PDA

View Full Version : "180" Movie | New Online Video Set to Change Abortion Debate




FrankRep
09-28-2011, 11:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI





The new online movie 180 is poised to radically change the abortion debate in the United States and beyond.


New Online Video Set to Change Abortion Debate (http://thenewamerican.com/culture/family/9171-new-online-video-set-to-change-abortion-debate)


Dave Bohon | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
28 September 2011


A new online movie released September 26 by Christian apologist Ray Comfort (left) is poised to radically change the abortion debate in the United States and beyond. Entitled 180 because of the complete change of heart eight “pro-choice” individuals in the film have just moments after being confronted with the truth about abortion, the movie had nearly 30,000 views on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI&feature=player_embedded) within 24 hours of its release, prompting some observers to predict that the free online movie is destined to go viral — meaning millions will log on to view it over the next few months.

Shane Martin, who is managing the film’s social media sites, told the Christian Post (http://www.christianpost.com/news/will-180-movie-go-viral-56570/) that 180’s Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/180moviecom) page had been receiving approximately 100 new “Likes” per hour shortly after the video’s online launch. “The response has actually been overwhelming,” he said. “We’ve had thousands of views on YouTube today and it’s just the first day that it’s live.”

Comfort said he can understand how skeptical some might be at the film’s power to change minds so quickly and completely because he was surprised himself. Nonetheless, he told OneNewsNow.com (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1437294), “knowledge is very, very powerful, and when we have knowledge, it can send information; it can change our whole perspective. That’s exactly what happens. The reason why we called it ‘180’ is because people do a 180-degree turn….”

He said that 180 was not the film he originally set out to produce. While taping interviews for a companion DVD to go along with a book on Hitler and the holocaust, Comfort found the questions he was asking people being steered toward the issue of abortion. “It began with two male university students completely changing their minds about abortion when we asked them this one question,” Comfort recalled, referring to the provocative “What if…?” query that frames the discussion in the movie. “We realized it wouldn’t be convincing to have only males speaking on the subject, so we took to the streets, asking that one particular question, and found that six women changed their minds from pro-abortion to pro-life in a matter of seconds. It was amazing!”

Comfort quickly changed the direction and thrust of the film’s theme, recognizing its potential to change the hearts and minds of viewers. “I have held up pro-life signs,” admitted the well-known Christian evangelist. “I have printed pro-life literature and spoken against abortion in pulpits and in my books. But I have felt that all my efforts were almost futile — that is, up until now. In 180 we have a nation-changer.”

Most people “know that we should be doing something to stop this horror” of abortion, Comfort pointed out, “but the thought of protesting is a little unnerving, especially with the demonization of those who do so.” But with the release of 180, he challenged, “here is something each of us can easily do. We can give this DVD out. We can pass it out on the streets, leave copies on park benches or on seats in malls or give it to the checkout lady at the supermarket. This isn’t hard to do.” Most importantly, he predicted, “it will save lives — perhaps millions of lives.”

Comfort told OneNewsNow that the simple, 30-minute video has the potential to be something “... unique. If you can change people’s minds about abortion, you can change the way they vote. And if you can change the way they vote, you can change the direction of a whole nation.”

As to the potential of the video to go viral through its distribution via Facebook and other social sites, Comfort said that kind of popularity means more babies will be saved who might otherwise have been killed through abortion. “Thanks to social media, every person who sees 180’s potential to save lives becomes a distributor with a click of a ‘Send to a friend’ button,” he told the Christian Post.

He added that even though his ministry, Living Waters (http://www.livingwaters.com/), is planning to distribute 200,000 copies of the movie at 100 top universities, “our big hope is that millions will freely see it via social media. If the YouTube clip ‘Charlie bit my finger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=he5fpsmH_2g)‘ can get over 360 million views, we can do just as well if not better, because a video that can save lives is a little more important than a kid having his finger bit by his brother.”

To view 180 online, see below:


YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI


To order 180 on DVD, please go to: http://www.heartchanger.com

dannno
09-28-2011, 12:01 PM
What is "the magic question" ?

