TheTrue Pooka: hey there I will pray for you for whatever stuff in your life that you are dealing with, everyone needs prayer not just you. I challenge you once, just once, to read the gospels of the bible Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.
I am much more a written word kind of person than speaking in front of a video. Perhaps eventually I can piece something together, but mostly I just have questions for now. I agree that the character limit is oppressive. I'm ok with sending private messages to deal with most of the questions if you're cool with that, or if I can comment on said blog that would work too. I'm open to suggestions.
By science, I mean you used that word in the video saying the Nazi's used fake scientific evidence/appeals to back up their claims that Jews were not human, which to me implies you're asserting that science currently has decided on legitimate evidence that a fetus isn't human, in contrast to Nazi Germany. I'm glad you're not leaving philosophy out of the picture.
@vader421138 Yes. Despite what antiabortionists would want you to think, the Roe vs Wade decision was made after an abundance of testimony given by the medical industry.
And no, no ne data has come forward that contradicts any of it.
So we have input currently from the medical field. Does the field of Philosophy also unanimously agree that a fetus is not a human?
If contradictory evidence did arise, would you be willing to change your mind?
It's probably also good to note that the field of medicine is wrong sometimes. It isn't a field that is free of error. Neither is science in general. Is it possible they drew the wrong conclusion, and with further advances might repeal it?
And why is philosophy of such small importance in this determination? For some reason, it seems to be the more appropriate field to answer the question of what it means to be human. Medical science contributes, but it is ultimately a philosophical question.
@vader421138 But it was taken into consideration. That's why Roe vs Wade has the cutoff period that was set. It is also why the exceptions are in place.
Antiabortionists are putting forward the lie that none of this was considered when Roe vs Wade was voted in but it is just that- a lie. It was a sound decision on all fronts.
I never said it wasn't taken into consideration with Roe vs Wade. I asked why you consider it to be of small importance when it seems to be more of an authority on the question. You yourself said that philosophy plays only a minor role in the determination. So back to my question, why is philosophy of such minor importance in this determination when it seems to be the field most qualified for answering the question of what it means to be human?
@vader421138 "It's probably also good to note that the field of medicine is wrong sometimes. It isn't a field that is free of error. Neither is science in general. Is it possible they drew the wrong conclusion, and with further advances might repeal it?"
No the conclusions are sound. Part two of this is just a rehashing of the last question.
Just to make you aware, science does repeal conclusions that seemed logical at the time based on the experiments and technology and various other advances. Any scientist would tell you his or her conclusions are sound. That is their job, to come up with sound conclusions based on evidence and experiments.
@vader421138 Now you're being insulting. All you're trying to do is raise the tired old argument that is Pascal's Wager. Usually used with the premise that;
"Christianity may be right so you should convert to avoid hell just in case."
You're trying to imply that; "because medical science is an ever changing field with information being revised and changed, that abortion should always be illegal."
That is a flawed argument and it fails for obvious reasons.
Perhaps a little. I find it a bit absurd to imply science can't be wrong. And to be fair, this matter is one that is potentially of life and death, and is definitely a matter of rights.
And no, I was not about to put forth Pascal's Wager. At least, not yet. I actually dislike that wager in the first example for conversion to a religion because it is for the wrong reasons. If one is to change a viewpoint, it should be towards truth and not towards fear.
What I am indeed trying to establish is that medical science can be wrong, and medical science isn't the final authority in answering the question of whether or not something is human and has the rights humans have.
Well, if truth is relative, on what basis could I or anyone else force another to follow certain viewpoints? Who's to say an idea, while valid for many, is relevant for everyone? If what is right for you may be wrong for me, how can anyone legitimately force another to follow their viewpoint? I think it would imply an absolute of some sort.
@vader421138 You're confusing objective truth with absolute truths in this case.
And we're dealing with a science here so it might be best to discard the concept of "absolute truth" and go with something like Fromm's "Optimal Truth".
Actually, in this line of thought, we were talking of forcing others to follow one's beliefs. This is philosophical.
And I'm not sure I know the difference between objective and absolute truth. I googled it and I think many others don't really see any difference. I'm guessing you are saying objective truth is something that is established on authority outside of oneself but not necessarily applicable to all, where absolute is applicable to all? Please clarify.
@vader421138 Blech. The problem is there are a number of different definitions of what they are.An absolute truth is always true - it would be true regardless of the existence of anything else. The classic example is;
"A rock is always a rock". ie; "A rock is always a rock no matter where it iis, when it is, or how it is defined by people.
Absolute truths ironically disprove the omnipotence of the God because by their very nature they exist regardless of God's power.
@TheTruePooka Objective truths are trickier. Objective truths are truths that are handed down from some authority and are therefore generally considered always true. However - they are not absolute. They are subject to change. God, government, cultural mores, etc...
Subjective truths are truths that are truths that are exist on a personal level. They may or may not be shared by other people and they tend to be conditional and based on circumstance.
Indeed you are right, it does contrast the omnipotence of God in that sense. But that is a question for a later time perhaps.
I still await your answer to my last question: How do you personally determine objective truths? What authorities do you listen to and how do you think objective truths are arrived at?
yeah it's really interesting how somehow people will draw a crooked line of logic and end up with "you are like Hitler". "Crooked line of logic" is a generous description of the behaviour, pulling it from the ass is more like it.
Why don't you go and eyewitness a late term abortion, and then tell me how humane it is. "No big deal".... watch it writhe in a cold steel tray covered in blood as it dies a lonely death.
Then you can go put on your cap n mittens, grab your lap top, and head to Starbucks in your tiny hybrid for your yuppie frappe machiata, to Facebook with some FAGS about Barry Soetoro 2012.
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 "Late term abortion" - that's a fallacy. The discussion on abortion generally involves the first trimester, about 24 weeks. I also said nothing about; "no big deal".
And post 1st trimester abortions have been done for a century now if the mother's life is determined to be in danger.
@TheTruePooka That doesn't make it OK. I mean seriously, who thinks this shit up? "Hey, I just thought of something cool, let's go inside that woman's pussy and rip her baby out!"
"Yeah man, that sounds kick ass! I can't wait to see it man..." (bong hit)
"fallacy"? No, that shit's legal, and Barry Soetoro/Osama supports it with my tax dollars. "Planned Parenthood"- how cute. Kinda like FEMA "freedom camps". lol Or- "patriot" acts....
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 It's documented medically. (shrug) You folks have been trying to do a run around on Roe vs Wade for decades now. Unless you're arguing about the soul - which is a religious concept, then fetal development doesn't even begin to develop to the point where it drops below about a 55% failure rate for a few weeks.
@TheTruePooka "arguing about the soul...." DUH. Iv'e watched around 100 testimonies of people who were declared clinically dead. ALL of them describe experiences, including looking down and seeing their own bodies.
Babies can be seen in the womb now clearly moving around- and your saying they are not alive? What gives you the right to make such a conclusion, and defy nature itself?
