MovieChat Forums > Juno (2007) Discussion > Juno: The Hipster Conservative

Juno: The Hipster Conservative

posted 8 years ago by retro4
24 replies | jump to latest

A pro-life teenager with idiosyncratic way of speaking, a quirky sense of fashion, a love acoustic guitar, and on top of that is dating Michael Cera. This is what a hipster conservative looks like.

[–] theothercoraline 8 years ago

She wasn't pro-life.
She decided the best choice for her was to give the baby up for adoption, but she never said anything against abortion.

[–] retro4 8 years ago

@theothercoraline She went to an abortion clinic then she convinced not to do it because of pro-life advocate.

[–] theothercoraline 8 years ago

Someone who is pro-life thinks abortion is wrong and that the only choice for a woman who gets pregnant is to give birth.
Juno never said she changed her mind and decided abortion was wrong. It was just not what she wanted to do. Do you think if one of her friends came up to her later and said she was pregnant, Juno would have insisted they give birth to it? No, she would've respected her choice and helped her whether she wanted an abortion or to keep it or adoption or whatever. Do you think now she'll join her classmate who was protesting outside of the clinic in convincing women not to get abortions? Nope.
Juno was definitely pro-choice.

[–] retro4 8 years ago

I think you're neglecting some of the context of the film, there is strong argument to had that Juno would qualify as a pro-life film.

Note to those who may be drawn to the movie by the pro-life elements: It would be a stretch to say that Cody or Reitman intended this to be a "socially conservative" film. Juno and her friends are still teenagers, with all that that implies, though the jokes they tell never stray outside PG-13 territory. (This isn't a crass Judd Apatow film, in other words.) Also, it is worth noting that, when all is said and done, neither Juno nor her child end up in a traditional family, as such. But in a way, that just underscores the film's implicit pro-life sensibility. Life is life, and deserves to be nurtured, even—if not especially—when everything around it is broken.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/decemberweb-only/juno.html?start=3

[–] theothercoraline 8 years ago

Well, I mean, everyone can interpret it how they want, but that was not the intention of the film.
Here's the actual writer's thoughts:

CS: What are your feelings about the pro-life movement embracing this movie because Juno chooses to keep the baby rather than having an abortion?
Cody: You know what? Anybody can embrace the film that wants to embrace the film, but I will say on the record that it’s not pro-life propaganda and it’s not a political movie.
...
CS: The MPAA gave the movie a PG-13 rating because they determined it was a movie with an important message to get out, which implies a certain political connotation. Do you sense that and how do you respond?
Cody: It’s a tough one for me to respond to. The irony is that when I wrote the movie, I thought it was kind of a lefty, edgy movie that would like piss people off, because she was joking about abortion. I thought it was irreverent. I had no idea that anybody would ever perceive it as this right wing Valentine, which I’m not saying that everybody has, but I think some people have perceived it as such. It’s weird to me because I’m sure Jason has said this, but we think as the movie as personal, not political, and I think Juno’s decision to not have an abortion is very personal. As the person who wrote it, to me, it was fear-based, as opposed to this moral conundrum. Obviously, that’s going to happen, and I’ve been concerned about it from the beginning. I was concerned about how that would come across.

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/40048-juno-screenwriter-diablo-cody

[–] AndrewGS 8 years ago

I don't think she became solidly pro-life but she did that abortion was questionable or wrong enough for her to not have one.

[–] Darren (1197) 5 years ago

No, she didn't, but the important point to take home is that when faced with the actual decision to terminate the fetus, she couldn't bring herself to do it. That most certainly DOES at least suggest VERY strong moral reservations about the matter of abortion. There's no escaping this. After all, why else would you choose undergo the medical risk, financial expense, social opprobrium, educational hardship, and sheer discomfort and incovenience of pregnancy when there's such an easy out?

[–] kaneforgov 8 years ago

She wasn't pro or anti anything. She did what all women should always have the right to do with their own body; MAKE A CHOICE!

[–] Elephantlips 8 years ago

Women have the right to choose by law.

However, the argument against that choice has nothing to do with "their" bodies.

Pro-lifers couldn't give a rat's ass about what a woman does with HER body. It's the body inside her body that they care about.

Pro-choice folks want to gloss over that.

[–] d-54631 8 years ago

Agreed. The idea of choice stems from a belief. If you believe, as many do, that human life starts at conception, then abortion is murder, plain and simple. Ask a pro-choicer if abortion of a one day old fetus is ok. Then ask the same pro-choicer if abortion of an eight month old fetus is ok? Likely you'll get a different answer. Then ask at exactly what day that changes and exactly what criteria causes that change and prepare to step back and watch their head spin.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

If you believe, as many do, that human life starts at conception, then abortion is murder, plain and simple.

The issue isn't about human life, it is about personhood, which is a social and political construct. Sorry, but nothing is "plain and simple".

Then ask at exactly what day that changes and exactly what criteria causes that change and prepare to step back and watch their head spin.