FrankRep
09-28-2011, 12:03 PM
http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Picture-140.png
Ron Paul, CPAC 2011 Straw Poll Winner (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/6299-ron-paul-wins-cpac-presidential-straw-vote)


Flashback:

H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

jmdrake
09-28-2011, 12:22 PM
What is "the magic question" ?

Haven't watched it straight through (on lunch break but I will do it later). It seems that at first they get the people they're talking to to affirm life in general by a quick refresher course on Hitler and a situational ethics question of would you bury Jews alive or shoot them if forced to at gunpoint. Then they ask what the person thinks about abortion. Then they ask if its a baby in the womb or not. The "magic" question is "Fill in the blank. It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ______". Looks like a pretty powerful documentary.

Lymeade-Lady
09-28-2011, 10:26 PM
Thanks for posting--I enjoyed watching this.

Blueskies
09-28-2011, 10:38 PM
Honestly, I think our obsession with the "sanctity of life" is ruining this country.

reillym
09-28-2011, 10:47 PM
Haven't watched it straight through (on lunch break but I will do it later). It seems that at first they get the people they're talking to to affirm life in general by a quick refresher course on Hitler and a situational ethics question of would you bury Jews alive or shoot them if forced to at gunpoint. Then they ask what the person thinks about abortion. Then they ask if its a baby in the womb or not. The "magic" question is "Fill in the blank. It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when ______". Looks like a pretty powerful documentary.

It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when:

1) It is harming the mother
2) The mother realizes that the state has no right to force her to harm herself in carrying a fetus inside of her
3) When it is not a baby and a clump of meaningless cells that cannot think breath or act independently of the mother
...etc etc etc


Forcing a REAL human being to carry a child (that might be dead, by the way. Many late term abortions are just trying to save the mothers' health because the baby is DEAD) is more like Hitler's actions than anything else.


The whole argument of banning abortion is so silly it is laughable. Chile tried it. Everyone, please look up Chile's grand experiment with abortion. Idiots.

AlexAmore
09-28-2011, 11:35 PM
It make a great argument with abortion. However one must look at the ramifications of unenforcible laws. When you start pushing unenforcible laws you get blowback and laws in general lose credibility, which isn't a bad thing in certain contexts, but understand following the law needs to happen on both the government and civilian sides. Anyway it just like pushing out currency, it loses value the more there are and especially the unenforcible ones.

I'm not discussing whether laws are just or not. That's a whole other discussion.

gerryb
09-29-2011, 02:10 AM
My basic question is this;

If I cause physical harm to the mother which causes her to abort the child, would I be prosecuted for murder?

If yes, then the mother and doctors should not be able to kill the child either without being prosecuted.

PierzStyx
09-29-2011, 02:13 AM
It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when:

1) It is harming the mother
2) The mother realizes that the state has no right to force her to harm herself in carrying a fetus inside of her
3) When it is not a baby and a clump of meaningless cells that cannot think breath or act independently of the mother
...etc etc etc


Forcing a REAL human being to carry a child (that might be dead, by the way. Many late term abortions are just trying to save the mothers' health because the baby is DEAD) is more like Hitler's actions than anything else.


The whole argument of banning abortion is so silly it is laughable. Chile tried it. Everyone, please look up Chile's grand experiment with abortion. Idiots.

I agree with your first and second points to be truthful. But your third is foolish. What about the severely mentally handicapped and disabled that are alive now? I mean the ones that since birth have been able to do nothing more than lay there and make noises. They cannot act independently of anyone, and according to many medical professionals may not even be able to do much of what we'd recognize as "higher thought" either. Should we just off them too? Is it okay for me to walk into a care hospital and start plugging away with an AK? Or perhaps a baseball bat and handi-vac? Hell not its not! They may just be "a clump of meaningless cells who that cannot think breath or act independently of the" doctor but they are human. Why does that specific fact change when you are talking about another person in a stage of development and are just in a special place? It doesn't.

Now I know what you are yours are already thinking "Its a ******** clump of cells! It doesn't look human, it doesn't have a heartbeat or brain!" And you'd be right. It doesn't. And I understand the logic of your argument. And I think it holds sway within the first few weeks of pregnancy. But during week three cellular division brings about the development of the "human zygote". Not the bear zygote, or deer zygote, but the human zygote. It may not yet be a fully formed person, but from this point on if you allow it to take its natural course it will develop into a human being. Its potentiality for humanity is assured and for anything or anyone to come along and purposefully end that, to declare it doesn't matter what you are or what you can be, to decide it can't be human, that is MONSTROUS.

