U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[tabzer]

I have, i just don't have see it in a disgustingly perverted sexual metaphor just for the purpose of pathetically trying to justify my ideals. The fact that somehow you do is yet further evidence of your perversion.

Not to mention, you're wrong because time travel doesn't work like that in the series since there's only one timestream and they all act inside it. Unless you're suggesting that time can make itself pregnant, which it can't.

You're gross.

Sex can be very beautiful. When you are ready, you can try it with a consenting partner that you trust.

The union between time and causality made time pregnant. Time didn't make itself pregnant. It's in the movie.

 

[Foxi4]

He didn't abort himself ffs. He almost caused his non-existence, which is completely different.

So what you’re saying is that he was going to be born soon, but then he did something that almost stopped his mother’s (future) pregnancy, thus preventing his birth? Personally I would abort this line of questioning. I like how pedantic we’re being about whether or not Marty’s mother was pregnant at the exact time of his trip when it’s a movie about… travelling back in time, making that point moot. The question isn’t whether she was pregnant, but whether she was going to be pregnant. Marty knew that his mother was going to conceive in advance, and his actions had the potential to undo her pregnancy from history. The fact that they’re all operating within a single timestream makes the term *more* appropriate, not less, because you can’t say that Marty’s mother wasn’t pregnant, or wasn’t going to give birth to Marty, or that his actions didn’t nearly undo said pregnancy, or that it was some kind of parallel mother - all of those things were already in the timestream, except in the future. Marty’s actions almost undid them, threatening his own existence, therefore he almost “aborted himself”, as in he nearly terminated his mother’s pregnancies within the timestream before she gave birth to him and his siblings.

Y’know, this started as a (pretty obvious) joke, but you guys seem to care so much that rolling with it is even funnier than initially expected. I’m totally on-board with this now, actually.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Sex can be very beautiful. When you are ready, you can try it with a consenting partner that you trust.

The union between time and causality made time pregnant. Time didn't make itself pregnant. It's in the movie.

Incel confirmed. Your obsession with the sex OF OTHERS and the idea of somehow punishing others for enjoying it is all bu7t obvious.

So what you’re saying is that he was going to be born soon, but then he did something that almost stopped his mother’s (future) pregnancy, thus preventing his birth? Personally I would abort this line of questioning. I like how pedantic we’re being about whether or not Marty’s mother was pregnant at the exact time of his trip when it’s a movie about… travelling back in time, making that point moot. The question isn’t whether she was pregnant, but whether she was going to be pregnant. Marty knew that his mother was going to conceive in advance, and his actions had the potential to undo her pregnancy from history. The fact that they’re all operating within a single timestream makes the term *more* appropriate, not less, because you can’t say that Marty’s mother wasn’t pregnant, or wasn’t going to give birth to Marty, or that his actions didn’t nearly undo said pregnancy, or that it was some kind of parallel mother - all of those things were already in the timestream, except in the future. Marty’s actions almost undid them, threatening his own existence, therefore he almost “aborted himself”, as in he nearly terminated his mother’s pregnancies within the timestream before she gave birth to him and his siblings.

Lots of "nearly" and "almost" here, that don't give any validity to this nonsense.

Y’know, this started as a (pretty obvious) joke, but you guys seem to care so much that rolling with it is even funnier than initially expected. I’m totally on-board with this now, actually.

First of all, you people are the ones more invested in this (since the idea was yours anyway). Secondly, this is originally a video-game forum, what did you expect?

 

[Foxi4]

i love how the discussion devolved into talking about what happened in back to the future

The level of discussion in the thread has objectively improved ever since the movie was introduced. At some point we’ll have to go back, sadly. I blame the Libyans.

Lots of "nearly" and "almost" here, that don't give any validity to this nonsense.

First of all, you people are the ones more invested in this (since the idea was yours anyway). Secondly, this is originally a video-game forum, what did you expect?

