• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"180" Movie

Isn't it a bit tidy that the interviewees drop one by one. Not two or three at any stage, but nice and dramaticaly, one by one.
Nice.
 


An interesting review. I particularly like around 10:35, where he zooms in on the blond lady's glasses and you can see a man holding cue cards reflected in them.

Classy Ray, real classy.
 
Ugh, I hate how hung up these guys get on the 'life' thing.

"When's it a life huh? HUH?"

It doesn't matter...the sperm that helped provide its DNA was a life too, so if the lone fact that a fetus is alive is enough to consider killing it "murder," then every teenage boy's tissue paper collection should be considered a mass grave and treated with reverence and respect. :D

While I'm not a utilitarian in practice, I have a hard time finding fault with Peter Singer's view on this issue. It's all about the fetus or embryo's capacity to suffer, and weighing whether or not that suffering (if any) is greater than the suffering the birth of the child would cause.

That's not a simple decision to make, and Comfort and his ilk seem to have a hard time coping with the fact that morality isn't actually a simple thing with an easy-to-follow set of rules. The number of factors is so high in these decisions that it's just best left to the pregnant woman.

And that wot I fink about that.
 
Hi, Jude.

1. It's my body, and it's none of your business what I do with it.

2. It's her body, and it's none of my business what she does with it.


I hope that answers the question.
 
Drachasor said:
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).
Click to expand...

The reality is that this isn't much an issue. If you've gone the distance you are probably doing so because you want and believe you have the ability to raise the child. But I have a hard time feeling the same way about the death of something that isn't even aware enough to comprehend it can die as I do a fully cognizant adult.
 
Travis said:
The reality is that this isn't much an issue. If you've gone the distance you are probably doing so because you want and believe you have the ability to raise the child. But I have a hard time feeling the same way about the death of something that isn't even aware enough to comprehend it can die as I do a fully cognizant adult.
Click to expand...

Oh, so killing most 9 year-olds is ok too? Most kids don't really realize they can die. Heck, some adults don't really comprehend it either. What exactly is your standard here?
 
slingblade said:
Hi, Jude.

1. It's my body, and it's none of your business what I do with it.

2. It's her body, and it's none of my business what she does with it.


I hope that answers the question.
Click to expand...

I don't think the issue is so simple. There are legitimate questions about the mental faculties of the fetus. If, for instance, our biology were significantly different and pregnancy lasted five years instead of nine months, during which time the brain underwent similar development in the womb to the development that it undergoes outside the womb in the first few years of life, I doubt any of us would feel that "a woman's right to choose" trumped society's consideration for the rights of this "fetus".

Practically I agree with you: a woman, who has fully developed mental faculties, does have a right to decide what to do with her own body, and the fetus really isn't developed enough to be considered to have rights in any meaningful way, at least no more than a pig has rights.

But we still have to address whether or not the rights of the fetus should be taken into consideration, and why not. That it's "your body" or "her body" is a meaningful consideration, and in my mind in reality it turns out to be the most important one, but that doesn't in itself show that there are no other meaningful considerations to take into account.
 
Roboramma said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

9 years might have been a bit of an overstatement, but here's a link about pre-schoolers.

Frankly, I think understanding the concept of death is a pretty absurd way to judge whether it is ok to end the life of something.

Roboramma said:
Practically I agree with you: a woman, who has fully developed mental faculties, does have a right to decide what to do with her own body, and the fetus really isn't developed enough to be considered to have rights in any meaningful way, at least no more than a pig has rights.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, then a baby doesn't really have any right to live either, right? Or are you saying that if a fetus can survive with equipment outside the womb, and the woman doesn't want to have a baby, then doctors should remove the fetus and put it on life support if necessary?
 
Last edited:
It's sad that JudeBrando refused to tell us whether he would have taken up arms against the nazis or not, but I guess he saw the trap I was leading him down into with that question. To most it would have been a very easy question to answer..

If you really believe the argument that abortion and the holocaust are moral equivalents, or that abortion might even be worse as it has over ten times as many victims as the holocaust in the US alone, and all this with state sanction, why the hell aren't you taking up arms against the government?