And for your information, abortions that occur out of medical necessity (such as mother's health) or even from cases of rape or incest, account for a total 1% percent of ALL abortions recorded in the US. And that is actually rounded UP. Most abortions (around 49% of all) happen after the 12th week (or 1st trimester). This means that statistically your assertion that many late-term abortions happen to save the mother's life is just simply wrong.

And in all this we forget the simple rights all humans have. You have the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The right to life is the most fundamental of all rights. You have a right to live, even if you aren't "fully human" yet but only have the potential to become so.

FrankRep
09-29-2011, 02:44 AM
Honestly, I think our obsession with the "sanctity of life" is ruining this country.
Adolf Hitler also thought the "sanctity of life" was ruining his country.

moostraks
09-29-2011, 07:20 AM
Adolf Hitler also thought the "sanctity of life" was ruining his country.

and thanks to the lack of knowledge in this country we continue to follow down that same path...

I am astounded that anyone could make a comment that we have an obsession with the sanctity of life. We have one mainstream party the advocates for killing humans in the womb and the other party advocates for killing them in wars (and even those lines of distinction are being blurred so much that it isn't a guarantee based on party affiliation). Sheesh!!!

FrankRep
09-29-2011, 07:59 AM
I am astounded that anyone could make a comment that we have an obsession with the sanctity of life.

Ron Paul supports the sanctity of life.


H.R.1094 - Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1094/show)

Sponsor: Ron Paul

(1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure:

(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act applicable to any case pending on the date of enactment.

Johnnymac
09-29-2011, 08:42 AM
wow.....wow.... now ive been pro life for a while but that video was astonishing really brings a new light to the whole issue.

Invi
09-29-2011, 09:22 AM
Haven't watched it yet. Suppose I will now. For the record, I'm pro-choice. We'll see if anything changes.

Lymeade-Lady
09-29-2011, 09:35 AM
3) When it is not a baby and a clump of meaningless cells that cannot think breath or act independently of the mother


You may invoke my mother bear wrath if you start telling me my child was MEANINGLESS CLUMP of cells 6 weeks after conception. Much less if you tell to a mother who has had a miscarriage. If you haven't had a child in the womb, I suggest you not make such statements. I'm choosing self-control at the moment.

silentshout
09-29-2011, 09:55 AM
The sanctity of life really only seems to apply to the pre-born. Once one is born, especially if born in the wrong country (ie any country that has oil or resources that we want), that sanctity goes out the window. I don't see the GOP caring too much about sanctity of life once people are born. (other than Paul). I also wonder why most churches don't talk about that, either.

Perry
09-29-2011, 10:30 AM
I've always found it useful to make the argument when someone says "it's not a baby it's a fetus" to respond with, "maybe, but it will be a baby in a few weeks".

messana
09-29-2011, 12:24 PM
I like how he went from "Would you kill this baby if..." to "God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins".

dannno
09-29-2011, 12:37 PM
I've always found it useful to make the argument when someone says "it's not a baby it's a fetus" to respond with, "maybe, but it will be a baby in a few weeks".

The innocent girl pleads with the rapist, but the rapist insists that by fighting him she is in fact killing an innocent fetus.. but she responds, "it's not a fetus it's a sperm and an egg!!", to which the rapist responds, "maybe, but it will be a fetus in a few weeks"

dannno
09-29-2011, 12:38 PM
I like how he went from "Would you kill this baby if..." to "God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins".

Oh wow.. there's a bunch of religious stuff in there too?? I thought this film was actually made to convince pro-choice people to become pro-life. They are never going to do that with all the religious stuff in there.

I am still planning on watching it.

Perry
09-29-2011, 12:42 PM
The innocent girl pleads with the rapist, but the rapist insists that by fighting him she is in fact killing an innocent fetus.. but she responds, "it's not a fetus it's a sperm and an egg!!", to which the rapist responds, "maybe, but it will be a fetus in a few weeks"

I'm not talking about legality I'm talking about morality. So, rape aside, how does your point impact or justify the 99.99 percent of abortions that aren't rape?

