spirited girl to nothing but a cold lump of flesh. It just goes to show that when it comes to life-and-death choices like this, sometimes emotions can cloud your judgment. At other times, though, I think they make things perfectly clear."

Tragically, it is Miller's own confusion that is perfectly clear. The Christian worldview asserts the absolute dignity of every single human life from the moment of conception until natural death. How can Miller assert that in helping Maggie to kill herself, Frankie "had no motive other than love in his heart?"

This isn't a depiction of genuine love--certainly not love understood in a genuinely Christian sense. Christians are called to love persons unto death, not to help persons reach a premature death. True Christian love would assist Maggie to understand that she still possesses human dignity and enormous gifts that could and should be employed for the benefit of herself and others.

The Christian worldview leaves absolutely no room for assisted suicide, euthanasia, or any other form of what the secular world increasingly embraces as the "good death."

In reality, "Million Dollar Baby" is a sophisticated advertisement in favor of moral nihilism. Without doubt, Clint Eastwood is a gifted director who brings decades of experience in Hollywood to the big screen. This movie, already a commercial success, just may walk away with several of the big awards on Sunday night. Regrettably, it will also serve as a prophetic reminder that the sanctity of human life is now routinely denied, even in the name of personal liberation and "love."

Helping a friend to die is not a heroic act. True heroism consists in affirming human dignity and in lovingly calling hurting people out of depression, not into suicide.

All this would be troubling enough if the controversies over assisted suicide were limited to the Academy Awards and Hollywood. Will viewers of the Academy Awards program on Sunday night be thinking of Terri Schiavo as they watch the ceremony? Terri, whose husband has been attempting to remove her feeding tube, faces the very real prospect of a horrible death--all in the name of a "right to die." Her parents have been waging a noble fight for her life, but time appears to be running out as the courts have so far chosen to embrace death rather than life.

The big fight over assisted suicide will not be waged over the Academy Awards. Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review Oregon's assisted suicide law--a measure that has been disastrous for human dignity.

"Million Dollar Baby," even if it wins all the Oscars for which it has been nominated, will soon be added to the Hollywood backlist, and the movie industry will move on to new films and new controversies. But the issue of assisted suicide will not go away, and we should not allow the controversy over this movie to evaporate without learning a significant lesson about the true challenge of contending for the sanctity of human life against the seductive and sophisticated assault of the Culture of Death.

We desperately need true moral heroes, willing to fight for the dignity of human life, for the disabled, and for the least of us. But then, true moral heroes are not awarded with Oscars. Their reward will have to wait--for now.

_____________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 06:34 PM
Yep... well, I think the thread is good and D.C. worthy as it stands.

Seems to me like a thinly veiled attempt to expose those on the board who purposefully stay away from the D.C. forum to some good ol' fashioned demonization.


Oh :deevee: .

The Oscars are on tonight. The movie is predicted to win. And if it does, I imagine the outcry from the CC/RR will be even more because right now a great deal of people do not know what the movie is about or certainly do not know the 'twist'.

2bikemike
02-27-2005, 06:39 PM
Yep... well, I think the thread is good and D.C. worthy as it stands.

Seems to me like a thinly veiled attempt to expose those on the board who purposefully stay away from the D.C. forum to some good ol' fashioned demonization.

I agree. If she wants to talk about the movie fine, but win she starts bringing in the politcs it needs to be booted to DC.

el borracho
02-27-2005, 06:40 PM
I agree. If she wants to talk about the movie fine, but win she starts bringing in the politcs it needs to be booted to DC.
I wonder if there is any way the mods could restrict her posting to the DC forum only.

BIG_DADDY
02-27-2005, 06:45 PM
BD - I don't mind if someone kills themselves. I do mind that Dr's like Kevorkian destroys the good name of medicine by stating something like depression is a terminal illness and uses it to get his jollies killing other people while avoiding the responsibility of his actions with the word "assisted".