If I believed my government was responsible for mass killings ten times worse than the holocaust, and it was ongoing, you can bet your ass I'd take up arms against them! If you really believed as Ray Comfort, why wouldn't you? If you're not resisting this worse than Nazi Germany regime, doesn't that make you complicit? You go about your business, pay your taxes, vote, and all you do against this evilest regime in the history of mankind is make videos and talk to people on the street about it? Do you think we could have toppled Nazi Germany that way? No.

The fact that they're not forming armed resistance groups tells me that these people don't really believe in the argument put forth.

And thank God for that.. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. I must be stupid. I don't get the connection.

Hitler and the massacre on the Jews were one thing. It was based upon hatred of a religious sect of people brought on by blaming them for the world's problems.

Abortion is a woman's right to do what she wishes with her body and her future and the future of her fetus.

Two different motives, two completely different things. Like comparing apples to stops signs. (Stop signs are red too).

Personally, I wouldn't kill Hitler's mother. I'd make sure she'd have enough money to get Aldoph into art school and so he goes down in history as a struggling artist. :D
 
JudeBrando said:
I think it's a powerful presentation and encourage as many people as possible to watch it.

Are you surprised at my answer?
Click to expand...
Not really. It clearly appears to your pre-existing biases and beliefs.

For those capable of rational thought however it's typical god botherer rubbish; full of inaccuracies, tortured logic, strawmen, false equivalences, distortions and illogical appeals to emotion.
What you'd expect from the banana man and not even original.

I notice, despite the frequent invocation of Hitler, that the "film" never mentions Hitler's xianity.:rolleyes:
 
I thought of one other thing that confuses me.

If we are out to kill Hitler by killing him before he's born, then why not give Hitler's future mom an abortion? Why kill her? Abortion doesn't usually kill the woman, in fact, in some cases it saves her life.

So why is the question "Would you kill the woman who is pregnant with Hitler?" even part of this "logic".

I'm really missing the point of the video.
 
JudeBrando said:
I think it's a powerful presentation and encourage as many people as possible to watch it.

Are you surprised at my answer?
Click to expand...

It's not powerful. It's illogical, asks questions that do not pertain to topic it goes to, leading questions at that and just plain "schmaltzy".

The whole movie was this:

Interviewer: "Do you eat apples?"

Person: "Yes."

Interviewer: "Do you like to eat apples?"

Person: "Yes."

Interviewer: "Tell me, do like the taste of apples that are red?"

Person: "Yes."

Interviewer: "Did you realize that stop signs are also red."

Person: "Yes, that's true."

Interviewer: "Well, then you must like the taste of stop signs."

Person: "You know, I've never thought of that. I'll go eat a stop sign right now."

Interviewer: "CONVERTED!!!!!!"
 
kedo1981 said:
WOW, Jude
Ray Comfort?
Yer coming here with Ray Comfort
Does it involve bananas?
By the way Jude seeing as how you seem to be profoundly ignorant of the bible please give us your opinion of what Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 means in context of the abortion debate.
Click to expand...
Isn't Ray Comfort the guy Kirk Cameron was playing around with when he said bananas were proof of dog because they fit perfectly in his mouth and other bodily orifices.

Since that on film performance I have often wondered what happened when they tried it with pineapples - since for there to be a dog who designs perfect foods -according the banana theory of dog -all other foods should be designed the same way, but they aren't, we are free to logically assume there is no relationship between a perfect creator and our food supply.

Perhaps the holders of that theory should try this one: we evolved to take advantage of the things that were here and then proceeded to help other things develop into forms that were also to our advantage - just as other things evolved to take advantage of us. WIN EVOLUTION!!! LOSE RELIGIOUS GAMESPLAYING111
 
Brian-M said:
.....
The funny bit is how it says that only a corrupt judge would let a criminal go free without punishment. Applying this same logic to the next part, surely only an insane and/or evil judge would let a criminal go free in exchange for punishing an innocent person?....
Click to expand...

By that reasoning, the Christian God is corrupt, because the most vile criminal can accept Jesus on their death bed and get off scot free ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom