The "million dollar" question?

[Steve]

[WARNING: There is a movie spoiler in this post and the link. If you plan on viewing "Million Dollar Baby", don't read any further.]

I doubt I'll watch the movie, it doesn't sound very interesting, to me. Evidently, though,it's got a lot of people bent out of shape. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6970787/) See, the girl dies. In fact, after being paralyzed, she asks to be killed. Her request is granted.

The "pro-life" (not to be confused with the anti-abortion crowd, but I'm guessing they're mostly the same folks) people are all bent out of shape, as are various disability activists and others who just really, honestly think this movie sends the "wrong message" (whatever that may be).

At the heart of their objections is the belief that a life of paralysis is better than death; that no disability, no matter how severe, is so bad that death should be preferred.

Who are they, to make that decison, to speak for others? What gives them the right to decide how another should live (or die) their lives? Talk about your God-complexes!

Look, I know this is one society's great, unsolved issues. It will be, as long as we continue debating the sexuality of Teletubbies and cartoon sponges that live in pineapples. I can't even say with any certainty what my own personal wishes would be if I found myself in a similar situation. The way I feel today may change tomorrow, and back again the next day.

I do know that, at the heart of the matter, the only way for any of us to retain individual human dignity is to be allowed to decide for ourselves not only how we want to live our lives but also whether we want to continue living those lives. I don't think it's right that anyone else should proclaim to make that decision for us.

[John R. Beanham]

Steve,

I have made it very clear to my wife and kids that if I am a vegetable on life support, I want it turned OFF!!!!

They get a reminder every so often.


John.

[Stiofán]

I mentioned this here before. I first learned of it when my paraplegic friend went to see the movie and was upset about the ending. She had no problem with it being included, but that it's been hidden ala "the Crying Game" twist. Had she not told me about it I might have seen it as well, and I really don't have any desire to see a movie which includes assisted suicide regardless of my personal feeling about the issue.

Your link is also pretty blantanly anti-conservative, and I understand you're not responsible for the guy's writing but you're only getting one side of the story by reading it. There are people who do have to deal with tramatic spinal injuries in the healthcare profession and many of them do not like this ending. I don't think their opinion needs to be belittled as the writers seems to do by calling those with a different opinions from his "P.C. police or simple-minded, talk-show hosts". Just my take on the article.

[Steve]

Sorry about the link content, I only included because of the information provided in the first several paragraphs, about the movie. I didn't even read the whole thing :sheepish:

[Stiofán]

Oh I know that. I'm kind of like you guys in not wanting to burden family in a few select circumstances. Still don't want to see the movie though. ;)

[Kluge]

What I don't understand is how I can hear on the radio that somebody got a hand transplant, somebody else's hand, and they're learning to grip things and all that.
What is so different between a spinal cord and enough nerves to operate a hand, except a whole lot of nerves? If somebody can attach a few nerves, why not eventually a whole bunch of nerves? In school eons ago they said a nerve cell stretched inches or feet in length and would not heal if severed. So how is a hand hooked up after being somewhat detached for a while?
I think they or we are almost at the point of being able to heal spinal cord injuries. We may never be able to afford grandiose medical treatments for everybody, though.

[ethics]

I think they or we are almost at the point of being able to heal spinal cord injuries. We may never be able to afford grandiose medical treatments for everybody, though.


From your keyboard to God's eye...

[Copzilla]

This is why stem cell research is so important.

[ethics]

Even liberals ("progressives") are having a problem with this movie, <a href="http://www.acsblog.org/guest-bloggers-993-guest-blogger-a-liberalas-disappointment-with-million-dollar-baby.html">albeit for different reasons.</a>

Let’s start with the hackneyed depiction of the poor. Maggie’s family is the epitome of trailer trash. They live in Ozark squalor, lying to cheat the government out of welfare money. When Maggie buys her mother a new home with her boxing winnings, the mother refuses to accept the house claiming that it will spell the end of her welfare checks. Later, when Maggie lies helpless in a hospital, the mother and other family members –with trucker hats and accents straight from central casting – arrive to cheat Maggie out of her remaining assets. In the movie’s view, the poor are poor because they like it that way. They are not only liars and cheats but heartless as well.

It is not a coincidence that Maggie is from the South, or at least that she and her family speak with southern accents. In Hollywood, the southern accent is synonymous with stupidity. Other than Maggie’s family, the only other southerner in the film is a young wannabe boxer ironically named Danger. He is so dim that he asks Freeman’s character, Eddie, how ice got inside a water bottle recently extracted from a freezer.

The clichés stretch to blacks. Eddie is a sympathetic sort, looking after Danger and prodding Frankie to take Maggie under his wing. But he fits into a long line of African-American sycophants in Hollywood cinema, living by the benevolence of his white boss. He lives in the gym, with apparently not a cent to his name even though he works long days for Frankie. His socks are in tatters, and when Frankie so realizes he offers to buy Eddie some new ones. As if Eddie is paid in scrip, he must go through his boss for new clothes.

[Arc]

Let’s start with the hackneyed depiction of the poor. Maggie’s family is the epitome of trailer trash. They live in Ozark squalor, lying to cheat the government out of welfare money. When Maggie buys her mother a new home with her boxing winnings, the mother refuses to accept the house claiming that it will spell the end of her welfare checks. Later, when Maggie lies helpless in a hospital, the mother and other family members –with trucker hats and accents straight from central casting – arrive to cheat Maggie out of her remaining assets. In the movie’s view, the poor are poor because they like it that way. They are not only liars and cheats but heartless as well.


Ah but there is just one flaw in the position as set forth by the writer you quote: How does he explain Maggie?

[ethics]

Typical woman who relies on someone. Read that whole article. I laughed because these "progressives" are so predictable it's not even funny.

[Coriolis]

I doubt I'll see the movie, at least anytime soon. I'm not much for hyped movies, because they usually are a disappointment, so perhaps I'll wait for the DVD release...

But, from what I'm reading in the discussion above, explains why I really like Clint Eastwood. The fact that several groups are hot and bothered by the film means it was a smashing success! Way to go, Clint! :)