Has anyone seen this movie? If so, what are your thoughts?
Here is a review/advertisement:
Very few, when good and evil are brought to full focus for the first time.
It began as a series of video interviews for the upcoming book "Hitler, God and the Bible." The subjects were college students in Southern California who don't have a clue who Adolph Hitler was.
Author, evangelist and television host Ray Comfort found that these young adults also had given little previous thought to the reality of abortion.
Then, in the course of a series of mini-Socratic dialogues, come the incredible "180s."
Comfort asks these men and women hypothetical questions about the Nazi Holocaust - and then asks them to apply their answers to the question of abortion.
The results are simply amazing.
Everyone should watch this DVD - particularly those who consider themselves pro-"choice" or even any pro-lifers who are reluctant to stand up firmly for what they believe.
NOTE: Some of the attitudes expressed in the film are upsetting, particularly where Comfort uncovers willful ignorance regarding the Holocaust. In establishing the persistence of evil and forgetfulness regarding history, however, these portions are both compelling and central to the message of this extremely important documentary.
1. That joke--I don't get it.
2. Lincoln did not put his faith up for public inspection in the Second Inaugural. Nor could he expect that America be peopled with creatures as contemplative as he. You might then think about why he spoke as he did about Providence, what his purpose was in addressing his nation thus. I just don't think you get that sort of thing, or that it matters.
3. As to the Union, I have no doubt Lincoln fought to save the Union. But he did not fight for the purpose of determining the strength of the Union, or to prove that strength. Those things happened by coincidence. He fought because the Union was worth saving. I know that letter, I also know better than to quote like you do: Do you understand why he wrote to Greeley? Why a public letter? If that, then you must know he was not speaking from his heart, so to speak...
But the Union, the Constitution supposes, is always worth saving to the president. That then is the explanation of every war & every peace. It is therefore politically worthless & intellectually silly as an explanation. It only helps you face presidents who did not believe in the Constitution & the 'more perfect Union' it created. Even in that case it cannot explain to you what ought to have been done, or why it was not so done.
The cause of the war was slavery. The war turned out to require the utter & complete destruction of slavery. There were tactical steps taken in that direction, as well as away from it, as circumstances required. Those tactical steps include speeches, because you can only say so much at any given time. But that does not change the cause of the war; nor the cause of the end of the war. Had slavery not been abolished, the war would have been fought again.
4. Now, about secession. It is not a right; but there is a right to revolution. All that matters was how Lincoln satisfied himself about the difference & why he thought war was worth fighting. To prove a theoretical point, or a matter of political structure--nobody is insane to fight a war for that. He fought to keep his; the slavers fought to keep theirs. They understood their own differently--there is a question, which understanding is more serious politically & a better understanding of American politics, Constitution & all. The importance of slavery is that it is the only serious argument that the Founders were wrong. Madison's theory of faction, which grounds the great republic theory, was proved wrong. Factions could arise so strong that they could lead the union to destruction. But only in the case of slavery.
"You have a point there; so far as I understand the pro-abortion position, a pregnancy is not human because it is not recognized as such legally."
That only lends itself to a circular argument.
The argument is that abortion ought not be legal at all. You can't argue for the legality of abortion simply because it happens to be legal now.
"Well, property is the issue, because American pro-abortion means that the woman decides. It need not. Look at the Chinese communists: They think abortion is a necessary state policy"
For the Chinese communists, it is as well a 'property' issue. All individuals are subordinated to the will of state much like property.
"The animal is recognizably human."
Visually so, but genetically the fetus from the time of conception is recognizably a separate human (i.e. not the mother).
I take your point. But that seems to do little to change the political or legal facts. Spontaneous awareness is far more persuasive...
I think that if you showed women contemplating abortion what it really means, it would terrify many of them out of it. Is that video more truth than science? Not really. But does it show a more serious awareness of human beings? Yes, certainly.
The only reason abortion has not been settled in a decent fashion is because Americans really, really do not want to see what is meant by a partial-birth abortion. They feel it does not concern them; there were years when there were more than 1.5 million abortions--most, presumably, not as gruesome as the destruction of that almost-ready-to-be-born baby. But that's one half of one percent of the population. If you tell people how many tens of millions of babies have been aborted, they get to abstract to numbers. Then they need not confront the problem. The people do not want to know; the people who want them not to know are doing a better job technically than the people who do want them to know. So it goes. But it seems like it requires a price: Deciding political questions of some importance in such ignorance destroys what made Americans American: They cared about their problems & settled them for themselves. It was a manly way-
"The only reason abortion has not been settled in a decent fashion is because Americans really, really do not want to see what is meant by a partial-birth abortion."
Some would argue that the only reason abortion is has not been settled is because a large part of the voting population want to live consequence free lifestyles and justify that ignoble reason with many 'noble' reasons.
You have described one consequence of an abortion - the gruesome and ugly facts being presented, as you say by showing "what it really means". However, that merely presents a woman considering abortion with the ugly notion of ending a life. It still has fails to bring home the importance of the consequence of sex that involves having a baby.
I could never understand how someone could be both pro-life and pro-capital punishment.
If the original post is an attack on abortion based on a flawed analogy, Nick has certainly graced us with one of the pro-abortion lobby's flawed analogies.
A common go-to, for those in support of abortion, based on equating an unborn child with someone found guilty of murder. No further explanation needed to show how that analogy is infantile and falls apart.
Of course, this generally cues the next logical regression of "what if the baby is threatening the mother's life?"
Just so we curtail that rabbit hole early on -
"what if the baby is threatening the mother's life?"
Ok. Justifiable. But an exception to the main point of the discussion.
Nick, your old self has struck again. How about we ask this: How can someone be pro-killing eight-month babies but against killing full-grown people? Does that make much sense to you?
I seemed to have unknowingly unfurled a pro-choice slogan here. It was not my intent. Personally, I am against abortion when not medically necessary for the sake of the life of the mother (and unlike the UK I don't think "mother said she'll kill herself if she doesn't get one" counts). But I am also against capital punishment. I didn't spend this much of my life to study medicine to kill people, babies and criminals included.
If it makes you more comfortable then replace my comment with your pro-killing one. I agree with both.
I'm against killing a life when its not necessary. Mind you, I'm not a quaker or something. If my family was threatened I'd kill to defend them and if my nation was at threat I'd fight as well.
No life threatened, Nick. But what do you say to the man whose family was wiped out by some guy? This man will now live off your tax money, the rest of his life, while you are tortured by thoughts of your dead loved ones? What does your country & your city say? Suck it up!--Or: We feel for your tragedy, it is beyond imagination, we are very sorry--but the guy will need your tax money to get a decent, humane jail for the rest of his days; if he gets sick, you will have to help us make him healthy again!
How about that guy that massacred dozens of children in Norway? He gets a hotel stay for his trouble; the laws are such that he can get out of it with enough years in front of him to do it again. What do you say to the families of those people? That you spent your time studying medicine?
Justice requires killing people in quantities civilized people find distasteful; they therefore abandon justice for other things they prefer, mostly their own good, or collective selfishness--it was not your family that was wiped out, nor mine--& then the laws lose their meaning. People even stop using the law; policy replaces it; no talk of punishment in policy...