"180" Movie

[Drachasor]

Not a strawman, not ad hominem. Untwist them, they're in a bunch.

1. What's your basis for saying that he primary motivation is to control women's rights? If so, please provide evidence for it. This seems like a straw man to me.

2. Assume that's so. Does that simple fact automatically mean his reasoning isn't valid? (Answer: No. Motives don't invalidate reason, but they can lead to invalid reasoning. Still, what makes reasoning invalid are flaws with the reasoning itself). This seems to be an ad hominem attack because you are assaulting his character (not that there aren't plenty of ways to do that, but doing that doesn't do a dang thing to show why he's wrong, which is unfortunate).

Of course, maybe you didn't mean to imply that #1 means that his reasoning is invalid, which means that #2 isn't the case.

 

[Hoppy]

Three years + - ago "Pastor" Kennedy put together a very similar propaganda piece complete with the goose stepping nazis. Was something almost Ed Wood funny. The good pastor went on to explain that pro-choice people weren't actually nazi's they just acted like a nazi would. Don't know who ripped the idea off from the other or if it's just like minds.

 

[Resume]

1. What's your basis for saying that he primary motivation is to control women's rights? If so, please provide evidence for it. This seems like a straw man to me.

2. Assume that's so. Does that simple fact automatically mean his reasoning isn't valid? (Answer: No. Motives don't invalidate reason, but they can lead to invalid reasoning. Still, what makes reasoning invalid are flaws with the reasoning itself). This seems to be an ad hominem attack because you are assaulting his character (not that there aren't plenty of ways to do that, but doing that doesn't do a dang thing to show why he's wrong, which is unfortunate).

Of course, maybe you didn't mean to imply that #1 means that his reasoning is invalid, which means that #2 isn't the case.

They're still all bunched up. Your logical fallacy brush, it is broad, so let's try and narrow it a bit. How about appeal to emotion for example?

 

[Drachasor]

They're still all bunched up. Your logical fallacy brush, it is broad, so let's try and narrow it a bit. How about appeal to emotion for example?

I am mentioning very specific logical fallacies. If you don't disagree you were making those arguments, then you were using them.

An appeal to emotion seems more broad than what I mentioned to me, but you could fit it in there too. One can use more than one fallacy at the same time of course. Ray Comfort certainly does.

 

[Brian-M]

Few people think aborting an 8 month fetus is ok. Few people think aborting a 1 day old embryo is not ok if the woman wants to do it. Not a lot of people are very good at reasoning things out from there.

It's a sliding scale. Not black or white, but shades of gray. The longer since conception, the darker the shade of gray. It's often hard to pinpoint the exact moment where something goes from "sort-of okay" to "sort-of wrong" in situations like that.

This guy seems to be using fallacious reasoning to compare things to the Holocaust or to say "well, it looks kinda human, so destroying it must be murder, right?" Horrible.

And the fact that he keeps referring to embryos and fetuses inaccurately as babies and kids, to give it an extra emotional punch. In effect: You're not killing an embryo, you're killing a baby, you baby-killer!

If someone is brain dead and so will never regain any brain function, is ending what remains of that life wrong? I'd say "no." What gave them their personality, thoughts, and so forth is gone. All the remains is a shell. Ending that isn't killing or murder.

I don't see how it is any different for a fetus. Organized neural firings don't happen in the brain until something on the order of 4 or 5 months. That's when you first start having something that can arguably be called "human" or close to it. Before that you definitely only have something that resembles a person, and a resemblance does not a human make.

That's my position too. The fact that brain-death is often used to determine point-of death clarifies the situation nicely. If you're no longer a person after your brain stops functioning, how can you be a person before your brain starts functioning?

Unfortunately, it doesn't sound like the above video presents people who have actually thought much about things.

From watching the video, it looks like he's just talking with people he's randomly stopped on the street over a period of time.

 

[Resume]

I am mentioning very specific logical fallacies.

Deleted.

 

[Brian-M]

He then asks if they'd been given a rifle instead, and asked to shoot all the Jews, would they still do it?

I don't see how it would make a difference.

The difference is that you could use the rifle to shoot the officer instead of the Jews.

He then asks, ok, finish this sentence: It's ok to kill a baby in the womb when...?

At any point. Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being.

I'd reply that if it's still in the womb it's not a baby yet, so it's impossible to kill a baby while it's still in the womb. (But I can be a smartarse sometimes.)

Hmm, what's your basis for that assertion? Do you not think a baby is self-aware 30 seconds after being born too, or is it not ok to kill it then? I don't see how a birth imbues the baby with different cognitive properties than it had just before birth.

I think you've misunderstood his statement. Take the following two statements...

- "Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being."
- "Never. While it is in the womb is it a self aware being."

Those are two different statements with opposite meanings. To rephrase his statement, he's saying "It is never a self-aware being while it is in the womb".

(Although, you could argue that a month-old baby is not self-aware either. Aware, but neither self-aware nor sapient.)

 

[Travis]

Hmm, what's your basis for that assertion? Do you not think a baby is self-aware 30 seconds after being born too, or is it not ok to kill it then? I don't see how a birth imbues the baby with different cognitive properties than it had just before birth.

