"180" Movie

[Ryokan]

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

The funny thing about the whole banana thing is that modern bananas are designed. But not by God. The yellow banana without seeds does not exist naturally in nature. Wild bananas are hard and full of seeds.

 

[slingblade]

I don't think the issue is so simple.

And I'm not here to tell you what to think.

I was very clear: I spoke about what I think.

My reproduction is none of your business.

That of other women is none of mine.

Not once in there did I tell anyone else how he or she should feel, or what he or she should think about the issue.

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".

What's the point of this impossible hypothetical? What bearing can it possibly have on reality?

Yes, if pregnancy were different, then our responses to it would likely be different.

Point to you?

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.

Address it. Be my guest. I never told you how to feel or what to think on this issue. I said only two things, and they brook no argument:

You've no business in my reproductive rights.
I've no business in anyone else's.

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

...I never told you how to feel or what to think on this issue. I said only two things, and they brook no argument:

You've no business in my reproductive rights.
I've no business in anyone else's.

That's not really an argument. The people who disagree with you say you do not possess those rights because the fetus/embyro/baby/whatever has rights, and what you consider your reproductive rights trumps the rights of the one which is being reproduced. Saying what you said is stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and turning your back.

You can say "it's my body..." etc, but they will just argue "it's the fetus's body..." It's not a way to make a point.

 

[slingblade]

That's not really an argument.

I wasn't making an argument. I was expressing my opinion.

The people who disagree with you say you do not possess those rights because the fetus/embyro/baby/whatever has rights, and what you consider your reproductive rights trumps the rights of the one which is being reproduced.

Let them say it. Am I somehow stopping them saying it?

Current law says that, up to a point, my reproductive rights do trump those of the blastocyst, the embryo, and to an extent, the fetus. When I exceed that point, then it becomes someone else's business, because then I am violating the law.

Saying what you said is stamping your feet, crossing your arms, and turning your back.

I don't think I have any business being involved with any other woman's pregnancy, and my saying so is tantamount to a tantrum?

I think you have no right to insist either that I must abort or that I must give birth, and saying so is tantamount to a tantrum?

You can say "it's my body..." etc, but they will just argue "it's the fetus's body..." It's not a way to make a point.

Excuse me, but you seem to have me confused with someone who will consult others if I ever again get pregnant.

I won't. Not the least of which because I can't anymore, but even if could, I wouldn't be asking anyone what to do about it. By the same token, I do not tell others what they should do about their pregnancies. It's none of my business.

But if you're all about that, then you just go for it. That's none of my business, either.

 

[JudeBrando]

Hi, Jude.

Hi, slingblade.

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.

What question?

 

[fuelair]

The funny thing about the whole banana thing is that modern bananas are designed. But not by God. The yellow banana without seeds does not exist naturally in nature. Wild bananas are hard and full of seeds.

I am quite certain Kirk and Ray like them hard and full!!

 

[Travis]

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.

You can think it absurd all you want. That doesn't change my view on this matter.

 

[BrainRotMenacer]

Let them say it. Am I somehow stopping them saying it?

Certainly not. Similarly, that post did nothing to stop them from believing it and believing legislation should mirror their beliefs.

Current law says that, up to a point, my reproductive rights do trump those of the blastocyst, the embryo, and to an extent, the fetus. When I exceed that point, then it becomes someone else's business, because then I am violating the law.

And the argument being made in the video presented by the OP is that it is someone else's business long before that point, and Comfort (sort of) gives his arguments why. As fallacious and nonsensical as they are, he's given them. Then you come in the thread and just say the opposite of his conclusion. If you believe that is sufficient, I would argue it isn't and I don't understand how it added anything substantial to the discussion.

I don't think I have any business being involved with any other woman's pregnancy, and my saying so is tantamount to a tantrum?

Nor do I believe that I have any business being involved in any other woman's pregnancy.

I think you have no right to insist either that I must abort or that I must give birth, and saying so is tantamount to a tantrum?

I don't believe so either, but if asked I wouldn't just say "It's a woman's body, and it's none of your business what she does with it" especially since technically a fetus is neither the woman's body nor really part of it (though I'm sure there will be someway to interpret otherwise, and it's probably valid). I don't think stopping at that point is sufficient and while your opinion is an adult one, the way you presented it seemed childish, to me.

Excuse me, but you seem to have me confused with someone who will consult others if I ever again get pregnant.

I won't. Not the least of which because I can't anymore, but even if could, I wouldn't be asking anyone what to do about it. By the same token, I do not tell others what they should do about their pregnancies. It's none of my business.

I believe this just further illustrates your lack of understanding of the other side. The people who disagree with you and me suggest that because there is a party involved other than just the pregnant woman, someone needs to step in and represent this other party. I am not saying this is valid (I do not believe it is, though that shouldn't be important right now), but just stating your conclusion and not explaining why it is the more reasonable conclusion to draw just strikes me as unstimulating.

This is probably a terrible analogy, but consider a time when a marriage was only the business of the husband and wife, regardless of the treatment of the wife. I would never equivocate a husband and wife relationship with a mother and fetus relationship, but anti-reproductive rights activists would, and it seems like the responsibly skeptical thing to do is to say why this is not the case.

I understand it's virtually moot because of who the OP is, of course.

tl;dr version: opponents of your opinion say it is not your body about which they are concerned; it is the body of the fetus that interests them. Your stating or your opinion advanced nothing. You may not have been trying to do this, but then I don't understand the point of posting in the thread of a discussion forum in the first place.

 

[Drachasor]

You can think it absurd all you want. That doesn't change my view on this matter.

So according to you killing a preschooler is ok if the parents are for it since they don't comprehend death?

 

[slingblade]

Certainly not. Similarly, that post did nothing to stop them from believing it and believing legislation should mirror their beliefs.

Was it meant to?

And the argument being made in the video presented by the OP is that it is someone else's business long before that point, and Comfort (sort of) gives his arguments why. As fallacious and nonsensical as they are, he's given them. Then you come in the thread and just say the opposite of his conclusion. If you believe that is sufficient, I would argue it isn't and I don't understand how it added anything substantial to the discussion.

Oh, you want my reasons for my opinion?

I've had an abortion, and I've also given birth twice. My reasons lie in there.

Nor do I believe that I have any business being involved in any other woman's pregnancy.

From what I've gathered, that's childish.

I don't believe so either, but if asked I wouldn't just say "It's a woman's body, and it's none of your business what she does with it"

Oh, but I did not say that. I said my choices regarding my pregnancy are none of your business. I said the choices of other women are none of my business. My business lies with my own body, and the choices I make regarding it.

especially since technically a fetus is neither the woman's body nor really part of it (though I'm sure there will be someway to interpret otherwise, and it's probably valid). I don't think stopping at that point is sufficient and while your opinion is an adult one, the way you presented it seemed childish, to me.

You are entitled to hold that opinion. I'm not here to tell you why you should feel any differently.

When Roe v. Wade first came to public attention, no one asked me to hold an opinion on it, or what it might have been. Laws were created, without any input from me. Yet I was able to avail myself of those laws, when I chose to do so.

I believe this just further illustrates your lack of understanding of the other side.

I believe you lack enough information to know what I understand about "the other side." Which, of course, presumes there are only two sides to be on. It might be interesting to see if you can figure out my exact position with the information that you possess regarding my understanding of it.
Or, it might not.

I will say that your understanding of my understanding is faulty.

The people who disagree with you and me suggest that because there is a party involved other than just the pregnant woman, someone needs to step in and represent this other party. I am not saying this is valid (I do not believe it is, though that shouldn't be important right now), but just stating your conclusion and not explaining why it is the more reasonable conclusion to draw just strikes me as unstimulating.

Your opinion regarding my opinion is noted.

