Like stars they shall forever shine

This poll is for Christians.

*SPOILERS!!!*

Grace waking up from the coma was the first shot they filmed for the movie! They wanted Ryan to feel eased into the character, and what better way to do that than have him play a character who can't remember who he is?

The little "GOOD LUCK!" note in sharpie that's written on Grace's sleeping bag was canonically written by the other astronauts on the I.S.S. before the Hail Mary crew got put into the ship. In real life, Phil and Chris wrote one word each. They said it was like "a blessing on the movie."

Ryan's most nerve-wracking day on set was when he had to shoot with the classroom full of children. Most of the kids were made up of the children of the film's crew members.

The scene where Grace looks through Yao and Ilukhina's photos is footage of him looking at and reacting to actual pictures of the actors with their loved ones.

When Grace calls Stratt to tell her that he and Carl figured out how to breed astrophage, Ryan is genuinely calling Sandra on her day off set, and her audio is her genuine reaction to the unexpected line: "Carl and I made a baby!"

"We like showcasing Ryland Grace's social anxiety while having a lot of people staring at him. LOL!"

Their intention for the space funeral scene was to have Grace convey that he was trying to ease his own sadness by making the dead people with him feel better about being dead :(

The markings on Rocky's body convey his mission patch, his rank in the crew, his wedding band, and his family crest.

Grace and Stratt's conversation on the boat is Grace asking her if they're allowed to be close friends, and the response from Stratt is no, they can't. This gets driven home in the karaoke scene. She understands the value of connection, a part of her wants it, but "Her love for people has to be suspended for her to do her job."

Rocky has different forward-facing faces for different thought processes! They named his "satellite dish" face, his "scrunched up thinking face", and his "monobrow face".

Direct quote: "I love how on the spectrum Rocky is." ROCKY AUTISTIC CODED CONFIRMED!

After Rocky recovers from his injuries: "As Rocky returns to the movie, the lights turn on. The warmth returns. It's like the day breaking."

Confirmed that when Grace and Rocky reunite, Rocky says to Grace, "You came back for me, question?"

They throw this out there for two seconds and do NOT expand on it, but according to Andy Weir, Stratt is imprisoned for life but somehow ESCAPES???

The Eridians built Grace an artificial tree in his enclosure because Rocky knew he liked trees

Analogically, imagine a child had a rare blood type shared only by their parent, and they had a disease where if they weren't given the blood, they'd die, and the parent refuses to give their blood. The child dies. Would it be evil? Maybe morally grey and selfish, but it's their blood in the end. Just not evil enough to be illegal.

I wouldn't say killing is always wrong, but I would say murder is always wrong.

Abortion can't really be compared to self defense or capital punishment because it is objectively neither. The baby is not guilty of a crime, so the comparison to capital punishment doesn't work. And the baby is not posing a substantial threat to anyone, so it's not comparable to self defense either.

What abortion does is actively and intentionally end an innocent human life. At any point outside the womb, everyone would recognize that as murder. The only difference here is the location of the baby, and I don't think location should determine whether killing someone is murder or not.

Even in legitimate self defense situations, the goal is not to kill someone. The goal is to stop the threat. If someone dies as a result, that can be legally and morally justified. But if your intention from the start was to kill them, the legitimacy of a self defense claim would rightly be called into question.

If you find yourself wholly unable to oppose it because of bodily autonomy but you accept that the baby is human from conception, are you suggesting the right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right to life? Because bodily autonomy has always had limits. People can't use bodily autonomy as a justification to harm others or violate the rights of others. That's true in virtually every area of society. If abortion intentionally ends the life of another human being, and bodily autonomy is the most important factor, then we're obligated to consider the autonomy of both bodies. There are two bodies involved here and we have to consider what the right of bodily autonomy is being used to do to another person who also has the same rights.

And if bodily autonomy is the deciding factor, why should third trimester abortions potentially be illegal? Is the baby's life somehow more valuable at that stage? Does the woman's bodily autonomy matter less in the third trimester? What specifically changes at that point that suddenly justifies drawing a line there? Not trying to attack you or anything, just genuinely curious about your reasoning.

As for your blood donation example, while I agree parents should have the legal right to refuse, I would still consider it extremely morally questionable if parents refused to donate blood to save their own child. Honestly, I'd consider it bordering on evil. Parents have responsibilities toward their children that strangers simply don't have. They owe their children a duty of care. So while I wouldn't argue they should be legally forced to donate blood, I would absolutely question why they chose not to.

If we're talking about people who aren't the child's parents, then that's a different situation entirely, and I wouldn't make the same moral judgment.

But I don't really like examples that draw on organ or blood donation and The reason is because they're trying to compare situations that aren't remotely the same. We are comparing not saving the life of a dying person to intentionally ending the life of a healthy, living person who would have continued to live without your interference. Those are fundamentally different circumstances.

The comparison would be much closer if we asked whether parents who refuse to donate blood should also be allowed to go stab their child. Because abortion isn't simply a matter of withholding blood or an organ and someone dying as a result. It's removing a living human being from the environment they need to survive, with death being the intended outcome.