Only a human could be so stupid and callous as to rip a baby out of it's mothers womb and kill it.
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 How nice for you. I've died on three separate occasions. Rumors of a soul are greatly exaggerated.
And according to the bible someone else besides humans rips babies from the womb. There's also - God. God not only kills babies in the womb, but he sees to it that they're killed after birth as well.
You live in New York, and you probably think 911 was "Arabs with box cutters", or some kind of "conservative" conspiracy. HISTORY LESSON.
The Nazi's were funded to power by the Jesuit/illuminati, and the Jews burned in the holocaust (Greek for burnt sacrifice) death camps on metal stretchers with shackles ALIVE, in a geographic pentagram around the temple of Cybele. Hitler was supposedly killed on Beltane, 5-1.
Killing a "fetus", cause you think it "might" not be a person, is the same as putting a man to death, cause you think he "may" have killed someone. The burden of proof, always lies upon the prosecution. Or in this case, the KILLER more politically correctly known as the abortionist.
This strange concept is known as "presumption of innocence"- and is the bedrock of our justice system philosophy.
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 Your argument fails because the question of a fetus being a person or not has already been dealt with legally. That's what Roe vs. Wade is.
It also fails because you're starting from the position if; "the fetus is being killed as punishment for a crime". It isn't. The fetus is destroyed because medicine has determined that it is not a person.
@TheTruePooka "medicine"??? And who runs the American Medical Association??? Could it be
THE ROCKEFELLERS!!!!!! Illuminati scumbag Federal Reserve traitors? With the snake wrapped around as it's symbol for it?
You "claim" science? YOUR DEBUNKED PAL. Proof only in your mind cause you want to believe it. That lady in the Roe/Wade repented and is now A CHRISTIAN. That baby is proven ALIVE- and late terms are the sickest murders of all. How can you sir?
@TheTruePooka so you are anti federal government? this is what i gather from your videos i have seen especially those about politics. now tell me were the many verdicts by federal judges in the 60's against oppressive racist state laws something you see as wrong?
@ThoseGamerguyz Not anti-federal government. I believe the federal government serves a purpose that is beneficial to the country - when it is not being fabulously corrupted by lobbyist/ special interest group bribes. I don't want to just say something glib about; "Minimal federal government" because that phrase has become so meaningless with further discourse to back it up but - there ya go.
And those verdicts from what I recall were constitutionally sound calls.
Interesting video. Comfort is a complete douche through and through. His displays of stupidity and cunniving tactics knows no boundaries. I think that whenever he comes up with a video where he blames the atrocities of the history of mankind on a lack of inclination to his religion, some one should quote him and his goons scriptures in his religious book that advocate the same atrocties. I don't know, just religious propaganda through mental manipulation and lies.
As much as you try pooki, the fact remains that abortionists rhetoric are
similar to the ones natsis used.
Isolate-Dehumanize-Execute.
"babies aren't humans" "babies are a sack of glue" "babies have no mental capacity" "life isnt a right" "babies are the invaders" "they are an imposition"
"a tumor" "a censer" "they are destroying the planet(overpopulation)" "causing poverty"...etc etc
@AmetReloads As I pointed out below; your attempt to shft the rhetoric of this argument on me won't work. You fail.
And btw - my wife calls me Pooki as a sign of affection so it doesn't bother me. It makes it sound like you want to jump my bones and... sorry. I'm taken. :)
@TheTruePooka I realise this is a loaded issue but reading this reply (defining a human being etc), a thought occurred to me: religion and beliefs aside, if the people on both sides of the abortion debate are unable to definitely determine when a fetus is a human being, isn't choosing not to kill a fetus the safe thing to do? If the 'pro-life' people are wrong, their campaigning to let a fetus live will surely be the better consequence than if the 'pro-choice' people are wrong, yes?
@cragv Pretty much. Which is how Roe vs Wade came into being. They established with medical science what is the roughly the earliest age a fetus has survivability and then use that as a cut off date. They also make exceptions in cases past that date that involve a physical danger to the mother.
The twisted thing is that that despite doing exactly that the antiabortionists lie about it to confuse the issue and get their way.
@cragv It's three months later, but I do have to ask: how is not "killing" a fetus the "safe" thing to do? Where did safety become relevant? And yes, I do understand the specific context in which you use 'safe', but I still don't see how it's relevant.
I mean, apart from some GATTACA-like future where we can know what a fetus will grow up to be and whether or not we have the next Hitler or the person who'll cure cancer in a womb, you can't say "Whew, dodged a bullet not aborting that fetus!"
@EdwardHowton I can't easily see what I wrote (and don't have time to look right this minute) but all I meant by the use of 'safe' was this: better to let live and be wrong than to kill and be wrong. Yes, there is always a risk of deformities or genetic/other problems, just like all babies, but what if the act of abortion really is murder in God's eyes? Safer to allow to live than to abort/kill and be wrong! That's all I meant. If you don't believe in God then that's up to you.
@cragv If the act of abortion is murder in God's eyes then God is the worst murderer there is. Well, moreso than he already would qualify as, what with committing mass genocide on every species in a flood...
Fortunately, the flood never happened and God doesn't exist, so we can safely ignore the problem you pose, but since you're a believer, let me put it this way:
If your god has a problem with abortion he can come here and share in the problems raised by the issue today with the rest of us
A) You forgot argument number one for pro-wife supporters like us - fetuses are fucking tasty, and abortions are the best way to harvest them while they're fresh.
B) You wanna hear something really weird. My wife uses the same nick... but for reasons i won't go in to :-)
I like the fact that you're willing to enter into a discussion of why the Nazis were wrong. I've never had a problem with such a discussion, but some people just say they were wrong because they were the Nazis.
Personally, I believe that rational debate leads one to conclude they were irrational, dangerous, and gave enough evidence to prove that they were the very antithesis of the ideals of our entire civilization.
Comfort says abortionist = Nazi, and Nazi = bad, without stating why.
@Anekantavad I actually enjoy reading history from that period and it always irritates me to no end when a Ray Comfort comes along and tries to use Axis & Allies for his own ends.
I know my post sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's actually true.
On the topic of the whole abortion thing, though, who are the Aryans? What, in lieu of foetuses, are the "Aryans" in the analogy trying to support? I don't understand... The Nazis in actuality had programmes that encouraged "Aryan" women to reproduce, so as to drive back the "hordes" of Jews and gypsies and such (similar to Breivik's whole deal). Doesn't forcing women to reproduce sound a little more tyrannical?
i watched the first 22 minutes, and nothing in the final ten minutes could have redeemed it. not meaning to exaggerate, it is the most blatant piece of propaganda i've ever seen. i thought Fitna was bad, but 180 is a travesty.
well grabbed my cat and off to see ray's video....*10 minuets later* we the cat was really happy and purring from all the petting, and I feel dirty for watching even that amount.
I can't be insulted by so much idiocy.. only my intelligence is insulted because i belong to the same species like the banana man and the morons he managed to affect.. even if it was with a 50 bucks each to pretend to change their minds because of his fuckwitted appeals to emotion.
So Nazis wanting to strip Jews of their rights as persons is the exact same things as pro-lifers wanting to give human fetuses rights as persons? Well, of course that makes sense! Oh wait. No it doesn’t.
@BlameTheFirst "So Nazis wanting to strip Jews of their rights as persons is the exact same things as pro-lifers wanting to- " take away the rights of woman by assigning the variable of; "person" to fetuses.
"BTW. Just what type of rights is being taken away..."
Well for one, yes. The right to have sex and, should they get pregnant, not have the child. Why shouldn't that be a right of theirs?
I tend to be extremely liberal with this sort of thing... for example on drugs... if someone wants to shoot fucking windex into their veins, that's their thing. As long as they don't get in a vehicle and do it, that's fine with me.
@CharBroiled04 Yes, well, I consider myself a libertarian. I too believe people have the right to do as they see fit provided they do not infringe upon another human being’s rights.
In other words, women do have a right to do as they want as long as they do not infringe upon another human being’s rights, including their right to life. I believe you can see where I’m going with this argument.
@BlameTheFirst .. and it all comes down to the very plain and simple fact that a partially developed mass of tissue that lacks a brain, and thus lacks ANY self awareness, and has not been born or granted citizenship yet.... is not a human being and thus has no rights, or a need for them.
@onlywhenprovoked So, the fact that it clearly contains human DNA and has the potential to be a fully-developed human being is irrelevant then to it being a human being?
@BlameTheFirst No, it's relevant to it's "rights" as you keep referring to it. As far as DNA and potential, so did the sticky stuff under your desk, and your girlfriends discarded .... well, you get the idea.
I agree, and do see where you're going. But you believe a fetus is a human and has the same rights as say a 27 year old. Whether your belief is religiously motivated or not, you need to understand that that is YOUR belief and it's not your place to try to impose that belief on other people via law. If a woman believes as you do, then she shouldn't (and probably wont) have an abortion. But if someone doesn't believe as you do, it's not your place to decide for her.
@CharBroiled04 So beleifs shouldn't be forced into law? By that standard, we shouldn’t make any laws because they all impose some sort of belief onto everyone. For example, anti-slavery laws impose the belief that human beings cannot be bought and sold as property, not to mention that black have the same rights as whites. After all, if someone agrees with that belief, then they shouldn’t own black slaves; if they don’t believe that, they should be free to buys slaves.
And by your logic then if I have the power to bend someone to my will, I could and should do it. If I believed it was a good idea for you to be murdered, and knew I could either change the legal system to allow it or simply get away with it, I should. And your autonomy be damned, what I want is what matters.
@CharBroiled04 Sounds more like a defense of abortion rather than criticism against it. Who cares if that fetus may or may not be human, the woman should be able to kill it for any reason at all.
I know I sound like a prick, but for the record, I’m not against abortion as a whole. I do feel the only justifiable reason to have one is if the woman’s health or life is at risk and the baby possibly wouldn’t survive childbirth. So Roe v Wade, as it stands, is a fair compromise, IMHO.
@BlameTheFirst That's absurd. There are no "beliefs" when it comes to law. Laws are derived from years of rational discourse involving a variety of subjects like philosophy, law, morality, etc... We say things like child abuse is wrong, not because of belief but because people were growing up with severe trauma and psychology pinpointed the origin, so now we know, don't hit your kid or call him names. We know what private property because we argued that if one works for something, then its his.
@BlameTheFirst in regards to your argument of slavery, it is not a belief that slavery is wrong because all you have to do is ask a slave and they'll tell you, "life sucks." So we don't even need to bother with thinking - they'll tell us the answer. Psychology has also aided this subject in understanding the consequences to being in held in captivity and the trauma that can occurs as a result. Rational discourse, not belief.
@BlameTheFirst Tell you what boyo, why don't you list out all the characteristics of what defines a; "person".
Then we can determine whether or not a fetus fits the bill.
And don't try faking up some pictures of 6-8 month fetuses and claiming they are pictures of 12 week old fetuses or I will block you so fast your head will spin.
@TheTruePooka Here’s a better idea: why not take a 5th grade biology book, study the development of the fetus from conception to birth—taking note of when its heart starts beating, its brain starts working, when it starts feeling pain—then come back and tell me with a straight face that the fetus is not a human being. Sounds good?
@BlameTheFirst In other words - you fail. You're unable to define what constitutes a "person". You simply want to shift the conversation away from this fact because then it becomes obvious that your definition is based on an unsubstantial belief.
@TheTruePooka Yeah. Who would have thought that human rights hinged on someone being a human being. I guess the fact that the fetus is a living, growing, sentient being with human DNA is irrelevant then?
@TheTruePooka Well, that depends. If we’re talking about human rights, shouldn’t we be defining what a “human” is? Otherwise, they’d call them “person” rights. Then again, it’s the same thing.
You know what they say: a person’s a person no matter how small! ;P
@BlameTheFirst True However they're attempting to define a person (human in this case) according to their own belief system. Which I have no problem with them doing - provided they don't try to make it law.
Worse, they're trying to take advantage of the corporate personhood law which has had devastating consequences for this country.
That they'd try to take that ruling and spin it to their own agenda rather than stand up and say "NO!!!" to that destructive change in that law is appalling.
@TheTruePooka True. We shouldn’t force religious beliefs into law; however, what defines a "person" is religious by default. So regardless of what definition you choose to legally recognize, it’ll be someone’s belief made into law. Roe v Wade is forcing someone’s beliefs, as would repealing it.
Didn’t want to discuss corporate personhood, but I’ll put it to you this way: you can only tax people. Can’t be against corporate personhood and for higher corporate taxes, if corporate taxes period.
@BlameTheFirst Well, Roe vs Wade is an attempt to reconcile what is an impossible question to address really. It tries to give everyone the right to chose how to follow their beliefs when it comes to abortion. It addresses the question from a reasonably medical/ science backed point of view by playing the "statistical likelihood" game.
Specifically - viability of fetus vs survival rate. It may not be perfect but so far it is the best we've come up with. I doubt we'll do better any time soon.
the vast majority of abortions are performed before sentience begins in the pregnancy, which begins around the 26th week. Abortions are generally done before the 9th week (aka the embryonic stage)
IMO, and most legal standings, the life of the sentiment woman outweighs that of the insentient being
Whenever a christian starts talking about their views on abortion, share a bible verse.
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)
@thereprieve In America for the most part it stems from Christianity. If you read the history of abortion in America you see how it came about. I did a view history videos on abortion in America but only covered 1about 820-1910 because people weren't all that interested.
And when I use the word "religion" I'm using it to mean; "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons".
@TheTruePooka - That's better. I was against abortion before I was religious and I know several others like myself... and I've met several atheists that also believe in the rights of the child.
In your research, is abortion the only practice that you've found whose legal interest has come from the generally religious population? And since fetal rights stem from religion,as your research suggests, does that automatically make it the wrong ideology?