Abortion is a term used to describe the termination of a pregnancy in order to prevent the birth of a child. Since Marty possessed the power to travel in time, he wasn’t constrained by what we traditionally interpret as the timeframe of pregnancy. He had significantly more means to remove his birth from time, including preventing his own conception by way of interfering in his parent’s meeting. As such, he almost “aborted himself” - we can’t deny that his mother wasn’t pregnant in the future, and his actions in the past would’ve prevented his birth. This is fun, honestly. That being said, don’t you think we’ve wasted enough time now?

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Abortion is a term used to describe the termination of a pregnancy in order to prevent the birth of a child.

Key concept: termination of CURRENT pregnancy. Not of FUTURE pregnancies.

Since Marty possessed the power to travel in time, he wasn’t constrained by what we traditionally interpret as the timeframe of pregnancy. He had significantly more means to remove his birth from time, including preventing his own conception by way of interfering in his parent’s meeting. As such, he almost “aborted himself” - we can’t deny that his mother wasn’t pregnant in the future, and his actions in the past would’ve prevented his birth.

And we can't deny that his mother was NOT pregnant during his interference, therefore Marty was acting as his own CONTRACEPTIVE, and that's only because I'm entertaining the language of you perverts sexualising the concept of time, which is frankly something I didn't expect to encounter in my life, but then again, that's right-wingers for you, devising obscenities where none should exist. Or perhaps this is a sign that you people think of abortion as a contraceptive?

This is fun, honestly.

Yay, very.

That being said, don’t you think we’ve wasted enough time now?

Wasted enough time around 20 pages ago when it became obvious that the usual suspects went full troll, mala fide mode.

 

[Foxi4]

Key concept: termination of CURRENT pregnancy. Not of FUTURE pregnancies.

In the context of the movie Marty already exists. He’s operating within the timestream before his own birth. His timeframe for interfering with his mother’s pregnancy is larger, theoretically infinite, because he’s a time traveler. It doesn’t matter that the pregnancy takes place in the future - Marty himself is in the past. He absolutely can “abort himself” in the past - he’s in it.

And we can't deny that his mother was NOT pregnant during his interference, therefore Marty was acting as his own CONTRACEPTIVE, and that's only because I'm entertaining the language of you perverts sexualising the concept of time, which is frankly something I didn't expect to encounter in my life, but then again, that's right-wingers for you, devising obscenities where none should exist. Or perhaps this is a sign that you people think of abortion as a contraceptive?

Yay, very.

Wasted enough time around 20 pages ago when it became obvious that the usual suspects went full troll, mala fide mode.

I don’t know what’s there to argue about, Marty’s mother was definitely pregnant, in the future. We know this because Marty already exists - he’s the protagonist, we observe him. Causality dictates that there is a pregnancy within the timestream, one that Marty can terminate through his actions in the past. That interference would erase him from his mother’s womb, as well as history as a whole. It would “abort” his existence. If time is one continuous stream one can travel back and forth in, as presented in the universe of BTTF, then one can act upon it from any point on that stream. Whether the pregnancy is in the future, the past or the present is immaterial to its termination.

This is different from time as presented in the movie “The Terminator”, in which each key decision of the characters leads to the timelines splitting into two different realities, each with a different outcome. In that movie, Skynet is sending his terminator explicitly to kill Sarah Connor so as to prevent her pregnancy and the subsequent birth of John Connor, the leader of the resistance. These kinds of disturbances lead to time fracturing and history self-correcting to avoid paradox.

Okay, that’s just too much now. I think we should get back to the topic at hand.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Okay, that’s just too much now. I think we should get back to the topic at hand.

Yes please, because your "reasoning" is getting flimsier by the minute

 

[Foxi4]

Yes please, because your "reasoning" is getting flimsier by the minute

There’s nothing flimsy about the reasoning, it’s not my fault you’re having trouble with grasping the concept of time travel across one contiguous timestream. Marty was born, and he almost undid his birth. Within the rules of that universe there’s only one “Marty”, and if his birth is prevented he ceases to exist. I humorously called that an abortion, although technically you could call it contraception as well. My objection to that is that Marty already exists as an entity within the timestream, so abortion seems more appropriate as it denotes the removal from existence. That, and the fact that it’s an obvious joke, so it doesn’t even matter. For some reason this humorous quip started an entire debate, which is admittedly very amusing, but I think it’s overstaying its welcome.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

There’s nothing flimsy about the reasoning, it’s not my fault you’re having trouble with grasping the concept of time travel across one contiguous timestream. Marty was born, and he almost undid his birth. I humorously called that an abortion, although technically you could call it contraception as well. My objection to that is that Marty already exists as an entity within the timestream, so abortion seems more appropriate as it denotes the removal from existence. For some reason this humorous quip started an entire debate, which is admittedly very amusing, but I think it’s overstaying its welcome.

