Wednesday, 05 October 2011
-
180 Movie: Controversial Documentary
By The Closet Calvinist
This video has had some controversy going on about it. It seems that those who support abortion, or are “pro-choice” seem to have issue with being compared to some of the worst evil in the world.
Anyway, I think it should be shared. I hope you’ll watch it in full. Along with the abortion argument there is a Gospel presentation at the end.
What do you think?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: ClosetCalvinist
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 36 Views: 0 79871 Comments: 0 844 View all posts by ClosetCalvinist
Comments (67)
The abortion debate is NOT about where life begins. That is scientifically settled. The abortion debate is about where personhood begins. Life (even so-called "human life") and personhood are not synonymous terms. Fetuses might be life but they haven't attained the status or protection of personhood, which is attained upon live birth. It's a false comparison to compare abortion to genocide as genocide is performed on people (i.e. individuals who have attained personhood by way of live birth), not embryos or "potential people" if you will.
Whatever. I'm not in the least bit affected by this just like I'm not in the least bit affected by pictures of so-called "aborted babies" (which are usually doctored) or other movies like "The Silent Scream" which have been debunked time and time again. The answer to the abortion debate is simple: her mind, her body, her choice. Period.
I saw this a few days ago.
I agree with their comparison of genocide with abortion.
I agree that abortion is 100% murder.
I do not believe many of the people in the documentary actually had a change of heart. It may have gotten them thinking but I believe that many of them are unwilling to actually allow themselves to feel anything on a deeper level in relation to this.
Then there are people (like the commenter above me) who are just cold.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - Spoken like someone who has never witnessed a genocide (or the aftermath of one) or seen an actual dead baby. God willing you never will... but if you knew what it was actually like to lose a baby you would never in a million years compare an abortion with a dead child.
@phoebester@xanga - Or someone who knows what it's like knowing that one or both of your biologcal parents didn't want you (I know what it's like and let me tell you the feeling fucking sucks) or growing up in a broken home, or anything of that sort. Trust me, my mother would have been doing me a big favor by aborting me, because some of the things I've been through and the true information of my origins coming to light recently have fucking scarred me for life!
I don't know. These rabid anti-choice Nazis just don't fucking get it. Of course, I put no blame on my mother as she didn't know what was going to happen as I grew up, but quite frankly I'm a very broken individual because of it. Honestly, if I didn't have a career I love that keeps me going and gives me an actual reason to live, I'd have ended my life this year, because it's almost too much to bear, and off the job I'm nothing but depressed.
I saw this documentary a few days ago as well and loved it (as much as you can love a film like this anyways).
@StatelessPilot - Here's a shocker: I agree with your post.
I agree with some of the posters on this: there is no good secular reason against abortion. That is because it's only through the Lord that good is made known. Can the wicked recognize their wickedness as shameful if they have rejected God's counsel already? Of course not.
So, I don't think we should try to make it illegal... what good would that do?
The Lord will avenge those who were murdered. That's not my place to do.
@StatelessPilot - "so there are no really good arguments against criminalizing abortion" => then arguments against criminalizing murder are non-existent. If society would have based their law on atheism, nothing would be a crime. You can't design a moral law on which a society should live by based on atheism. An atheist can't believe in sin based on his/her religion. An atheist can't believe in good and evil based on his/her religion (no one can say child-molestation for example is 'wrong' based on atheism). What I don't get is atheists calling Christians for example old-fashioned, medieval..., while the only reason you have 'human' rights at all is because of Christianity, religion,...
@BA94er@xanga - do you know any atheists? the atheists i know have pretty strong senses of what's right and wrong. morality for an atheist doesn't come externally, sure, but that doesn't mean an atheist thinks everything is up for debate.
Can there also be a post on "The Most hated family in America"? It's also a documentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOrz5k0jWdU&feature=related
Watch it there.
@ZerosRequiem@xanga - An atheist can't come to a moral law based on atheism. What isn't correct about that? I don't think you get what I'm trying to say. AN ATHEIST CAN'T COME UP WITH !ANY! MORAL LAW SOLELY BASED ON ATHEISM. An atheist can't say: that's good or evil because you can't logically come to that understanding through atheism. Because if an atheist DOES believe there's such a thing as good and evil, then he's saying there's a moral law on which we can differentiate between good and evil. If he agrees with that, than he must agree with a moral-law-giver. But that's who they don't believe in. So they have no right at all as an atheist to say : that's good or bad. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T COME TO THAT CONCLUSION BASED ON ATHEISM. Without religion, there wouldn't be a moral law!