Are there rare cases in which quads cannot kill themselves, sure? But most assisted suicide cases are completed by people who could have killed themselves without ascribing guilt and blame to the person helping by killing them. It is usually a greedy act performed by the person wanting to die.

What do you know about what it usually is Russ, seriously where are you getting that information from and how do you even begin to think these doctors are getting their jollies killing people? My mother is right on the cutting edge of this running an office for a bunch of doctors in Oregon. I know for a fact that someone has to be seriously messed up to even qualify being terminal and in bad pain. Let me ask you another question do agree doctors should be able to prescribe a barbiturate cocktail for those who are in pain and terminal? As far as being majorly paralyzed goes I would want to die too. No way I would live like Reeves. Who is anyone to tell me I have to and what gives them that right? This is the most basic human right Russ, if your against it I can see why some people here think your an extremist.

BIG_DADDY
02-27-2005, 06:46 PM
I wonder if there is any way the mods could restrict her posting to the DC forum only.

That's a great idea. :thumb:

Michael Michigan
02-27-2005, 06:49 PM
Michael Medved is one of the top Christian/Conservative/Right Wing MEDIA critics.

FTR...

Michael Medved is a devout Jew.

So you'll understnad clearly, that means he's not a Christian.

redbrian
02-27-2005, 06:51 PM
FTR...

Michael Medved is a devout Jew.

So you'll understnad clearly, that means he's not a Christian.

Please don't throw facts at her, she either won't understand or is incapable of understanding.

WeBToysnStuff
02-27-2005, 07:04 PM
I've heard this movie is fabulous and, like Spongebob and the bartender in Shrek 2, it's pizzing off the Religious Right because of the assisted suicide message.

Thoughts on the movie from anyone who's seen it? Does it glorify euthanasia (as has been alleged) or are the RR whackos again barking up the wrong tree.

Does it deserve to win the Oscar as I believe it will?

You believe it will win the oscar because??????

You admit that you haven't seen it and are willing to give it the award?

If euthanasia is a possibility, maybe you should look into it for yourself.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 07:37 PM
You believe it will win the oscar because??????

You admit that you haven't seen it and are willing to give it the award?

If euthanasia is a possibility, maybe you should look into it for yourself.

Look Russ, another person couldn't read what was written either! :thumb:

I did not say I wanted it to win or would choose it to win. I predicted it would win because it's been the favorite of many people I've seen who predict these things. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 07:39 PM
I agree. If she wants to talk about the movie fine, but win she starts bringing in the politcs it needs to be booted to DC.

Thusfar, there is nothing political here. If you want to start a political discussion about the movie then please start your own thread and do not hijack mine.

memyselfI
02-27-2005, 07:44 PM
FTR...

Michael Medved is a devout Jew.

So you'll understnad clearly, that means he's not a Christian.

Yes, he's in the diversity section of the RR. ROFL

Iowanian
02-27-2005, 08:34 PM
Everything doesn't have to be politcal, you ignorant Gunt.

listopencil
02-27-2005, 09:18 PM
I'm going to go out and assist a suicide right now just to piss of The Religious Right. How about it, Meme? Care to take one for the team?

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 09:50 PM
What do you know about what it usually is Russ, seriously where are you getting that information from and how do you even begin to think these doctors are getting their jollies killing people? My mother is right on the cutting edge of this running an office for a bunch of doctors in Oregon. I know for a fact that someone has to be seriously messed up to even qualify being terminal and in bad pain. Let me ask you another question do agree doctors should be able to prescribe a barbiturate cocktail for those who are in pain and terminal? As far as being majorly paralyzed goes I would want to die too. No way I would live like Reeves. Who is anyone to tell me I have to and what gives them that right? This is the most basic human right Russ, if your against it I can see why some people here think your an extremist.
BD - Dr. Kevorkian is the poster child for assisted suicide. The last woman he killed, Judith Curren, was diagnosed by Kevorkian as to having CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). First of all, CFS is rarely terminal, secondly he was the only physician in her entire physical history that determined she had CFS, third CFS leaves little signs in the body after death and Mrs. Curren showed no signs of Fibromyalgia (or CFS). He was a murderer and he represents those who want to "assist". The autopsy showed the woman was overweight and her previous med history showed her to be clinically depressed. She also left behind two children. I ask you, is that the type of person we should be helping kill themselves?