On the flip side, how many anti-choicers hold funerals and make graves for miscarriages, hmmm?

Since personhood is a social and political construct, a rational person has no expectation that there is a magical dividing line which tells us when an abortion is okay and when it is not. There is none. You have to weigh the importance of several issues, including the viability of the fetus surviving on its own.

[–] d-54631 7 years ago

This fantasy of personhood may well be a social political construct, but the concept of human life is reality based and involves real biological facts.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

This fantasy of personhood may well be a social political construct, but the concept of human life is reality based and involves real biological facts.

Those facts are utterly and completely irrelevant to any moral arguments. The behavior of anti-choicers shows that even if they won't admit it consciously, they recognize that fetal tissue does not have the same status as a baby that has been born. Try again.

[–] d-54631 7 years ago

The behavior? Provide facts. Try again.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

No funerals for miscarriages indicates that even anti-choicers do not recognize fetal tissue as fully human.

This isn’t rocket science, sparky.

[–] d-54631 7 years ago

NO funerals for miscarried children? Ever? Seriously? You know for a fact that there has never been a funeral for a miscarried child? Better do a little research on that one and reconsider your ability to speak on behalf of the millions of pro life people out there because you are making over generalized statements that you can't support.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

Don't act like an idiot. You know that funerals for miscarriages are virtually non-existent.

Once you acknowledge this reality, start contemplating what it actually means.

[–] d-54631 7 years ago

What it actually means is that funerals for miscarried children DO exist. What it actually means is that you can't support your position with facts. But you already stated that facts don't have any place in this argument so I guess you'll keep trying to use fantasy and name calling. Pretty weak.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

What it actually means is that funerals for miscarried children DO exist.

Barely at all, which again proves my point--anti-choicers do recognized, unconsciously, that they don't have the same regard for fetal tissue that they have for an acutal human.

But you already stated that facts don't have any place in this argument so I guess you'll keep trying to use fantasy and name calling.

Only the right facts matter. Being philosophically illiterate--a common trait among authoritarian anti-choicers--such notions go completely over your head.

[–] d-54631 7 years ago

Let's see, you flip flopped from saying funerals for miscarried children don't exist to acknowledging they do in fact exist. They you try to throw in "barely at all"--another thing you can't prove.

Next you flip flop and acknowledge that facts actually DO matter in this argument, but you tag on "only the right ones". And apparently you get to decide what those are? Your argument weakens with every reply.

Then you reduce your self, again, to name calling and make a weak connection presuming that you know my position on this issue? If you read the thread again, you will discover that I have never stated my position, nor do I need to. My whole purpose has been to point out how weak, thin and indefensible some people's positions are on hot button emotional issues. Thank you for being a great subject of study.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

Let's see, you flip flopped from saying funerals for miscarried children don't exist to acknowledging they do in fact exist. They you try to throw in "barely at all"--another thing you can't prove.

Again, you are playing games and acting like a complete idiot because you know I have you on the ropes.

You know that funerals for miscarriages are not the norm and barely occur at all. You know that digging graves for them would be an eccentric outlier. Don't pretend otherwise. Grow up.

This is just one way to measure the fact that people, regardless of whether they are pro or anti choice, do not grant the same status to fetal tissue that they grant to babies that have been born.

Fetal tissue does not get registered as a citizen.

Miscarriages rarely even require a death certificate and don't even need to be reported to the government in many states depending on how much they weigh.

Next you flip flop and acknowledge that facts actually DO matter in this argument, but you tag on "only the right ones".

This flip flop exists only in your deluded imagination. From the very beginning I've been saying that your reference to the "fact" of fetal tissue being "life" is morally irrelevant. Nothing has changed about that.

Biological facts are not considered in the childish, absolutist way you have naively suggested. Look at state requirements for the reporting of miscarriages. It often depends on such facts as how many grams the tissue weighs.

This is perfectly consistent with the idea that regardless of what anti-choice morons say, the real issue is one of personhood, a sociological and political construction.

You call personhood a fantasy, and this just telegraphs ignorance. Debates about the nature of personhood are at the heart of Ethics 101. If you had ever taken a freshman course on ethical philosophy you'd know that the concept is central, not a "fantasy". (That's why it isn't a personal attack to observe that you are indeed philosophically illiterate. It is just a factual observation.)

My whole purpose has been to point out how weak, thin and indefensible some people's positions are on hot button emotional issues.

Then congratulation: you have utterly and completely failed, since you have no grasp whatsoever of the complexities of the subject.

[–] shiningforce82 7 years ago

Probably life is only important to them as an agenda of control. If is a useful idiot omw how follows this belief that they care about the whole life. If they did the religious right would be ANTI WAR as well. And they would be PRO UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

Drops mic.

[–] shiningforce82 7 years ago

Pro* autocorrect fail.

[–] Faustus5 7 years ago

Drops mic, indeed!