@BA94er@xanga - I agree with you. (However for those reading this - this isn't to say that atheists & non-Christians can't have morals. Not at all. This person is just trying to say that the morals of a non-Christians do not come from themselves, believe it or not.)
However, I doubt anyone can convince them of this. Heck, they celebrate CHRISTmas when they have no right to as well.
@BA94er@xanga - Your argument would be valid if abortion was "murder" by objective standards. As it is, it isn't - that's purely subjective. Abortion and killing someone who is born are different things entirely!
Funny you should say what you do though. Most of the atheists I know have high moral standards, compared to a lot of Christians I know who have shitty moral standards. It can be argued that morality comes from reason, as well. Whatever the case, it's asinine to make that kind of assumption about either group.
@phoebester@xanga - Have you ever witnessed an abortion? I've read people's comments after seeing (or helping to perform) an abortion. For those with a heart, it scarred them for life. A few have even left the business afterward to fight for life. It had that profound of an effect on them.
I have had an early miscarriage. That was very painful for me as a miscarriage is painful for most women. However - I understand that early miscarriages aren't as painful as a miscarriage even a few weeks further than I was where you do have a tiny baby to deliver. Which I'm sure is even harder when a woman is halfway or further in pregnancy & loses her child as then there is a child to hold & see your loss more tangibly. Which, as hard as that is, I understand it would be harder yet to lose a child that you've mothered & held & gotten to know after birth. I understand that.
Still, this is tearing a child apart. A child who has been formed, just not to completion. A child who can move at will. The vacuum pulls the child apart & rips him/her from the mother's womb. How can that not be one of the coldest things to do to a human being?! You'll never be able to convince me otherwise. Especially not after having communicated with those who have seen it first hand and been affected to the point of regretting ever having supported abortion.
If people were so completely convinced of their positions on abortion being "right," then why are they so offended by being called pro-abortion?! That is EXACTLY what they are.
I'm okay being called anti-choice because a child is NOT a choice. It's a human being fully deserving of respect as such.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - Never mind that the holiday is actually a pagan celebration that the Lutheran Church commandeered and gave a Christian flavor to. Let's also just ignore the fact that most scholars estimate the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was sometime in September and not in December. Now who are the real hypocrites?
@StatelessPilot - Oh I read that. I read how a few pagan holidays were overtaken & given Christian ties to.
Had I been alive around that time or shortly thereafter, I doubt I'd have celebrated because I think that is wrong.
However, I was born over a century after the fact. Where the pagan holiday that was originally around that time has basically been forgotten, yet the Christian holiday stands firm. Same with everyone who is alive now. So it's a great time to be thankful to Christ for his sacrifice & to reflect on what following Christ means & how great our God is.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - Fair enough.
Back to the topic at hand though: the sword cuts both ways. Yes, there are many women who regret having abortions. You won't hear an argument out of me about that one. On the other hand, I can't tell you how many parents I have talked to who absolutely regret having children and wish they hadn't. As someone who is adamantly anti-child, I would be doing this world a disservice by having children. I have other priorities in life - a successful airline pilot career, traveling the world, among other things. Family life isn't a priority for me and truth be told I don't really care about that. Children would do nothing but get in the way of my realizing my goals in life.
@StatelessPilot - You say the argument is a matter of "personhood"...and yet there's also no consensus on what defines "personhood". When defining personhood, what is the difference between an infant 1 day after birth and 1 day before birth? And how does a newborn infant fulfill your definition of personhood? The fact is, this is a debated term and the term's definition is often arbitrary and one that leads to odd conclusions that go against our very intuitions. And yet for some reason, you feel you can make definitive statements based on an arbitrary definition and concept.
"I'd also like to add that there are no legitimate secular arguments for the anti-choice position. It's all rooted in religion, so there are no really good arguments against criminalizing abortion. "
Don Marquis' argument against abortion is a very legitimate one. I believe Marquis was religious (I can't recall) but his argument is philosophical and entirely secular.
"Trust me, my mother would have been doing me a big favor by aborting me..."
If you honestly believed that you would kill yourself. Since you haven't yet, you don't seriously believe that. (Unless you happened to have Kantian views, or heck, even happened to agree with Marquis....which you obviously don't).
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - "If people were so completely convinced of their positions on abortion being "right," then why are they so offended by being called pro-abortion?!"