I'm on record as saying I don't have much of a problem with killing a newborn either. Lots of people have an emotional distaste for that but I don't see what the real difference is. This is assuming that this is not being done against the parent's wishes.

The difference is that you could use the rifle to shoot the officer instead of the Jews.

Presumably you are surrounded with guys with guns. You would only be able to take one or two with you and the Nazis were rather notorious for revenge killing. So using the rifle to do that would likely lead to more innocent death.

I'd reply that if it's still in the womb it's not a baby yet, so it's impossible to kill a baby while it's still in the womb. (But I can be a smartarse sometimes.)



I think you've misunderstood his statement. Take the following two statements...

- "Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being."
- "Never. While it is in the womb is it a self aware being."

Those are two different statements with opposite meanings. To rephrase his statement, he's saying "It is never a self-aware being while it is in the womb".

(Although, you could argue that a month-old baby is not self-aware either. Aware, but neither self-aware nor sapient.)

I'm aware of that. See above.

 

[Brian-M]

Presumably you are surrounded with guys with guns.

Mentioned that possibility in an earlier post...

I wonder why nobody gave the obvious answer: Use the rifle to shoot the German officer and let the Jews live.

(Of course, Ray could get around that by stipulating that there is more than one German soldier pointing a gun at you. But why aren't they finishing off the Jews? It'd take ages with just one person, and you'd need to reload a lot.)

 

[Resume]

I am mentioning very specific logical fallacies. If you don't disagree you were making those arguments, then you were using them.

An appeal to emotion seems more broad than what I mentioned to me, but you could fit it in there too. One can use more than one fallacy at the same time of course. Ray Comfort certainly does.

You know what, my post was more accurately a bare assertion in that as an evangelical, Ray Comfort probably aligns with the biblical primacy of the male head of household over the female, and thus his objection to a woman's right to choose.

I have no evidence for this other than a hunch based on Comfort's basic asshattery.

 

[Drachasor]

It's a sliding scale. Not black or white, but shades of gray. The longer since conception, the darker the shade of gray. It's often hard to pinpoint the exact moment where something goes from "sort-of okay" to "sort-of wrong" in situations like that.

Science can help narrow down where the grey area is however, which helps a lot.

And the fact that he keeps referring to embryos and fetuses inaccurately as babies and kids, to give it an extra emotional punch. In effect: You're not killing an embryo, you're killing a baby, you baby-killer!

Yes, definitely his "argument" is designed to manipulate emotions and not depend on reason.

That's my position too. The fact that brain-death is often used to determine point-of death clarifies the situation nicely. If you're no longer a person after your brain stops functioning, how can you be a person before your brain starts functioning?

Yarp.

From watching the video, it looks like he's just talking with people he's randomly stopped on the street over a period of time.

Yes, sadly most people don't think too deeply on these things it seems.

I think you've misunderstood his statement. Take the following two statements...

- "Never while it is in the womb is it a self aware being."
- "Never. While it is in the womb is it a self aware being."

Those are two different statements with opposite meanings. To rephrase his statement, he's saying "It is never a self-aware being while it is in the womb".

(Although, you could argue that a month-old baby is not self-aware either. Aware, but neither self-aware nor sapient.)

I got what he was saying. Like you say though, if you go with the fetus being ok to kill as long as it is in the womb (e.g. up until say a day before birth), then there's no reason why it wouldn't be ok to kill once it is outside of the womb for some significant period of time (if one is being consistent). That seems like a pretty problematic stance to me on a number of levels.

 

[Giordano]

What do you think of the video, Giordano?

I think it is an excruciatingly poor attempt at logic and a pathetic, insulting attempt to compare bundles of cells containing fewer neurons than a goldfish and unable to live an independent existence to fully formed, thinking human beings. Interestingly, Nazism banned abortion for Aryans; an intriguing twist, yes? Apparently they, like Comfort, believed that the State should control women's wombs (note my appeal to emotion and facile attempt at equivalency).

More generally, as other posters have indicated, I think it is an individual decision that has no absolute answer, and so should belong primarily to the woman who is carrying the fetus until it is old enough to survive on its own. Because we cannot photosynthesize, we all are willing to kill other living things, at least for food. So, at minimum no one considers all life sacred. Some, very sensitive individuals, only eat fruit that falls from trees. Many more are willing to uproot a lettuce plant for food. Some are willing to kill a stray rat in their garden, but not a stray dog. But many would kill that dog to save a child. It is all a sliding scale, and different people see it differently.

I don't see the killing of a month old human embryo as trivial, but neither do I see it in any way as murder. I respect others who may see it differently- fine by me, although I hope they are also against killing adult humans. But the issue of abortion is so ambiguous and embedded in each person's world view that I think it must be an individual woman's choice.

 

[Giordano]

Jude,

Its good to have you take a clear stand on the OP quote, even though I disagree with it.

 

[Roboramma]

Let's be careful with our arguments here. Hypocrisy wouldn't invalidate what the guy is saying. The fact his arguments are full of false equivalences invalidates what he is saying.

Any moral system should, at the least, be internally consistent. I was simply pointing out that I don't think his moral system is internally consistent. I am aware that doesn't invalidate his reasoning here (it could be that his reasoning is valid, but that he hasn't followed it through with respect to vegetarianism, for instance)

Now, that leads to two possible conclusions: one is that his reasoning is simply wrong. The other is that it's right, in which case we should all be vegetarians.

(Note, it's possible that his reasoning is wrong but his conclusions are still correct, just by chance)
(Edit: just to make clear what I'm saying, in that case his conclusions would be correct, but it wouldn't necessarily be true that we should all be vegetarians)

My personal view is that it's much more complicated than he presents it. That there is more to the moral value of a being than simply "alive" and "not alive" or "human" and "not human", etc. That there are objective qualities which determine moral value. I think my viewpoint is somewhat similar to yours in this respect, and also to the one Travis has presented (though note how similar viewpoints have led both of you to different conclusions as to the moral value of an infant's life.)

 

[332nd]

Ok, I watched it.

I didn't go through the thread before this reply so sorry if this has been brought up but its pretty much an appeal-to-emotion-strawman-godwin. My stance remains the same, its a woman's choice.

If no one has printed up a summary, I'll get to that next.

ETA: Oh good! Others have provided the summary.

 

[Brian-M]

I got what he was saying. Like you say though, if you go with the fetus being ok to kill as long as it is in the womb (e.g. up until say a day before birth), then there's no reason why it wouldn't be ok to kill once it is outside of the womb for some significant period of time (if one is being consistent). That seems like a pretty problematic stance to me on a number of levels.

In Plato's Republic, infanticide is presented as a valid means of population control in order to maintain the stability of his hypothetical ideal society.

Checking Wikipedia, it seems that many past societies, including the Greeks, exercised this form of population control and did not consider the killing of infants to be necessarily immoral.

The historical Greeks considered the practice of adult and child sacrifice barbarous. However, exposure of newborns was widely practiced in ancient Greece. In Greece the decision to expose a child was typically the father's, although in Sparta the decision was made by a group of elders. Exposure was the preferred method of disposal, as that act in itself was not murder; moreover, the exposed child technically had a chance of being rescued by the gods or any passersby.

According to William L. Langer, exposure in the Middle Ages "was practiced on gigantic scale with absolute impunity, noticed by writers with most frigid indifference". At the end of the 12th century, notes Richard Trexler, Roman women threw their newborns into the Tiber river in daylight.

Unlike other European regions, in the Middle Ages the German mother had the right to expose the newborn. In Gotland, Sweden, children were also sacrificed.

I wonder if Ray Comfort would regard this practice as being any different from abortion?

ETA: And I wonder what the Catholic Church thinks of this as an alternative for contraception?

 

[Drachasor]

I'm on record as saying I don't have much of a problem with killing a newborn either. Lots of people have an emotional distaste for that but I don't see what the real difference is. This is assuming that this is not being done against the parent's wishes.

Well, it certainly seems monstrous killing a human that can survive on its own, can interact with the world (to a limited degree admittedly), and is capable of learning. Even newborns can do these things and they are only going to get better at it. It would seem to lead to a moral hellhole, where you'd have huge vagaries on what you considered to get human rights for even the first full year of life or more (takes 12+ months after birth to pass the mirror test for instance). This is after the growing baby has become active participant in social activities with the people around it (in a limited way, but a participant nonetheless). This seems completely unworkable for practical use at the very least, and going with "as long as it is before birth" is capricious.

It's different than before the brain starts coming online, where this sort of behavior is simply impossible even if they are out of the womb and on some sort of life support (admittedly, a bit hypothetical).

In Plato's Republic, infanticide is presented as a valid means of population control in order to maintain the stability of his hypothetical ideal society.

Checking Wikipedia, it seems that many past societies, including the Greeks, exercised this form of population control and did not consider the killing of infants to be necessarily immoral.

Yeah, they also weren't big on human rights in a lot of ways. So I don't really think their opinion of what it is ok to kill counts for a lot. And, to be fair, they had no valid means of birth control and a harder time surviving. I'd imagine even Plato wouldn't view killing a baby as something to do out of hand, but rather an extreme measure. Then again, if he didn't, I'd say he's pretty wrong on that score as he was wrong on other things.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

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

http://180movie.com/


http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=1437294

"A well-known evangelist says his new documentary has the capability to change a person's mind on the issue of abortion in a matter of seconds."

"180, a documentary set to debut September 26, is produced by Living Waters, a ministry headed by evangelist Ray Comfort. The film documents eight people who were adamantly pro-abortion, but changed their minds on the issue after they were asked a question on the topic."

"It really is a matter of perspective," Comfort decides. "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 18- turn, not only about the abortion issue, but about the issue of the gospel."


http://thenewamerican.com/culture/family/9171-new-online-video-set-to-change-abortion-debate

"A new online movie released September 26 by Christian apologist Ray Comfort 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 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."

This is not playing in my local cinema. Could you email me the DVD?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Okay, I watched the movie.

Why?

 

[Ryokan]

Why?

It seemed like a good idea at the time...