Krugerrand
09-29-2011, 12:48 PM
The innocent girl pleads with the rapist, but the rapist insists that by fighting him she is in fact killing an innocent fetus.. but she responds, "it's not a fetus it's a sperm and an egg!!", to which the rapist responds, "maybe, but it will be a fetus in a few weeks"

Why do you keep trying to confuse what is very straight forward. You, as a unique biological human organism, existed before you were born. You, as a unique biological human organism came into existence at the moment of conception. You did not exist as a unique biological human organism as sperm and egg.

Krugerrand
09-29-2011, 12:49 PM
I like how he went from "Would you kill this baby if..." to "God sent his son Jesus to die for our sins".

I missed that part. Where was it? I'm surprised, didn't he identify himself as Jewish at the beginning of it?

FrankRep
09-29-2011, 12:51 PM
I missed that part. Where was it? I'm surprised, didn't he identify himself as Jewish at the beginning of it?
He's a Messianic Jew.

Krugerrand
09-29-2011, 12:53 PM
He's a Messianic Jew.

thanks.

dannno
09-29-2011, 12:55 PM
I'm not talking about legality I'm talking about morality. So, rape aside, how does your point impact or justify the 99.99 percent of abortions that aren't rape?

The point wasn't to debate rape and abortion, the point was that just because a fetus will some day have feelings, will some day have memories, will some day be self-aware and will some day be a baby, so can potentially any sperm and any egg, so why should a fetus that has none of these things be treated differently from a sperm and an egg that have none of these things? If abortion is murder, then why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't using birth control murder?

I agree that later in the term fetuses develop many of these characteristics and I would not recommend abortion past the first 2 or 3 months because I don't know the answers to these questions, but I don't see any difference between getting an abortion at 3-5 weeks and taking the morning after pill or remembering to pull out in time.

FrankRep
09-29-2011, 12:57 PM
The point wasn't to debate rape and abortion, the point was that just because a fetus will some day have feelings, will some day have memories, will some day be self-aware and will some day be a baby, so can potentially any sperm and any egg, so why should a fetus that has none of these things be treated differently from a sperm and an egg that have none of these things? If abortion is murder, then why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't using birth control murder?

Human Life begins at conception, not before.

dannno
09-29-2011, 01:00 PM
Why do you keep trying to confuse what is very straight forward. You, as a unique biological human organism, existed before you were born. You, as a unique biological human organism came into existence at the moment of conception. You did not exist as a unique biological human organism as sperm and egg.

I as a unique biological organism could have been destroyed by a nosy neighbor knocking on my parents door while they were conceiving me, causing a different unique biological organism to be born instead later on, or maybe my parents would have lost the mood and not had any successful runs and had no more children.

Should the nosy neighbor who knocked on their door and prevented me, my unique biological organism to be born have been tried for murder?

I see no difference between me not existing due to nosy neighbor and me not existing due to an early term abortion.

What about a woman who goes out and gets really drunk and hooks up with some random dude? What if instead, some Christian missionary caught her on the way to the bar and talked her into going to church instead and she ended up not meeting anybody and never having any children? Should the missionary be tried for murder for preventing life from occurring?

dannno
09-29-2011, 01:01 PM
Human Life begins at conception, not before.

That's, like, your opinion, man..

I think life has more continuity than that. I think life began billions of years ago. (sorry George Carlin for stealing your joke!)

asurfaholic
09-29-2011, 01:02 PM
Sperm and egg that havent met have not "fertilized" - so no life yet.

The "potential" is irrelevant, otherwise you could argue every girl's period is murder. Or worse every time a guy masturbates is mass murder.

Did i just use the m word?

Sola_Fide
09-29-2011, 01:03 PM
I as a unique biological organism could have been destroyed by a nosy neighbor knocking on my parents door while they were conceiving me, causing a different unique biological organism to be born instead later on, or maybe my parents would have lost the mood and not had any successful runs and had no more children.

Should the nosy neighbor who knocked on their door and prevented me, my unique biological organism to be born have been tried for murder?

I see no difference between me not existing due to nosy neighbor and me not existing due to an early term abortion.

What about a woman who goes out and gets really drunk and hooks up with some random dude? What if instead, some Christian missionary caught her on the way to the bar and talked her into going to church instead and she ended up not meeting anybody and never having any children? Should the missionary be tried for murder for preventing life from occurring?

Dannno,

Sometimes I think that you know the futility of your arguments, but you type them anyway. That post was really bad dude....really bad....

Krugerrand
09-29-2011, 01:05 PM
I as a unique biological organism could have been destroyed by a nosy neighbor knocking on my parents door while they were conceiving me, causing a different unique biological organism to be born instead later on, or maybe my parents would have lost the mood and not had any successful runs and had no more children.

Should the nosy neighbor who knocked on their door and prevented me, my unique biological organism to be born have been tried for murder?

I see no difference between me not existing due to nosy neighbor and me not existing due to an early term abortion.

What about a woman who goes out and gets really drunk and hooks up with some random dude? What if instead, some Christian missionary caught her on the way to the bar and talked her into going to church instead and she ended up not meeting anybody and never having any children? Should the missionary be tried for murder for preventing life from occurring?

There's a world of difference between never having existed and existing and then dieing.

If it's easier, think of it terms of chickens. The chicken is the same organism as the chick - just at a different stage in its life. The chick outside the egg is the same unique organism as the chick inside the egg, again, at a different stage in its unique life. The chick is the same unique organism all the way back to the point that it first exists - when the egg is fertilized.

jmdrake
09-29-2011, 01:21 PM
Oh wow.. there's a bunch of religious stuff in there too?? I thought this film was actually made to convince pro-choice people to become pro-life. They are never going to do that with all the religious stuff in there.


Obvious guy says "because some pro-choice people are religious".



I am still planning on watching it.

I haven't watched the whole film, but the part I've watched was worth watching. And really, even hatheists/stathiests like reillyM should watch it. As a movement we've got to convince people who disagree with us on emotionally charged issues (terrorism, government healthcare, etc) why they should consider a paradigm shift. Really I'd like to see this same theme replicated with neocons being convinced that the U.S. policing the world is a dumb idea.

dannno
09-29-2011, 01:33 PM
There's a world of difference between never having existed and existing and then dieing.

Not if you don't know you ever existed :confused:




If it's easier, think of it terms of chickens. The chicken is the same organism as the chick - just at a different stage in its life. The chick outside the egg is the same unique organism as the chick inside the egg, again, at a different stage in its unique life. The chick is the same unique organism all the way back to the point that it first exists - when the egg is fertilized.

Ya, and some vegetarians eat eggs.. that aren't fertilized.. that could have been fertilized and become apart of that process and created life but somebody stopped that from happening.

dannno
09-29-2011, 01:39 PM
Obvious guy says "because some pro-choice people are religious".


Most pro-choice people I know are not religious and would discount the entire premise of the movie just for bringing it up. I won't discount what they say because of that, but a lot of people think Christians are irrational because they believe in stuff they can't see so they don't listen to them.




I haven't watched the whole film, but the part I've watched was worth watching. And really, even hatheists/stathiests like reillyM should watch it. As a movement we've got to convince people who disagree with us on emotionally charged issues (terrorism, government healthcare, etc) why they should consider a paradigm shift. Really I'd like to see this same theme replicated with neocons being convinced that the U.S. policing the world is a dumb idea.

I got in a huge argument with someone who was pro-choice recently, they were being completely irrational and I stayed very calm. I think eventually they will come around to see my point. My goal is for pro-choice people to understand the philosophical reasons why some people are pro-life (namely people who are pro-life in regards to both war and abortion). My other goal is for people who are pro-life to understand why people who are pro-choice feel that the government shouldn't be involved in the privacy that really should be surrounding a woman's pregnancy, and why killing a fetus that is only a few weeks old isn't going to be seen by everyone as the same as murdering a child.

moostraks
09-29-2011, 01:46 PM
The point wasn't to debate rape and abortion, the point was that just because a fetus will some day have feelings, will some day have memories, will some day be self-aware and will some day be a baby, so can potentially any sperm and any egg, so why should a fetus that has none of these things be treated differently from a sperm and an egg that have none of these things? If abortion is murder, then why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't using birth control murder?