There's everything flimsy with your "reasoning", since you're deliberately assuming your false premises and general nonsense are facts. They're not. It's not my fault you have no idea understanding the difference between contraception and abortion, or the basic understanding of the concept of pregnancy.
This "humorous" quip started a debate because you all are desecrating a beloved classic by way of false assumptions and inappropriate sexualisation of concepts which were not meant to be sexualised.
But then again you don't really engage in good faith or reasonably, so that's to be expected.

You might call it the GBAtemp attempt to devise a modern allegory of sorts. You'll have to forgive me for thinking Plato still is way above you.

 

[Foxi4]

There's everything flimsy with your "reasoning", since you're deliberately assuming your false premises and general nonsense are facts. They're not. It's not my fault you have no idea understanding the difference between contraception and abortion, or the basic understanding of the concept of pregnancy.
This "humorous" quip started a debate because you all are desecrating a beloved classic by way of false assumptions and inappropriate sexualisation of concepts which were not meant to be sexualised.
But then again you don't really engage in good faith or reasonably, so that's to be expected.

You might call it the GBAtemp attempt to devise a modern allegory of sorts. You'll have to forgive me for thinking Plato still is way above you.

I still don’t get where you’re pulling that whole “sexualisation of concepts” nonsense from, the film is pretty charged as it is, but that’s fine. I think it’s time to abort this discussion, before we get into more pressing ethical questions. After all, Marty affected more than just his own life during his travels, not always in a positive way. I won’t go on a tangent about how using his position of power to affect people’s fates without their consent was morally questionable, but I will say that the discussion was amusing.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

the film is pretty charged as it is

what ARE you talking about?

 

[alex61194]

your enforcing people to not be able to have abortions, your morals are that the parents MUST have a child if pregnant, and removing the option to have a safe abortion. You are enforcing your morals on someone else

it´s his opinion i differ from him but it´s just that an opinion

 

[Foxi4]

what ARE you talking about?

I’m sorry, but as a fan I can’t let this slide - one last reply from me. You’re joking, right? I think you should rewatch the movie, you must’ve missed a couple of crucial scenes. For Pete’s sake, there’s a point in the story where Marty accidentally makes his mother romantically interested *in him*. That causes his body to start vanishing and he needs to cut the conversation short, squashing the feeling. There’s an obvious underlining theme of mother-son incest here. This is not an accident, either - it’s a deliberate reference to the story of Oedipus. Marty knows that Lorraine is his mother, but she has no idea he’s her son. Bob Gale told CNN that this premise was so objectionable to Disney that they rejected the movie outright as incompatible with their family-friendly brand, which is why they went to Universal instead. The movie went through a number of revisions before it was finally accepted and went into production, and it absolutely still contains many sexually charged scenes - this one’s only one of many. The whole movie is literally about Marty making sure his parents are together by the time all is said and done so that they can have sex and his existence is secured - how is that not sexually charged?

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html

 

[Dark_Ansem]

I’m sorry, but as a fan I can’t let this slide - one last reply from me. You’re joking, right? I think you should rewatch the movie, you must’ve missed a couple of crucial scenes. For Pete’s sake, there’s a point in the story where Marty accidentally makes his mother romantically interested *in him*. That causes his body to start vanishing and he needs to cut the conversation short, squashing the feeling. There’s an obvious underlining theme of mother-son incest here. This is not an accident, either - it’s a deliberate reference to the story of Oedipus. Marty knows that Lorraine is his mother, but she has no idea he’s her son. Bob Gale told CNN that this premise was so objectionable to Disney that they rejected the movie outright as incompatible with their family-friendly brand, which is why they went to Universal instead. The movie went through a number of revisions before it was finally accepted and went into production, and it absolutely still contains many sexually charged scenes - this one’s only one of many. The whole movie is literally about Marty making sure his parents are together by the time all is said and done so that they can have sex and his existence is secured - how is that not sexually charged?