No, a physician should not be able to prescribe death, it goes against the Hippocratic Oath. You are not just asking a doc to prescribe a death medication (which IMO is still cowardly - take a bunch of OTC sleeping pills and some booze, or go to sleep in your car while running in the garage - stop making others responsible for your actions), you are asking a doc to diagnose and determine whether the patient can have "quality" life. How can anyone else determine if your life is quality or not? If you think your life is sh*t, kill yourself - don't make your last act someone else's responsibility.

As far as your comment regarding quadripalegics, I don't necessarily disagree. That was not my point of contention at all. The 45 listed "assisted" suicides performed and admitted by Jack Kevorkian had not a single quadripalegic listed.

Finally, I am not telling you what your rights are whatsoever. If you want to stick your head in an oven, a barrel in your mouth, or bleed to death in a tub of warm water - more power to you. Just don't ask society to clean it up and do your dirty work for you.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 09:51 PM
FTR...

Michael Medved is a devout Jew.

So you'll understnad clearly, that means he's not a Christian.
Damn, there is another group she can start cursing.

KCWolfman
02-27-2005, 09:52 PM
Thusfar, there is nothing political here. If you want to start a political discussion about the movie then please start your own thread and do not hijack mine.
She said while posting political/religious link after link.

Cochise
02-27-2005, 10:08 PM
Yes, he's in the diversity section of the RR. ROFL

Oops! Busted not knowing what you're talking about again...

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 10:10 PM
Thusfar, there is nothing political here. If you want to start a political discussion about the movie then please start your own thread and do not hijack mine.
You know what I do when I want to post something non political?

I make a thread referring to the religious right being pissed off about something in the topic post.

You are a dumbass.

FloridaChief
02-27-2005, 10:18 PM
Jesus H Christ! F*ck Almighty!---I can't believe anyone w/ half-a-brain still takes a Denise thread seriously....

Cochise
02-27-2005, 10:20 PM
You know what I do when I want to post something non political?

I make a thread referring to the religious right being pissed off about something in the topic post.

You are a dumbass.

Can we get a new subforum for threads created by these:

Bwana
02-27-2005, 10:27 PM
I wonder if there is any way the mods could restrict her posting to the DC forum only.
Damn good idea. Now that Redass Rich is going to retire, the only thing she has "left" is bitching about things that will end up in the DC forum.

Logical
02-28-2005, 01:04 AM
I doubt it. Is anyone aware of a case where a quad was allowed to turn off his/her ventilator?

I am pretty sure they could, I was able to put in my will that I was never to be put on a ventilator no matter what the circumstances. I was also able to refuse to be put on a ventilator when I was in the hospital and having such difficulty breathing they warned me I might die without it.

Logical
02-28-2005, 01:11 AM
Yep... well, I think the thread is good and D.C. worthy as it stands.

Seems to me like a thinly veiled attempt to expose those on the board who purposefully stay away from the D.C. forum to some good ol' fashioned demonization.

Since when is religion a political issue. There have been tons of religious debates in this forum. Russ and I had a titanic one over The Passion of the Christ. I believe you are out of line in trying to ostracize this to the DC forum.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 06:23 AM
Since when is religion a political issue. There have been tons of religious debates in this forum. Russ and I had a titanic one over The Passion of the Christ. I believe you are out of line in trying to ostracize this to the DC forum.
I think it is the constant reference to "Right Wing" that everyone is referring to. Duhnise has no one to blame but herself as she is automatically associated with politics due to her bigoted hatred of those associated with religion that do not meet her criteria.


Oh, and glad to see you posting again.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 06:28 AM
Oh, and before Duhnise, TJ, and jAZ start their usual crying session, I didn't move this thread.

memyselfI
02-28-2005, 06:56 AM
She said while posting political/religious link after link.