First, I don't know why we're discussing artificial wombs as if they exist, but I'll bite. We wouldn't use words like "killing" or "murder" in that scenario because, unlike abortion, the baby wouldn't be killed. Obviously different situations require different language.

That said, I think babies should be treated as human beings, not commodities. The ideal environment for a developing baby is their mother's womb. But if artificial wombs were a viable alternative to abortion, then fine.

We do not agree that taxpayers should be responsible for funding it. Being against killing doesn't obligate someone to financially support everyone else's choices. Those are separate issues. The idea that conservatives must personally or collectively pay for every policy they support is a bizarre standard that isn't applied to anyone else.

Your historical depiction of pregnancy is.....dramatic, to put it nicely. Framing it as women only had the choice to "kill themselves or hope to god they survived" are exaggerated choices you invented. Yes, pregnancy, like all medical scenarios, was more dangerous the further back in history you go but it wasn't a death sentence like you're making it out to be. Most women survived childbirth, which is why pregnancy has historically been celebrated rather than treated like a funeral announcement.

And the "50% child death rate until the 1930s" claim is misleading at best. It depends entirely on what you mean by child mortality, where you're talking about, and what time period you're referring to. It certainly wasn't true of 1930s America.

"We now have the capability of abortion, so we can ensure that at least the pregnant person will survive."

Women aren't surviving pregnancy because of abortion. They're surviving pregnancy because pregnancy is not life threatening in the vast majority of cases, and because modern medicine has advanced to the point that many complications can be treated while preserving both the mother's life and the baby's life.

Abortion was not developed as a general solution to pregnancy complications. In true medical emergencies, doctors treat the underlying condition. Sometimes that means delivering the baby early if continuing the pregnancy is no longer possible, but the goal is to address the complication itself.

Another thing often overlooked is that abortion is not a safe, risk-free procedure that simply erases a problem. It carries medical risks of its own, and many of the serious complications associated with pregnancy such as hemorrhage, infection, and injuries can also occur with abortion procedures.

It's also worth noting that maternal mortality statistics have historically included deaths related to abortion. So citing maternal mortality rates as though they only reflect deaths from childbirth is also misleading.

"I can guarantee you that no pregnant person in existence wants to kill someone, let alone that tiny baby. I am also pretty sure that no one gets pregnant for fun. It’s hard on your body and abortions have risks, too."

I used to agree that no one wanted to kill a baby, but the modern pro-abortion movement has made me seriously question that. At the very least, many activists seem completely unbothered with the idea of killing a baby.

Also, I don't know what you mean by "no one gets pregnant for fun." People absolutely get pregnant on purpose. The goal of pregnancy isn't entertainment or having fun, it's to have a child. Yes, pregnancy can be physically demanding, but the overwhelming majority of women survive it without serious complications and make full recoveries.

Pregnancy has also never been a choice between the mother and the baby. Most conditions that seriously threaten the mother's life also threaten the baby, and in many cases the baby has already died. The baby isn't the cause of the complication, and intentionally killing the baby has never been the treatment.

"Therefore, a hard fact we have to accept is that at present time the pregnant person has more power. It is THEIR BODY that is being used for the other person (aka the baby) to grow and even exist. If you want to call an abortion murder then you also need to be willing to call a growing baby a parasite. Because this is what is scientifically happening."

Having "more power" doesn't justify killing an innocent person. Yes the baby is temporarily using their body because they had sex and created a baby and put that baby in their body. If they don't want to be pregnant, the answer to that is not getting pregnant. It's not to kill the baby they are pregnant with.

And no, calling abortion murder does not require me to describe a baby in utero as a parasite. Those are two entirely separate claims. You can disagree with my view that abortion is murder, but it does not logically follow that I must therefore accept calling an unborn child a parasite. I do not have to accept that terminology and I will not because it is factually incorrect.

"But I am the first person to say that as long as technology is incapable of removing the foetus from ‘the location’ safely so the person can continue living their life, we cannot treat the baby and the pregnant person as equal in this situation."

Well you are incorrect to say so. We can safely remove the fetus from the woman's body so she can continue living her life - it's called giving birth. The fact that the overwhelming majority of pregnancies end with both mother and baby alive and well is enough to show that pregnancy is generally completely safe for both mother and baby.

Pregnancy does not require a choice between mother and child. Both can live and both do in the overwhelming majority of cases. We're not in pre-1930's wherever you got your statistics from so your concerns aren't applicable in this day and age.

Pregnancy is much, much safer today and both women and babies survive it without issue. Both people can be treated equally and in most cases (except the tragedy of abortion) they are. When complications arise, the doctors have the goal of saving the mother and the baby if the baby is still alive. The mother has to survive or the baby won't either. And there is no situation where killing the baby is necessary to save a woman's life.

I went to this...historical reconstruction thingguummy? Back when I was in fourth grade or so and there was a guy there who showed the tour group this tool used to put faux woodgrain on things. And it was absolutely fascinating. Looked totally real. So I know how that tool works and it's cool.