@thereprieve Jesus. That comment I put up got incredibly botched. I blame it on kittens walking on the keyboard and my not proof reading before clicking "post".
@thereprieve 1: The first part - that's a rather difficult question to answer. You start getting into "common morality" and "religious morality" and determining which influences what legislation can be incredibly tricky. For example;
With abortion, for centuries common morality & religious morality where in sync. Then in the 1800's a political shift came about (Protestant vs Catholic mixed with regular vs irregular doctors) and the new position on abortion was born.
@TheTruePooka 2 -cont but I'd have to think on part 2 of that. The problem is that there's always additional forces at play. The recent successes of the anti-abortion movement is really a result of the Republican party seizing power in the Senate and trying to avoid dealing with the "we'll fix the economy" platform they ran on.
Even prohibition which was a largely religious temperance movement had additional forces at play behind it, including a strong anti-foreign-import contingent.
@thereprieve And no, I wouldn't say it makes them automatically the wrong ideology. I respect the position the antiabortionist holds but there are a number of factors (to me) that make me object to changing laws on abortion to make them more restrictive.
We use a certain amount of science, philosophy and instinctive/ & or intellectualized morality to set what is now the common cut off date for abortion but when it comes right down to it, that date is pretty much arbitrary.
@TheTruePooka - I too, in some manners, respect the ideology of the pro-choice crown depending on why the choice is made. Often, folks like myself, want the "free sex without responsibility" reason to end. Many times folks will make rape/incest exception to denote that the woman was victimized and not irresponsible.
My respect gets stunted the moment someone thumbs their nose at me with the "my body my choice" mantra. While it is a good slogan, it's much more complex than that.
"My respect gets stunted the moment someone thumbs their nose at me with the "my body my choice" mantra... it's much more complex than that."
Why? Why is it more complex than that? Why, is it YOUR decision whether or not someone else can be promiscuous if they should chose to be. I don't advocate sex for fun in general, especially if that's unprotected sex and quite literally no attempt was made to avoid pregnancy. But regardless, that's not MY choice to make for someone.
... and Fang follows right on behind, he engaged me in a rather long debate on objective morality vs subjective morality... I dont think it went well for him...
when i listen to an old "nazi" did he say he thought he did the right thing because media, authority and priest told him he was doing the right thing. After all the jews was influencing there politics, legal system and and they was cursed for they was murders of Christ. He felt very fooled and ashamed after ww2 could.
I hear similar rhetoric, but instead for Jews and socialists is it today Muslims and liberals do i feel fear. Ray Comfort and the rest of the Christian right would been good Nazis
There is no way comfort believes everything he spouts... he is the equivalent of a troll he has been doing this for too long to take it back and not take an opportunity to make money off of it
Haven't watched it but from reviews it sounds like all the same talking points coming from the anti choice crowd for the last two decades. Just to bring it up AGAIN, the Nazi regime BANNED abortion for citizens of the Reich (aka 'Aryans')
And good job flipping it back on Comfort too, Pooka
What really pissed me off is that Ray admonishs a kid for saying it is okay to abort a rape baby and Ray comes back at him saying that he is punishing the baby for the sins of the father and that is wrong. WTF does he think original sin is?!?!?!
I wonder what Ray's alternative to abortion be like. Would he incarcerate pregnant females until they give birth against their will and then take the resulting child and raise the child to be one of his supporters to his values, beliefs and way of life? Seig Heil, Ray?
Funny that Comfort is telling people abortion is never justified in this video. Yet on his blog he once defended genocide in the Old Testament, which included the deaths of babies.
raycomfortfood . blogspot . com / 2009 / 10 / god-and-genocide . html
If babies can be killed when it's part of God's judgment against a sinful nation, why doesn't Comfort consider the possibility that the passing of Roe v Wade might be a punishment on America from God?
Thank you Pooka. You expressed the exact same idea that I was trying to formulate in my own mind whilst watching that piece of crap; I'm just not as articulate as you.....
I've gotta say that America brings up the craziest people on earth. A Jew who believes in Jesus and he's against abortions - using the Holocaust in the most despicable way just to make a point about his beliefs.
I watched the first part of his movie, the one that talked about the Holocaust. When he made a turn and tried to confuse people with arguments against abortions as if there is any resemble to the Holocaust - I just stopped watching.
Btw, I didn't know who this idiot was before that.
Question. Do women have misscarriages through "natural" causes? Does god have a hand in creating every living being? Well then why is it ok for god to "murder" innocent "babies"? That doesnt seem to add up. So its ok when god does it?
my mind has been blown. you have not only handed ray his ass but you have given my the perfect summation of an argument I have been making about various people who's rights are stipped of them for little more then the thoughts in their heads and no I am not talking about crazy people. point is I thank you for this video and your summation of things cause It is important.
When you close your mouth, your top jaw juts out noticeably somewhat, which mine used to before a retainer and car accident forced insurance-paid jaw surgery
I think you're using godwin's law wrong. godwin's law just says that if a debate goes on long enough, then one side will compare the other side to the nazis and on the internet this generally means losing the intellectual debate (unless you're debating skinheads or neo-nazis). all it means is he has lost the debate, but he lost it a long long long long time ago. i mean, there is a reason he's called the bannana man.
It was disingenious for Comfort to describe himself as Jewish when, as a Christian, he clearly is not. And I also wonder if he is aware that the Nazis were strict anti-abortionists, as far as "Aryan" woman were concerned. By 1943 performing an abortion upon an "Aryan" woman carried the death penalty.
phenomenal video!!!! bravo! i watched 180 the night it was released, and i found it so absurd and dishonest, i couldn't even muster up the words to address it. thanks for putting it out there so eloquently.
Check out my blog where Ray gets owned even more. We knew about 180 months ahead of schedule and posted it online early. Don't want to make Ray Rich? Go to on Operation 360 on blogger and to see the movie check out tinyurl dot com /3gondsx
All these Xtian anti-abortion types seem to forget that their God is the greatest abortionist of them all. About 25-30% of early pregnancies end in a miscarriage (a.k.a. spontaneous abortion), often before the woman even knew she was pregnant.
No way Planned Parenthood can beat that.
God is not against abortion. He, or at least his fundie fanclub, is against women choosing their own reproductive destiny.
@Seymour13 You know.. curiosity and cats.. But as noted, if you repeat the same bullshit enough times, there will be some members of the population who believe anything. Once you have them, their voices carry (not unlike that til tuesday song of the same name- just with a slightly different meaning) throughout their areas.
TheTrue Pooka: hey there I will pray for you for whatever stuff in your life that you are dealing with, everyone needs prayer not just you. I challenge you once, just once, to read the gospels of the bible Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.
jesuslover80 2 weeks ago
@jesuslover80 What makes you think I haven't read them multiple times before? >.<
TheTruePooka 2 weeks ago
@jesuslover80 atheists are more likely to have read the Bible than Christians.