This is probably a terrible analogy, but consider a time when a marriage was only the business of the husband and wife, regardless of the treatment of the wife. I would never equivocate a husband and wife relationship with a mother and fetus relationship, but anti-reproductive rights activists would, and it seems like the responsibly skeptical thing to do is to say why this is not the case.

It's not the greatest analogy, as you recognize.

I understand it's virtually moot because of who the OP is, of course.

tl;dr version: opponents of your opinion say it is not your body about which they are concerned; it is the body of the fetus that interests them. Your stating or your opinion advanced nothing. You may not have been trying to do this, but then I don't understand the point of posting in the thread of a discussion forum in the first place.

I posted to express the opinion that the bodies of women belong to the women, and what they each choose to do is their own business, within the law of course.

I'm sorry that didn't stimulate you.

 

[Drachasor]

I posted to express the opinion that the bodies of women belong to the women, and what they each choose to do is their own business, within the law of course.

I'm sorry that didn't stimulate you.

That doesn't say anything about what you think the law should be. Laws can potentially be unjust after all. I am sure most of us would agree that a Law saying abortions are illegal is unjust for example. Do you have any thoughts on what a just law would be beyond that?

 

[slingblade]

That doesn't say anything about what you think the law should be. Laws can potentially be unjust after all. I am sure most of us would agree that a Law saying abortions are illegal is unjust for example. Do you have any thoughts on what a just law would be beyond that?

Not for you to chew on, no. I saw what you did with, "So according to you killing a preschooler is ok if the parents are for it since they don't comprehend death?"


Heh. Not playing in that sandbox.

 

[slingblade]

Hi, slingblade.
What question?

Yup.

 

[Brian-M]

I refuse to watch online. I want him to email me a DVD. Or post the transcript.

That's unlikely to ever happen. You can read my summary in the spoiler in post #22 if you want. The bits in quotes are word-for-word quotations. I stopped the video and replayed those parts to make sure I wrote them down correctly. (The quotes don't necessarily follow from the description of the film preceding them, they're sometimes used in place of adding more description.)

If you combine it with Ryokan's summary in post #15, the two together are almost as good as an actual transcript for getting an idea at what's in the movie.

 

[catsmate]

I can't give you too much grief. I watched Left Behind the other night when I was bored.

May I suggest you develop a hobby? Just in case you're ever that bored again.

 

[TragicMonkey]

May I suggest you develop a hobby? Just in case you're ever that bored again.

I assumed it was a typo and he was watching the popular pornographic version, Left In The Behind.

 

[Neally]

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.

Will the fetus never gain brain function? That is where your parallel fails.

Let's say a person is in a coma, but it is expected that they will come out of it with pretty much normal brain functioning. Okay to end their life?
How is that different from a fetus that has no detectable brain function, but is expected to develop one in a few weeks?

Let's say a person is in a coma, but it is unknown if they will come out of it with pretty much normal brain functioning. Okay to end their life?
How is that different from a fetus that has no detectable brain function, but is expected to develop one in a few weeks?

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

True. Most seem to be parroting catch phrases ("it's a personal decision", "it's okay if the mother can't take care of the baby after birth", "it's a women's right", etc.) without thinking of the ethics behind it, which is why they are easily influenced to change their position.

 

[Ryokan]

True. Most seem to be parroting catch phrases ("it's a personal decision", "it's okay if the mother can't take care of the baby after birth", "it's a women's right", etc.) without thinking of the ethics behind it, which is why they are easily influenced to change their position.

There's one person who had never heard of Hitler, and another who thought he was a communist. I'm not sure how hard it is to string people like that along and get them to agree with fallacies.

 

[Neally]

There's one person who had never heard of Hitler, and another who thought he was a communist. I'm not sure how hard it is to string people like that along and get them to agree with fallacies.

Are you claiming Comfort's pro-life arguments are logical fallacies?

 

[slingblade]

Pretty sure there's at least one in there...at least.