I agree that later in the term fetuses develop many of these characteristics and I would not recommend abortion past the first 2 or 3 months because I don't know the answers to these questions, but I don't see any difference between getting an abortion at 3-5 weeks and taking the morning after pill or remembering to pull out in time.


this again???

Self awareness leaves the door open to murdering anyone who doesn't perform to a specific level set forth by the state rather than understanding that a fertilized egg is thus a human.

Krugerrand
09-29-2011, 01:51 PM
Not if you don't know you ever existed :confused:

Think tree. There's a difference between a place where no tree is planted and one where a tree is planted, it grows, and is then cut down. Neither knows it ever existed.

To help, in the latter you end up with a dead tree. In the former, you have no tree.

Going back to your example I had quoted ... one hand (abortion) you end up with a unique human organism that is now dead. On the other hand (nosy neighbor), you end up with nothing.

Wesker1982
09-29-2011, 01:59 PM
2 mins in, wtf is not knowing who Hitler is really this common?

zade
09-29-2011, 02:18 PM
The video is nonsense, much like everything else posted by FrankRep, incidentally.

Sola_Fide
09-29-2011, 02:22 PM
2 mins in, wtf is not knowing who Hitler is really this common?

Probably. I never put it past people how uninformed they really are.

dannno
09-29-2011, 02:27 PM
Dannno,

Sometimes I think that you know the futility of your arguments, but you type them anyway. That post was really bad dude....really bad....

Well I got a +rep for it so I'm glad i posted it anyway :D

affa
09-29-2011, 04:29 PM
My basic question is this;

If I cause physical harm to the mother which causes her to abort the child, would I be prosecuted for murder?

If yes, then the mother and doctors should not be able to kill the child either without being prosecuted.

actually, many pro-choice people argued these 'laws' would later be used to 'prove' such an argument.

but you can't use laws to prove a moral argument, because laws are independent of morals.

jmdrake
09-29-2011, 05:01 PM
The video is nonsense, much like everything else posted by FrankRep, incidentally.

Any video where people are able to change others minds on a controversial issue like abortion is worth looking at whether you agree with the ultimate outcome or not. I'm already seeing how this tactic could be used to help Ron Paul (and not just because Ron Paul is pro life). At 15 minutes in the interviewer says "A construction worker comes up to you and says 'I'm going to blow up that building. I'm not sure if there's a person in there or not but I'm going to do it anyway. What would you say?" Well that same logic could be used to attack the idea that elective wars against countries that are supposedly a "threat" to us are okay even if civilians are killed through "collateral damage".

QueenB4Liberty
09-29-2011, 06:36 PM
Any video where people are able to change others minds on a controversial issue like abortion is worth looking at whether you agree with the ultimate outcome or not. I'm already seeing how this tactic could be used to help Ron Paul (and not just because Ron Paul is pro life). At 15 minutes in the interviewer says "A construction worker comes up to you and says 'I'm going to blow up that building. I'm not sure if there's a person in there or not but I'm going to do it anyway. What would you say?" Well that same logic could be used to attack the idea that elective wars against countries that are supposedly a "threat" to us are okay even if civilians are killed through "collateral damage".

That's a very good point.

I think it's worth watching for everyone, I'm pro-choice and I enjoyed it. It was scary at the beginning how many people didn't know who Hitler was though. I think this video will be more effective in swaying those who are personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. Many people who are pro-choice don't believe the fetus is a baby. (I'm not sure how) but that's the problem.

Lymeade-Lady
09-29-2011, 07:37 PM
Now I know what you are yours are already thinking "Its a ******** clump of cells! It doesn't look human, it doesn't have a heartbeat or brain!" And you'd be right. It doesn't.

Actually, if you watch the video, it showed a baby at "6 weeks" and it DOES have a heartbeat. And fingers and toes and more. In case your are unaware, that is only 4 weeks after conception and only about 1 1/2 weeks after a mother might realize she is pregnant. Chances that an abortion will happen before that point (figure out, make a decision, make an appointment, etc.) are very slim.

Perry
09-29-2011, 10:54 PM
The point wasn't to debate rape and abortion, the point was that just because a fetus will some day have feelings, will some day have memories, will some day be self-aware and will some day be a baby, so can potentially any sperm and any egg, so why should a fetus that has none of these things be treated differently from a sperm and an egg that have none of these things? If abortion is murder, then why isn't using a condom murder? Why isn't using birth control murder?

I agree that later in the term fetuses develop many of these characteristics and I would not recommend abortion past the first 2 or 3 months because I don't know the answers to these questions, but I don't see any difference between getting an abortion at 3-5 weeks and taking the morning after pill or remembering to pull out in time.

A sperm and an egg are not in the process of becoming human. Who said murder? Danno, is there anything wrong at all whatsoever with having an abortion or should all healthy young woman decide to have an abortion with no second thoughts and be absolutely and unequivocally convinced that they've done nothing wrong? Is abortion a greater moral crime than stealing? How about jaywalking?

dannno
09-29-2011, 11:46 PM
Interesting movie, I'm glad it made some people think. But at the end there I noticed that most of the people who changed their mind on abortion got tricked into believing the parachute theory and got converted to Christianity as well.. Bah..

dannno
09-29-2011, 11:52 PM
A sperm and an egg are not in the process of becoming human.

Of course they are, most just don't reach that potential and in the situation I described where say two people are about to have sex and a third party interrupts the process there is a sperm and an egg that would have met and become a human but they were stopped from doing so. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a difference between stopping it at that point and stopping it very early on in the pregnancy. At some point the fetus begins to develop human feelings, memories and self awareness, and at that point I think there is something maybe to consider.




Who said murder? Danno, is there anything wrong at all whatsoever with having an abortion or should all healthy young woman decide to have an abortion with no second thoughts and be absolutely and unequivocally convinced that they've done nothing wrong? Is abortion a greater moral crime than stealing? How about jaywalking?

I don't think it does any harm to anybody current, past, potential if it is done early enough.

jtstellar
09-30-2011, 01:03 AM
It's okay to kill a baby in the womb when:

2) The mother realizes that the state has no right to force her to harm herself in carrying a fetus inside of her



state doesn't have a right to tell me not to put a bullet in your face because it's so ugly and it hurts my feelings either. yes it harms me and it's factual just by me declaring it.

Krugerrand
09-30-2011, 05:26 AM
Of course they are, most just don't reach that potential and in the situation I described where say two people are about to have sex and a third party interrupts the process there is a sperm and an egg that would have met and become a human but they were stopped from doing so. I'm just saying that I don't think there is a difference between stopping it at that point and stopping it very early on in the pregnancy. At some point the fetus begins to develop human feelings, memories and self awareness, and at that point I think there is something maybe to consider.


I don't think it does any harm to anybody current, past, potential if it is done early enough.

I guess you decided to skip over the part: blow up that building, there may be somebody in there and there may not.

Unique living organism. What may become a unique living organism. I have no idea how you cannot see a difference.

Krugerrand
09-30-2011, 05:35 AM
Interesting movie, I'm glad it made some people think. But at the end there I noticed that most of the people who changed their mind on abortion got tricked into believing the parachute theory and got converted to Christianity as well.. Bah..

In some ways it's a 'gotcha' type movie. I don't think it's as useful for people who have well thought out positions. But, it's excellent for people who have formed their opinions without giving it much thought.

That's why jmdrake is so right when he suggests it's worth looking into using the type/style for some other issues. It can be an effective way to get people to reconsider something that hasn't had much though ... like policing the world, drones bombing innocent civilians, blowback, etc. It may not change every mind, but it can be exceptionally effective, nonetheless.

jmdrake
10-06-2011, 03:53 PM
In some ways it's a 'gotcha' type movie. I don't think it's as useful for people who have well thought out positions. But, it's excellent for people who have formed their opinions without giving it much thought.

That's why jmdrake is so right when he suggests it's worth looking into using the type/style for some other issues. It can be an effective way to get people to reconsider something that hasn't had much though ... like policing the world, drones bombing innocent civilians, blowback, etc. It may not change every mind, but it can be exceptionally effective, nonetheless.

Yep. We've got a lot of "undecided" voters that we might be able to reach with this technique.