MrNicMachiavelli 2 weeks ago 3
@jesuslover80 "hey there I will pray for you"
And he will think for you.
Skindoggiedog 2 weeks ago
Not up for a discussion anymore, eh?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Comments sections are limited and you took the conversation in a direction that to be really dealt with? It deserves its own video.
I think I will start a blog up for this sort of thing though. Being limited to 200-450 characters makes it to frustrating.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
I am much more a written word kind of person than speaking in front of a video. Perhaps eventually I can piece something together, but mostly I just have questions for now. I agree that the character limit is oppressive. I'm ok with sending private messages to deal with most of the questions if you're cool with that, or if I can comment on said blog that would work too. I'm open to suggestions.
vader421138 1 month ago
I am in awe of your rhetorical skills, Pooka.
wickedenchanter 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
So, it is up to science to define what is considered human and what isn't considered human?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 If by; "science" you mean fields of medicine and philosophy?
Then yes - it is. At least when it comes to forcing others to follow your view.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
By science, I mean you used that word in the video saying the Nazi's used fake scientific evidence/appeals to back up their claims that Jews were not human, which to me implies you're asserting that science currently has decided on legitimate evidence that a fetus isn't human, in contrast to Nazi Germany. I'm glad you're not leaving philosophy out of the picture.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Yes. Despite what antiabortionists would want you to think, the Roe vs Wade decision was made after an abundance of testimony given by the medical industry.
And no, no ne data has come forward that contradicts any of it.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
So we have input currently from the medical field. Does the field of Philosophy also unanimously agree that a fetus is not a human?
If contradictory evidence did arise, would you be willing to change your mind?
It's probably also good to note that the field of medicine is wrong sometimes. It isn't a field that is free of error. Neither is science in general. Is it possible they drew the wrong conclusion, and with further advances might repeal it?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "Does the field of Philosophy also unanimously agree that a fetus is not a human?"
No. There's a great matter of dissent .Which is why philosophy plays only a minor part in the determination.
"If contradictory evidence did arise, would you be willing to change your mind?"
Yes.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
And why is philosophy of such small importance in this determination? For some reason, it seems to be the more appropriate field to answer the question of what it means to be human. Medical science contributes, but it is ultimately a philosophical question.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 But it was taken into consideration. That's why Roe vs Wade has the cutoff period that was set. It is also why the exceptions are in place.
Antiabortionists are putting forward the lie that none of this was considered when Roe vs Wade was voted in but it is just that- a lie. It was a sound decision on all fronts.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
I never said it wasn't taken into consideration with Roe vs Wade. I asked why you consider it to be of small importance when it seems to be more of an authority on the question. You yourself said that philosophy plays only a minor role in the determination. So back to my question, why is philosophy of such minor importance in this determination when it seems to be the field most qualified for answering the question of what it means to be human?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 "It's probably also good to note that the field of medicine is wrong sometimes. It isn't a field that is free of error. Neither is science in general. Is it possible they drew the wrong conclusion, and with further advances might repeal it?"
No the conclusions are sound. Part two of this is just a rehashing of the last question.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Just to make you aware, science does repeal conclusions that seemed logical at the time based on the experiments and technology and various other advances. Any scientist would tell you his or her conclusions are sound. That is their job, to come up with sound conclusions based on evidence and experiments.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Now you're being insulting. All you're trying to do is raise the tired old argument that is Pascal's Wager. Usually used with the premise that;
"Christianity may be right so you should convert to avoid hell just in case."
You're trying to imply that; "because medical science is an ever changing field with information being revised and changed, that abortion should always be illegal."
That is a flawed argument and it fails for obvious reasons.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Perhaps a little. I find it a bit absurd to imply science can't be wrong. And to be fair, this matter is one that is potentially of life and death, and is definitely a matter of rights.
And no, I was not about to put forth Pascal's Wager. At least, not yet. I actually dislike that wager in the first example for conversion to a religion because it is for the wrong reasons. If one is to change a viewpoint, it should be towards truth and not towards fear.
vader421138 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
What I am indeed trying to establish is that medical science can be wrong, and medical science isn't the final authority in answering the question of whether or not something is human and has the rights humans have.
vader421138 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
On the topic of forcing others to follow one's view, doesn't this imply that truth can be absolute?
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Well, if truth is relative, on what basis could I or anyone else force another to follow certain viewpoints? Who's to say an idea, while valid for many, is relevant for everyone? If what is right for you may be wrong for me, how can anyone legitimately force another to follow their viewpoint? I think it would imply an absolute of some sort.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 You're confusing objective truth with absolute truths in this case.
And we're dealing with a science here so it might be best to discard the concept of "absolute truth" and go with something like Fromm's "Optimal Truth".
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Actually, in this line of thought, we were talking of forcing others to follow one's beliefs. This is philosophical.
And I'm not sure I know the difference between objective and absolute truth. I googled it and I think many others don't really see any difference. I'm guessing you are saying objective truth is something that is established on authority outside of oneself but not necessarily applicable to all, where absolute is applicable to all? Please clarify.
vader421138 1 month ago
@vader421138 Blech. The problem is there are a number of different definitions of what they are.An absolute truth is always true - it would be true regardless of the existence of anything else. The classic example is;
"A rock is always a rock". ie; "A rock is always a rock no matter where it iis, when it is, or how it is defined by people.
Absolute truths ironically disprove the omnipotence of the God because by their very nature they exist regardless of God's power.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka Objective truths are trickier. Objective truths are truths that are handed down from some authority and are therefore generally considered always true. However - they are not absolute. They are subject to change. God, government, cultural mores, etc...
Subjective truths are truths that are truths that are exist on a personal level. They may or may not be shared by other people and they tend to be conditional and based on circumstance.
TheTruePooka 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Indeed you are right, it does contrast the omnipotence of God in that sense. But that is a question for a later time perhaps.
I still await your answer to my last question: How do you personally determine objective truths? What authorities do you listen to and how do you think objective truths are arrived at?
vader421138 1 month ago
@TheTruePooka
Along the lines of truth being objective, how do you determine objective truths? Science and the study of the universe?
vader421138 1 month ago
That 180 movie is the most bias offensive movie I had ever watched.
rareisalive 2 months ago
yeah it's really interesting how somehow people will draw a crooked line of logic and end up with "you are like Hitler". "Crooked line of logic" is a generous description of the behaviour, pulling it from the ass is more like it.
Paxmax 2 months ago
Dear Pooka,
Damn! The subtley of the subtext in this video is so deep that I can't discern your point! ;-D
Ujames1978 2 months ago
Why don't you go and eyewitness a late term abortion, and then tell me how humane it is. "No big deal".... watch it writhe in a cold steel tray covered in blood as it dies a lonely death.
Then you can go put on your cap n mittens, grab your lap top, and head to Starbucks in your tiny hybrid for your yuppie frappe machiata, to Facebook with some FAGS about Barry Soetoro 2012.