Really, the links I posted are political organizations? Which one?

memyselfI
02-28-2005, 06:57 AM
Since when is religion a political issue. There have been tons of religious debates in this forum. Russ and I had a titanic one over The Passion of the Christ. I believe you are out of line in trying to ostracize this to the DC forum.

It is when some people want to :deevee: and get something off of the main board...that being said it was relevent last night because it was Oscar Night now it's the day after so no biggie.

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 09:38 AM
BD - Dr. Kevorkian is the poster child for assisted suicide. The last woman he killed, Judith Curren, was diagnosed by Kevorkian as to having CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). First of all, CFS is rarely terminal, secondly he was the only physician in her entire physical history that determined she had CFS, third CFS leaves little signs in the body after death and Mrs. Curren showed no signs of Fibromyalgia (or CFS). He was a murderer and he represents those who want to "assist". The autopsy showed the woman was overweight and her previous med history showed her to be clinically depressed. She also left behind two children. I ask you, is that the type of person we should be helping kill themselves?

No, a physician should not be able to prescribe death, it goes against the Hippocratic Oath. You are not just asking a doc to prescribe a death medication (which IMO is still cowardly - take a bunch of OTC sleeping pills and some booze, or go to sleep in your car while running in the garage - stop making others responsible for your actions), you are asking a doc to diagnose and determine whether the patient can have "quality" life. How can anyone else determine if your life is quality or not? If you think your life is sh*t, kill yourself - don't make your last act someone else's responsibility.

As far as your comment regarding quadripalegics, I don't necessarily disagree. That was not my point of contention at all. The 45 listed "assisted" suicides performed and admitted by Jack Kevorkian had not a single quadripalegic listed.

Finally, I am not telling you what your rights are whatsoever. If you want to stick your head in an oven, a barrel in your mouth, or bleed to death in a tub of warm water - more power to you. Just don't ask society to clean it up and do your dirty work for you.

They wouldn't be putting anything on society. If a doctor working under strict guidelines like there are in Oregon right now is perfectly willing and able to assist someone who is terminal and in pain and the voters of the state have no problem with it then who are you to step in and try to take that right away? This continued default to Kevorkian just isn't cutting it with me bud. The Supreme court is going after Kevorkian they are going after states rights and a humans most basic right.

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 09:40 AM
It is when some people want to :deevee:
.

If that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You wouldn't know how to sell an opinion if your life depended on it Denise. How ****ing stupid can you possible be?

Cochise
02-28-2005, 10:13 AM
Dense, if it makes you feel any better, I am 100% in support of your assisted suicide.

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 10:21 AM
Dense, if it makes you feel any better, I am 100% in support of your assisted suicide.

But I am sure that has absolutely nothing to do with the way she made her case.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 03:34 PM
They wouldn't be putting anything on society. If a doctor working under strict guidelines like there are in Oregon right now is perfectly willing and able to assist someone who is terminal and in pain and the voters of the state have no problem with it then who are you to step in and try to take that right away? This continued default to Kevorkian just isn't cutting it with me bud. The Supreme court is going after Kevorkian they are going after states rights and a humans most basic right.


If your life is so horrid, kill yourself. It is that simple. Why do you need someone else to do it for you?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 03:36 PM
Really, the links I posted are political organizations? Which one?
I guess it was pretty stupid of you to refer to their political leanings in your original post then, wasn't it?

memyselfI
02-28-2005, 03:48 PM
I guess it was pretty stupid of you to refer to their political leanings in your original post then, wasn't it?

As usual, it's only one side who is doing the :deevee: about the movie...like they previously had with Spongebob and Shrek 2.

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 03:50 PM
If your life is so horrid, kill yourself. It is that simple. Why do you need someone else to do it for you?