I also find this very confusing. Its not "pro-abortion", its "PRO-CHOICE!". And its not "pro-life"...but "ANTI-CHOICE!". I think its pretty stupid rhetorical tactic...but oh well. I could care less on the names since, like you said, they are all technically true. There shouldn't be a problem with "pro-life" since no one debates that the fetus is a life. But I find it odd and hilarious when certain people now want to move away from term abortion altogether.
I remember in a class the professor mentioned abortion and used the word "termination" and some girl strenuously objected to him using the word "termination". WTF??? (btw, which was the same reaction of the professor. He was like "uh...thats the definition....what word am I supposed to use then?".)
@wizexel22@xanga - The difference between the two is one is born and the other is not. A fetus (inside a woman's uterus) is nothing but a parasite, and parasites do not have the right to feed off of their hosts. Thus a fetus has no entitlement to anything, not even the right to occupy that space. Personhood might be arbitrary, but when something is arbitrary there is no grounds for criminalizing something even so. However, the law defines personhood as beginning upon birth as do most people, and that's what I'm inclined to believe.
Lastly, yes, I do believe mother would have done me a favor. The only reason I haven't killed myself yet is because I have a career that is my only drive to live. If I ever lost my career for any reason, however, my life would be over in an instant as I'd have no reason to live at that point since the rest of my life would be nothing but depression and suffering (as I said, the only time I'm not depressed is when I'm at work). So yes, I do believe that.
@StatelessPilot - Your reply is full of contradictions. If you are making a philosophical or moral argument based on "personhood", what does the location of the fetus matter? (There isn't even a biological difference here, let alone a philosophical one.) Also, a fetus in the 3rd trimester could hardly be called a parasite...particularly since it has reached viability. Your arguments on the law also don't make any sense. If you are arguing on the basis of personhood, you need to define personhood, since you are not going on the basis of life, which as you said is clearly defined. The arbitrariness of the term works against you, not for you. And obviously the law does not define personhood beginning upon birth or else it would be legal to abort a baby the day before it is born...which of course is completely illegal. You are trying to isolate this as a philosophical argument but you are jumping all over the place with no ground to stand on.
Again, you are contradicting yourself. You would kill yourself...BUT, yet you have a reason to live in your career that you get joy from. So weighing it all, you choose to live rather than to die. Your argument is as non-sensical as me arguing I would rather never have been born....and my argument is that the second I get a debilitating and terminal illness, I will kill myself. Thus I would have been better off never being born. (Of course, I'd rather live all these years in between...but that doesn't count right?).
@BA94er@xanga - @ZerosRequiem@xanga - The conscience is God's law written on man's heart. See the first few chapters of the book of Romans. And, even "moral nonbelievers" don't fully obey it, nor do they care to. They by nature hate God and even if they obey some of His commandments it doesn't change their stance, and it is usually based on fear of consequences when they do break them, upbringing does a lot.@MyTwoCentss@xanga
@StatelessPilot - No one claims that Jesus was born in December, but instead it is the day that we celebrate His birth. There is a difference.
@wizexel22@xanga - I tend to use the word murder, "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." While it is legal in this country, that doesn't change that it is taking a human life and that it is against God's law. Sugarcoating it is a tactic to try to make it seem less evil than it really is.
@StatelessPilot - So, the career is more important to you than your professed faith in Christ?
Maybe we should argue for the killing of any child less than 2 years old. I mean, really, how many 2 year olds don't live off of their parents? That is the definition of a parasite, right? Or, is it only a parasite if it lives off of the host while living inside of it? And, if we take this route, I've not seen many under the age of 15 with jobs, so, they live off of their parents too…
I'm pretty sure this video speaks more to me about how shitty our education system is. How do that many people not know who Adolf Hitler was?
@MagisterTom@xanga - Abortion isn't 'unlawful premeditated killing' as it's perfectly legal. Ergo, abortion =/= murder, even by your own definition. If anything needs to be sugarcoated, it's how many murders actually take place in the Bible just 'cause God wanted to be recognised as such.
@MyTwoCentss@xanga - 'This person is just trying to say that the morals of a non-Christians do not come from themselves, believe it or not.' The morals of Christians don't come 'from themselves' either. It's in a book.
She clearly stated, though that she believes 'Without religion, there wouldn't be a moral law!' Plenty of people are aware of and believe in a moral system based on the facts of reality and deduced by reason. Pretty sure that isn't a religion.
@Grtt@xanga - it's impossible to create a moral law based on atheism. A MORAL law. IMPOSSIBLE.