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 "Late term abortion" - that's a fallacy. The discussion on abortion generally involves the first trimester, about 24 weeks. I also said nothing about; "no big deal".
And post 1st trimester abortions have been done for a century now if the mother's life is determined to be in danger.
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
@TheTruePooka That doesn't make it OK. I mean seriously, who thinks this shit up? "Hey, I just thought of something cool, let's go inside that woman's pussy and rip her baby out!"
"Yeah man, that sounds kick ass! I can't wait to see it man..." (bong hit)
"fallacy"? No, that shit's legal, and Barry Soetoro/Osama supports it with my tax dollars. "Planned Parenthood"- how cute. Kinda like FEMA "freedom camps". lol Or- "patriot" acts....
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago
"PROVEN"???? LIAR! Your so full of SHIT pooka. Proven my ass. All you bullshit so called "progressives" (lol) claim everything is "proven".
WHAT AN ABSOLUTE CROCK OF SHIT. Proven how? By who?
Keep calling it a "fetus"- instead of what it really is, a baby.
And keep calling abortion a "procedure"- instead of what it really is, murder.
Sick, perverted, disgusting murder. And perverted- LIKE FAGS.
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 It's documented medically. (shrug) You folks have been trying to do a run around on Roe vs Wade for decades now. Unless you're arguing about the soul - which is a religious concept, then fetal development doesn't even begin to develop to the point where it drops below about a 55% failure rate for a few weeks.
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
@TheTruePooka "arguing about the soul...." DUH. Iv'e watched around 100 testimonies of people who were declared clinically dead. ALL of them describe experiences, including looking down and seeing their own bodies.
Babies can be seen in the womb now clearly moving around- and your saying they are not alive? What gives you the right to make such a conclusion, and defy nature itself?
Only a human could be so stupid and callous as to rip a baby out of it's mothers womb and kill it.
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 How nice for you. I've died on three separate occasions. Rumors of a soul are greatly exaggerated.
And according to the bible someone else besides humans rips babies from the womb. There's also - God. God not only kills babies in the womb, but he sees to it that they're killed after birth as well.
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 you are an idiot.. the animals that you eat, move to, so whats your point? that moving makes it human??
thejohn6040 3 months ago
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10
Aww you're just precious!
CrunchyMush 2 months ago
You live in New York, and you probably think 911 was "Arabs with box cutters", or some kind of "conservative" conspiracy. HISTORY LESSON.
The Nazi's were funded to power by the Jesuit/illuminati, and the Jews burned in the holocaust (Greek for burnt sacrifice) death camps on metal stretchers with shackles ALIVE, in a geographic pentagram around the temple of Cybele. Hitler was supposedly killed on Beltane, 5-1.
Same as O somewhere Bin missin: 5-1
The same bankers are running the show today
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheTruePooka
Killing a "fetus", cause you think it "might" not be a person, is the same as putting a man to death, cause you think he "may" have killed someone. The burden of proof, always lies upon the prosecution. Or in this case, the KILLER more politically correctly known as the abortionist.
This strange concept is known as "presumption of innocence"- and is the bedrock of our justice system philosophy.
And so- WRONG AGAIN Mr. hot shot cat petter. lol
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheTruePooka
@Gabe7King8ofrnr10 Your argument fails because the question of a fetus being a person or not has already been dealt with legally. That's what Roe vs. Wade is.
It also fails because you're starting from the position if; "the fetus is being killed as punishment for a crime". It isn't. The fetus is destroyed because medicine has determined that it is not a person.
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
@TheTruePooka "medicine"??? And who runs the American Medical Association??? Could it be
THE ROCKEFELLERS!!!!!! Illuminati scumbag Federal Reserve traitors? With the snake wrapped around as it's symbol for it?
You "claim" science? YOUR DEBUNKED PAL. Proof only in your mind cause you want to believe it. That lady in the Roe/Wade repented and is now A CHRISTIAN. That baby is proven ALIVE- and late terms are the sickest murders of all. How can you sir?
Gabe7King8ofrnr10 4 months ago
@SamuelWWJD According to your logic we should then also use the Hippocratic Corpus Latin medical designations for the four humors to treat people.
Nice try, though.
NEXT!
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
Abortion is America's Holocaust!
jenparkernorthdakota 5 months ago
@jenparkernorthdakota If you watched the video you'd understand why you're so wrong.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka so you are anti federal government? this is what i gather from your videos i have seen especially those about politics. now tell me were the many verdicts by federal judges in the 60's against oppressive racist state laws something you see as wrong?
ThoseGamerguyz 4 months ago in playlist More videos from TheTruePooka
@ThoseGamerguyz Not anti-federal government. I believe the federal government serves a purpose that is beneficial to the country - when it is not being fabulously corrupted by lobbyist/ special interest group bribes. I don't want to just say something glib about; "Minimal federal government" because that phrase has become so meaningless with further discourse to back it up but - there ya go.
And those verdicts from what I recall were constitutionally sound calls.
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
Interesting video. Comfort is a complete douche through and through. His displays of stupidity and cunniving tactics knows no boundaries. I think that whenever he comes up with a video where he blames the atrocities of the history of mankind on a lack of inclination to his religion, some one should quote him and his goons scriptures in his religious book that advocate the same atrocties. I don't know, just religious propaganda through mental manipulation and lies.
Chuloloc 5 months ago
As much as you try pooki, the fact remains that abortionists rhetoric are
similar to the ones natsis used.
Isolate-Dehumanize-Execute.
"babies aren't humans" "babies are a sack of glue" "babies have no mental capacity" "life isnt a right" "babies are the invaders" "they are an imposition"
"a tumor" "a censer" "they are destroying the planet(overpopulation)" "causing poverty"...etc etc
ISOLATE-DEHUMANIZE-EXECUTE
Abortionists are the natsis of our days.
AmetReloads 5 months ago
@AmetReloads As I pointed out below; your attempt to shft the rhetoric of this argument on me won't work. You fail.
And btw - my wife calls me Pooki as a sign of affection so it doesn't bother me. It makes it sound like you want to jump my bones and... sorry. I'm taken. :)
TheTruePooka 5 months ago 4
@TheTruePooka But that's just a slogan pooki.(no i dont want to jump u nor insult u)
U have the action,u have the consequences,u have the justifications,u have the historical similarities .
All of those weight yr shoulder, not conservatives.
U can make the argument that babies impose on women,IF u accept the argument "Jews were an imposition on Natsis".
Criterion: "PREFERENCE"; "SOME human LIVES are DESIRABLE,SOME are NOT."
Is that yr argument?
So u can only return back to the criteria LIFE.
AmetReloads 5 months ago
@AmetReloads Very well darling. In order for your argument to have validity you have to do the following;
Please list out the characteristics that define a "human being" so that we can determine if a fetus is in fact a human being.
Since you claim a fetus is a human being you must know them, correct?