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/dvdextras/2010/11/back_to_your_mom.html
https://insidethemagic.net/2020/10/disney-rejected-back-to-the-future-tm1/
https://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/20/bttf.anniversary.go/index.html

There's a SUBSTANTIAL difference between a classical reference and an obscene sexualisation!

 

[Foxi4]

There's a SUBSTANTIAL difference between a classical reference and an obscene sexualisation!

Sweet home Alabama is what Alabama does. You asked me how is the film sexually charged, so I gave you an example with proof straight from the creator’s mouth - what more do you want from me? This fragment of the story was considered so obscene that the movie was rejected by Hollywood 40 times and necessitated a number of rewrites, I think the creators of BTTF know if their movie had sexual connotations or not.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

This fragment of the story was considered so obscene that the movie was rejected by Hollywood 40 times and necessitated a number of rewrites,

Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.

 

[alex61194]

Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.

they only changed the flag just check the last 200 years of usa, spanish war (they destroyed one of their own boat to declare a war to spain saying that spain destroyed it cause spain didnt wanted to leave cuba) and dont make talk about mexico
all countrys have their past, the problem with usa is that they did all of that in a "recent" time (spanish war were in 1895, and the most ironical is that they accused russia of wanting to do they same with ukraine before the invasion)
sry if i seem like a hater of usa probably im a little since i saw about their story, so much abuse

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah well we aren't considering US morals as reliable ones, they're on the way to be the talibans of the west. After all, the first americans were the bigots of the british empire.

If you’re referring to puritans, they were actively escaping religious and economic persecution. Not that it even matters, puritans have nothing to do with the production of BTTF. The beliefs of distant ancestors have no bearing on the validity of the opinions expressed by their descendants. If they did, your opinion could be forever dismissed on account of certain events in the 20th century. Since that premise is silly, you’re still considered worthy of having a conversation with and you are capable of making valid points… I think. It logically follows, I just have to observe it in order to confirm the theory.

Your personal opinion on what is and is not obscene is immaterial, we’re examining the movie as it was received at the time of its production, and we’re basing that on interviews with its creators. The film was intended to have sexual undertones from the start, we know this for a fact. I really don’t want to continue with this unnecessary diversion any longer than needs be - I was correcting you in regards to sexual themes within the movie which are undoubtedly there. You’re welcome to disagree, but you would be wrong. It’s a free country, you can do as you please - I don’t care. I personally think the words of Bob Gale and Robert Zemeckis carry more weight here considering they made the damn film in the first place.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

The beliefs of distant ancestors have no bearing on the validity of the opinions expressed by their descendants.

Heh. Centuries of lawmaking would like to disagree with you.

- I was correcting you in regards to sexual themes within the movie which are undoubtedly there.

Again, you lack acumen. As I said there's a difference between classical, even sexual, references (Oedipus) and the obscenity some pro-birthers here have spouted.

 

[Foxi4]

Heh. Centuries of lawmaking would like to disagree with you.

I don’t think you’re a fascist just because your ancestors were fascist. You’re Italian, right? Am I wrong?

Again, you lack acumen. As I said there's a difference between classical, even sexual, references (Oedipus) and the obscenity some pro-birthers here have spouted.

Is that right? Appeal to authority always falls flat - you’re not qualified to measure my level of acumen. For the record, I have a degree in the humanities, I don’t lack “acumen”, not that one is required to analyse the scene in the first place considering this stuff is pretty obvious. Attacking me is not a substitute for an actual argument. The story of Oedipus is inherently sexual in nature, you yourself admit as much. By extension, so are stories that depict versions of the Oedipus complex. Gale and Zemekis know what’s in their film better than you do, if you want to argue with them whether their story has sexual themes or not, you go on ahead and do that. I’m certainly not planning to waste time on it - you’re not going to admit you were wrong anyway, regardless of what *the creators of the film say about it*.