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.
I often find it difficult to understand how someone could be pro abortion and at the same time not be at least a little bit okay with the Holocaust. With the Holocaust the Nazis viewed and defined Jews and others as sub human or "Untermensch" and that made it acceptable to kill them because they took it upon themselves to define them as less than human. We currently have people who define a fetus as non-human so that makes it okay to kill it. There is not a lot of difference in those two ways of thinking.
Didn't take long to Godwin this thread.
There is a huge difference between one group deciding as a 3rd party an entire race is worth killing - then going about it... versus a mother, her doctor, and her husband deciding that an abortion is the right decision (for reasons and moral dilemmas they have to wrestle with).
If that distinction isn't glaringly obvious (far from "not a lot of difference in those two ways of thinking") then we don't have much to discuss on this topic.
Regardless of anyone's opinions on any topic, in this case, should one be pro-abortion or anti-abortion, BOTH sides of the debate should be solidly opposed to academically irresponsible discussion methods.
Comparison to hyperbole is an unethical way to win people to your side.
Debater: Do you like efficient road systems and strong national defense?
Listener: HELL YES!!!
Debater: You know, Hitler liked that stuff too.
Listener: Oh, never mind.
Additionally, I understand the anti-abortion idea that life is uncompromisingly sacred even while unborn, therefore it is an easy jump to compare the ending of such life with the ending of any innocent life. But, as Liam points out, there is a disconnect in this particular analogy.
My thought on the subject is that the fetus is a separate life-form. We can tell through genetic analysis that the fetus was a wholely different person from the mother and therefore is not 'her' tissue to dispose of as she sees fit just as a baby is not the mother's to dispose of as she sees fit (regarding killing). If the genetic analysis is done without knowledge that the sample was from a fetus would we be able to tell if the sample actually came from a fetus? I haven't found any such evidence as yet.
Interesting. We use DNA to show beyond any doubt that someone did or did not committed a crime but we will not use the same technology to stop the killing of babies.
The unborn, at this point, are legally subhuman and can be legally terminated at will. That is a fact, not a hyperbole. Godwin's law has its moments. This is not one of them. Legally declaring anybody sub-human merits the comparison.
There is a similarity in the legalities, and in the line of thinking that allows for the legalities. That's the comparison. That there is no such similarity in the thinking of a panicked pregnant woman and a Nazi death camp operator almost goes without saying.
The difference is property, right? Germany, or the Nazis, or Hitler had no obvious title to property over Jews, so it's not alright to kill them. Perhaps there can be no title to property over human beings once they are born, so it is never alright to round 'em up & kill them. You need a good legal reason before you can kill someone; the laws are there to protect human lives, if people care for that sort of thing; presumably you cannot enforce those laws unless the people allow it. There tend to be limits on killing even in war...
A woman, on the other hand, does have property over her baby up until the moment the baby is born, & so can kill it. Your formulation is somewhat misleading: Who cares what the doctor thinks? If he is against abortion, will that mean the baby lives? What if he is for abortion, but the mother is against? Will that mean the baby dies? So also with the husband. The woman decides life & death, because it is her baby. I don't see any obvious, persuasive argument to say a barely-conceived baby is a human being: It just doesn't look human; not that I have any doubt that women get very attached to the baby when once they know they're pregnant; the men might as well... Third-trimester abortions are a different thing from that point of view: The animal is recognizably human. But from the point of view of property, the woman still gets to decided whether the baby will live or die.
Fortunately you have pointed out precisely where the disconnect between the pro-abortion and anti-abortion debates arises.
Pro-abortion people, self-styled as pro-choice (cuz hey, who wants to limit personal choice?) consider this to be before the point in the life of the human where they consider it a life. Most arguments made in support of abortion are typically made based on that assertion.
Anti-abortion people, self-styled as pro-life (cuz hey, who wants to kill the innocent?) consider the life to be at a point of being sacred, even when unborn. Most of their arguments arise from that principle.
Until that difference and the original principles from which each side makes their assertions are debated and established, both side's arguments are immediately seen as based on flawed premises.
Unfortunately, the original principles in this one are difficult to establish (if only because each side simply cannot bring itself to accept the principles of the opposing side).
I am persuaded by your good-natured & pedantic summation that I must be doing something wrong. How did I point out that disconnect between what is sacred & what is alive? Why is that fortunate? Also, are you sure the phrase for which you seek is not 'first principles?'
I pointed out you did something wrong? Please, show me where.
Sure, first principles.