Therefore the burden of proof is on you dearie.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka I realise this is a loaded issue but reading this reply (defining a human being etc), a thought occurred to me: religion and beliefs aside, if the people on both sides of the abortion debate are unable to definitely determine when a fetus is a human being, isn't choosing not to kill a fetus the safe thing to do? If the 'pro-life' people are wrong, their campaigning to let a fetus live will surely be the better consequence than if the 'pro-choice' people are wrong, yes?
cragv 5 months ago
@cragv Pretty much. Which is how Roe vs Wade came into being. They established with medical science what is the roughly the earliest age a fetus has survivability and then use that as a cut off date. They also make exceptions in cases past that date that involve a physical danger to the mother.
The twisted thing is that that despite doing exactly that the antiabortionists lie about it to confuse the issue and get their way.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@cragv It's three months later, but I do have to ask: how is not "killing" a fetus the "safe" thing to do? Where did safety become relevant? And yes, I do understand the specific context in which you use 'safe', but I still don't see how it's relevant.
I mean, apart from some GATTACA-like future where we can know what a fetus will grow up to be and whether or not we have the next Hitler or the person who'll cure cancer in a womb, you can't say "Whew, dodged a bullet not aborting that fetus!"
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton I can't easily see what I wrote (and don't have time to look right this minute) but all I meant by the use of 'safe' was this: better to let live and be wrong than to kill and be wrong. Yes, there is always a risk of deformities or genetic/other problems, just like all babies, but what if the act of abortion really is murder in God's eyes? Safer to allow to live than to abort/kill and be wrong! That's all I meant. If you don't believe in God then that's up to you.
cragv 2 months ago
@cragv If the act of abortion is murder in God's eyes then God is the worst murderer there is. Well, moreso than he already would qualify as, what with committing mass genocide on every species in a flood...
Fortunately, the flood never happened and God doesn't exist, so we can safely ignore the problem you pose, but since you're a believer, let me put it this way:
If your god has a problem with abortion he can come here and share in the problems raised by the issue today with the rest of us
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@TheTruePooka
A) You forgot argument number one for pro-wife supporters like us - fetuses are fucking tasty, and abortions are the best way to harvest them while they're fresh.
B) You wanna hear something really weird. My wife uses the same nick... but for reasons i won't go in to :-)
Joniversity 5 months ago
@Joniversity ROFLMAO
TheTruePooka 4 months ago
@AmetReloads
WOW! putting words in my mouth there!
KaptajnKaffe 5 months ago
I like the fact that you're willing to enter into a discussion of why the Nazis were wrong. I've never had a problem with such a discussion, but some people just say they were wrong because they were the Nazis.
Personally, I believe that rational debate leads one to conclude they were irrational, dangerous, and gave enough evidence to prove that they were the very antithesis of the ideals of our entire civilization.
Comfort says abortionist = Nazi, and Nazi = bad, without stating why.
:-)
Anekantavad 5 months ago
@Anekantavad I actually enjoy reading history from that period and it always irritates me to no end when a Ray Comfort comes along and tries to use Axis & Allies for his own ends.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@Anekantavad Well you are absolutely right.
Natsis are all the above, as Islamists.
In fact Islam is a little tat worse.
Which inevitably leads us to question your consistency.
AmetReloads 5 months ago
@AmetReloads What makes oranges orange?
Think of the implications.
Anekantavad 5 months ago
@Anekantavad
It's the ethylene gas they add after they pick the oranges in a process they call de-greening!
;)
SgtSanchez 5 months ago
@SgtSanchez Personally, I blame the masons.
:-)
Anekantavad 5 months ago
@Anekantavad
I know my post sounds like a conspiracy theory, but it's actually true.
On the topic of the whole abortion thing, though, who are the Aryans? What, in lieu of foetuses, are the "Aryans" in the analogy trying to support? I don't understand... The Nazis in actuality had programmes that encouraged "Aryan" women to reproduce, so as to drive back the "hordes" of Jews and gypsies and such (similar to Breivik's whole deal). Doesn't forcing women to reproduce sound a little more tyrannical?
SgtSanchez 5 months ago
Beautifully brilliant!
kelliko70 5 months ago
Banana = Atheist's Nightmare. Hitler = Abortionists' Nightmare.
godshiva 5 months ago
@godshiva Hitler with a Banana = Ray Comfort's Nightmare
TheTruePooka 5 months ago 18
Found your channel through GTF. Well said!
As for me, I made it to about the 16 minute mark in "180" before I had to hit stop per the need punch a pillow.
smpaudio 5 months ago
i watched the first 22 minutes, and nothing in the final ten minutes could have redeemed it. not meaning to exaggerate, it is the most blatant piece of propaganda i've ever seen. i thought Fitna was bad, but 180 is a travesty.
gothatfunk 5 months ago
well grabbed my cat and off to see ray's video....*10 minuets later* we the cat was really happy and purring from all the petting, and I feel dirty for watching even that amount.
whydid666 5 months ago
I can't be insulted by so much idiocy.. only my intelligence is insulted because i belong to the same species like the banana man and the morons he managed to affect.. even if it was with a 50 bucks each to pretend to change their minds because of his fuckwitted appeals to emotion.
realbojay 5 months ago
Roll up the holocaust, abortion and xtianity rolled up sounds like a mean, LCD laced joint. The movie sounds like a bad trip, passing on it.
n3rdm4n 5 months ago
Roll up the holocaust, abortion and xtianity rolled up sounds like a mean, LCD laced joint. The movie sounds like a bad trip, passing on it.
n3rdm4n 5 months ago
Ray is an idiot. Doesn´t he know that abortion was leading to a death-penalty when the nazis were at large?
kirafan68 5 months ago
So Nazis wanting to strip Jews of their rights as persons is the exact same things as pro-lifers wanting to give human fetuses rights as persons? Well, of course that makes sense! Oh wait. No it doesn’t.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst "So Nazis wanting to strip Jews of their rights as persons is the exact same things as pro-lifers wanting to- " take away the rights of woman by assigning the variable of; "person" to fetuses.
Oh wait! That makes perfect sense!
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka Nice mental gymnastics there. You need to do some real mental footwork in order to defend the undependable. 10 out of 10.
BTW: Just what type of rights is being taken away from women? The right for them no to have children with men they want to have sex with? LOL! :P
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst
"BTW. Just what type of rights is being taken away..."
Well for one, yes. The right to have sex and, should they get pregnant, not have the child. Why shouldn't that be a right of theirs?
I tend to be extremely liberal with this sort of thing... for example on drugs... if someone wants to shoot fucking windex into their veins, that's their thing. As long as they don't get in a vehicle and do it, that's fine with me.
CharBroiled04 5 months ago
@CharBroiled04 Yes, well, I consider myself a libertarian. I too believe people have the right to do as they see fit provided they do not infringe upon another human being’s rights.