Why would you care if someone else assisted said person? Why would you deny anyone that? Who are you to step in between dying individual and the person licensed and compassionate enough to help it go down correctly? Why is so important for you stick your nose in other peoples most private moment when nobody else wants you there?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 04:02 PM
As usual, it's only one side who is doing the :deevee: about the movie...like they previously had with Spongebob and Shrek 2.
Dodge. As I stated, you made it political with your original statement. Your reply has nothing to do with my statement.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 04:06 PM
Why would you care if someone else assisted said person? Why would you deny anyone that? Who are you to step in between dying individual and the person licensed and compassionate enough to help it go down correctly? Why is so important for you stick your nose in other peoples most private moment when nobody else wants you there?
First of all, there is no basic right to kill yourself.

Secondly, I don't care how they kill themselves. It is no longer a private moment when they ask the medical profession to entertain the notion of killing themselves.

Finally, again, get drunk and jump off a building, eat a soma and vodka sandwich, or sleep in your car with the thing running for all I care. Just don't try to legitimize the action by making it legal and involving other people - that is where you lose privacy.

Saulbadguy
02-28-2005, 04:10 PM
First of all, there is no basic right to kill yourself.

I never fully understood this. Who does it hurt, besides yourself, if you did?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 04:11 PM
I never fully understood this. Who does it hurt, besides yourself, if you did?
No one, go ahead - just don't try to make it legitimate by asking a doctor to do it. It is no longer "suicide" when you have someone else help you.

Saulbadguy
02-28-2005, 04:12 PM
No one, go ahead - just don't try to make it legitimate by asking a doctor to do it. It is no longer "suicide" when you have someone else help you.
Then why is suicide not a basic right?

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 04:15 PM
Then why is suicide not a basic right?
I don't know, was Jefferson just an idiot to miss such a thing?

I guess it is the inability to hold you accountable afterward if you do it right.

Iowanian
02-28-2005, 05:00 PM
If someone really wants to die, let them do it the Samuri way, and plunge a Butter Knife into their spleen.

DanT
02-28-2005, 05:08 PM
It would not bother me because I consider the source.

Here you go:

http://www.earnedmedia.org/sur0226.htm



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/2/25/193035.shtml
Is 'Million Dollar Baby' Anti-Christian?
by Ted Kavanau
Saturday, Feb 26, 2005
Is Clint Eastwood's Oscar nominated film "Million Dollar Baby" anti-Christian?

[Rest of story deleted by DanT]

With Church teaching cast aside in favor of more modern sensibilities, "Million Dollar Baby's" anti-Christian message is an unmistakable theme in this year's Best Picture front-runner - an aspect that will only improve its chances of winning.

Ted Kavanau is the co-founder and former vice president of CNN

So, what does that closing comment by Ted Kavanau mean, that the criticism is true that Hollywood is anti-Chrisitian and will tend to reward movies that detract from Christian teachings in favor of "more modern sensibilities"?

Anyway, I'm glad I read this thread. I hadn't realized that Million Dollar Baby had an assisted-suicide theme. I consider so-called "assisted suicide" to be a moral evil, part of a nihilistic package of evils offered up by a society that does not treat life with the value that I feel it deserves. It's good to read that many others (in the stories that memyselfi posted) agree with me.

Physicians are needed to kill people about as much as they are needed at executions to pronounce that someone is dead-- that is, they aren't. The prestige that physicians have acquired over the centuries should not be tapped in order to try and glorify a desecration of life. It's interesting that the Clint Eastwood character administer the lethal injection in the movie. At least he didn't cast a doctor for that role.

Logical
02-28-2005, 05:32 PM
No one, go ahead - just don't try to make it legitimate by asking a doctor to do it. It is no longer "suicide" when you have someone else help you.A doctor can make sure you succeed and don't end up a burden to family and society as either an invalid or vegetable in a botched attempt. This is why I think it should be allowed. Besides which if my health deteriorated by alzheimers or some similar debilitating illness I would like the assistance.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 05:36 PM
A doctor can make sure you succeed and don't end up a burden to family and society as either an invalid or vegetable in a botched attempt. This is why I think it should be allowed. Besides which if my health deteriorated by alzheimers or some similar debilitating illness I would like the assistance.
A doctor cannot kill you himself; therefore, he cannot make sure you succeed. The Oregon law states two docs (from anyone in the US or in it's territories) can certify that you probably have no more than 6 months to live. Then they will prescribe you a poisonous tonic if you ask them in writing for it. That is all they can do.

I can do that without the writing. Simply put a few mothballs in some gin and go to the gin after you finish a fifth of vodka.

Logical
02-28-2005, 05:44 PM
A doctor cannot kill you himself; therefore, he cannot make sure you succeed. The Oregon law states two docs (from anyone in the US or in it's territories) can certify that you probably have no more than 6 months to live. Then they will prescribe you a poisonous tonic if you ask them in writing for it. That is all they can do.

I can do that without the writing. Simply put a few mothballs in some gin and go to the gin after you finish a fifth of vodka.I was telling you what I advocate, not talking about the Oregon law.

KCWolfman
02-28-2005, 05:50 PM
I was telling you what I advocate, not talking about the Oregon law.
I stand corrected on the methodology.

Then why do you need a physician? Why don't you get someone who strictly trains to kill people instead of muddying up an honorable profession?

More importantly, why not simply have the despondent simply stick a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger after completing a simple DNR?

Logical
02-28-2005, 05:58 PM
I stand corrected on the methodology.

Then why do you need a physician? Why don't you get someone who strictly trains to kill people instead of muddying up an honorable profession?

More importantly, why not simply have the despondent simply stick a gun in their mouth and pull the trigger after completing a simple DNR?

I suppose another individual type could be trained, but they would have to be give authority to obtain the right drugs.

There have actually been people survive the gun in the mouth method and besides it takes a courage level that always amazes me and I admire. They have to have strength of will that is beyond amazing.

DanT
02-28-2005, 06:02 PM
Here are a couple of thougthful reviews from a Christian perspective on the movie. Neither seems to think that the movie is unalloyed propaganda in favor of euthanasia, by the way. I'll quote a paragraph from the second review:

http://decentfilms.com/reviews/milliondollarbaby.html


As for the theme of euthanasia, the film is not a polemic in favor of assisted suicide. The pain and devastation of those involved is achingly evident. However, in spite of all the soul-searching that precedes it, the deed itself is presented as an act of reluctant heroism. And given the dire circumstances, our sympathies and humane inclinations may argue in favor of such misguided compassion, but our Catholic faith prohibits us from getting around the fact that, in this case, the best-intended ends cannot justify the chosen means: the taking of a life.

http://www.usccb.org/movies/m/milliondollarbaby.htm

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 07:07 AM
So, what does that closing comment by Ted Kavanau mean, that the criticism is true that Hollywood is anti-Chrisitian and will tend to reward movies that detract from Christian teachings in favor of "more modern sensibilities"?

Anyway, I'm glad I read this thread. I hadn't realized that Million Dollar Baby had an assisted-suicide theme. I consider so-called "assisted suicide" to be a moral evil, part of a nihilistic package of evils offered up by a society that does not treat life with the value that I feel it deserves. It's good to read that many others (in the stories that memyselfi posted) agree with me.
Physicians are needed to kill people about as much as they are needed at executions to pronounce that someone is dead-- that is, they aren't. The prestige that physicians have acquired over the centuries should not be tapped in order to try and glorify a desecration of life. It's interesting that the Clint Eastwood character administer the lethal injection in the movie. At least he didn't cast a doctor for that role.


Well, I believe apart from the A.S. in the movie, part of the criticism has been the marketing of the movie in that it appears to be a movie about 'girl making good in boy's world' and only after you see the movie do you get the real story...which I don't see how that is false or untrue marketing but some do.

To your first question, in the current environment just about any movie these days is seen to have 'anti-Christian messages' by some (see Sideways, Spongebob, Shrek2, etc) thus the quote is not saying much. The threshold is sooo low these days it doesn't take much.