In other words, women do have a right to do as they want as long as they do not infringe upon another human being’s rights, including their right to life. I believe you can see where I’m going with this argument.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst .. and it all comes down to the very plain and simple fact that a partially developed mass of tissue that lacks a brain, and thus lacks ANY self awareness, and has not been born or granted citizenship yet.... is not a human being and thus has no rights, or a need for them.
onlywhenprovoked 5 months ago
@onlywhenprovoked So, the fact that it clearly contains human DNA and has the potential to be a fully-developed human being is irrelevant then to it being a human being?
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst No, it's relevant to it's "rights" as you keep referring to it. As far as DNA and potential, so did the sticky stuff under your desk, and your girlfriends discarded .... well, you get the idea.
onlywhenprovoked 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst
I agree, and do see where you're going. But you believe a fetus is a human and has the same rights as say a 27 year old. Whether your belief is religiously motivated or not, you need to understand that that is YOUR belief and it's not your place to try to impose that belief on other people via law. If a woman believes as you do, then she shouldn't (and probably wont) have an abortion. But if someone doesn't believe as you do, it's not your place to decide for her.
CharBroiled04 5 months ago
@CharBroiled04 So beleifs shouldn't be forced into law? By that standard, we shouldn’t make any laws because they all impose some sort of belief onto everyone. For example, anti-slavery laws impose the belief that human beings cannot be bought and sold as property, not to mention that black have the same rights as whites. After all, if someone agrees with that belief, then they shouldn’t own black slaves; if they don’t believe that, they should be free to buys slaves.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst
And by your logic then if I have the power to bend someone to my will, I could and should do it. If I believed it was a good idea for you to be murdered, and knew I could either change the legal system to allow it or simply get away with it, I should. And your autonomy be damned, what I want is what matters.
CharBroiled04 5 months ago
@CharBroiled04 Sounds more like a defense of abortion rather than criticism against it. Who cares if that fetus may or may not be human, the woman should be able to kill it for any reason at all.
I know I sound like a prick, but for the record, I’m not against abortion as a whole. I do feel the only justifiable reason to have one is if the woman’s health or life is at risk and the baby possibly wouldn’t survive childbirth. So Roe v Wade, as it stands, is a fair compromise, IMHO.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst That's absurd. There are no "beliefs" when it comes to law. Laws are derived from years of rational discourse involving a variety of subjects like philosophy, law, morality, etc... We say things like child abuse is wrong, not because of belief but because people were growing up with severe trauma and psychology pinpointed the origin, so now we know, don't hit your kid or call him names. We know what private property because we argued that if one works for something, then its his.
Grizzly0679 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst in regards to your argument of slavery, it is not a belief that slavery is wrong because all you have to do is ask a slave and they'll tell you, "life sucks." So we don't even need to bother with thinking - they'll tell us the answer. Psychology has also aided this subject in understanding the consequences to being in held in captivity and the trauma that can occurs as a result. Rational discourse, not belief.
Grizzly0679 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst Tell you what boyo, why don't you list out all the characteristics of what defines a; "person".
Then we can determine whether or not a fetus fits the bill.
And don't try faking up some pictures of 6-8 month fetuses and claiming they are pictures of 12 week old fetuses or I will block you so fast your head will spin.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka Here’s a better idea: why not take a 5th grade biology book, study the development of the fetus from conception to birth—taking note of when its heart starts beating, its brain starts working, when it starts feeling pain—then come back and tell me with a straight face that the fetus is not a human being. Sounds good?
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst In other words - you fail. You're unable to define what constitutes a "person". You simply want to shift the conversation away from this fact because then it becomes obvious that your definition is based on an unsubstantial belief.
Nice try.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka Yeah. Who would have thought that human rights hinged on someone being a human being. I guess the fact that the fetus is a living, growing, sentient being with human DNA is irrelevant then?
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst So you're listing the characteristics for "human being" as;
1: Having Human DNA
2: Living
3: Growing
4: Sentient
According to that definition a group of human DNA cells growing in a petri dish qualifies as "a person". Very nice.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka I doubt those cells will eventually become a fully-developed human being, unlike the fetus.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst Ah, so you admit your characteristics for what defines a "person" are insufficient. Okay.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka Well, that depends. If we’re talking about human rights, shouldn’t we be defining what a “human” is? Otherwise, they’d call them “person” rights. Then again, it’s the same thing.
You know what they say: a person’s a person no matter how small! ;P
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst True However they're attempting to define a person (human in this case) according to their own belief system. Which I have no problem with them doing - provided they don't try to make it law.
Worse, they're trying to take advantage of the corporate personhood law which has had devastating consequences for this country.
That they'd try to take that ruling and spin it to their own agenda rather than stand up and say "NO!!!" to that destructive change in that law is appalling.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka True. We shouldn’t force religious beliefs into law; however, what defines a "person" is religious by default. So regardless of what definition you choose to legally recognize, it’ll be someone’s belief made into law. Roe v Wade is forcing someone’s beliefs, as would repealing it.
Didn’t want to discuss corporate personhood, but I’ll put it to you this way: you can only tax people. Can’t be against corporate personhood and for higher corporate taxes, if corporate taxes period.
BlameTheFirst 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst Well, Roe vs Wade is an attempt to reconcile what is an impossible question to address really. It tries to give everyone the right to chose how to follow their beliefs when it comes to abortion. It addresses the question from a reasonably medical/ science backed point of view by playing the "statistical likelihood" game.
Specifically - viability of fetus vs survival rate. It may not be perfect but so far it is the best we've come up with. I doubt we'll do better any time soon.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@BlameTheFirst
the vast majority of abortions are performed before sentience begins in the pregnancy, which begins around the 26th week. Abortions are generally done before the 9th week (aka the embryonic stage)
IMO, and most legal standings, the life of the sentiment woman outweighs that of the insentient being
LadyAmaltheaUnicorn 5 months ago
Whenever a christian starts talking about their views on abortion, share a bible verse.
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)
KenpoMike2011 5 months ago
@KenpoMike2011 Thank you! THANK YOU! Haha thats what ive been saying for the longest time
MrMarkless 5 months ago
Are you under the delusion that the ONLY people that believe in the rights of the fetus are religious?
thereprieve 5 months ago
@thereprieve In America for the most part it stems from Christianity. If you read the history of abortion in America you see how it came about. I did a view history videos on abortion in America but only covered 1about 820-1910 because people weren't all that interested.
And when I use the word "religion" I'm using it to mean; "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons".
cont...
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@thereprieve cont...
But it would perhaps be better to classify them as having a political ideology with religious origins.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka - That's better. I was against abortion before I was religious and I know several others like myself... and I've met several atheists that also believe in the rights of the child.
In your research, is abortion the only practice that you've found whose legal interest has come from the generally religious population? And since fetal rights stem from religion,as your research suggests, does that automatically make it the wrong ideology?
thereprieve 5 months ago
@thereprieve Jesus. That comment I put up got incredibly botched. I blame it on kittens walking on the keyboard and my not proof reading before clicking "post".
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@thereprieve 1: The first part - that's a rather difficult question to answer. You start getting into "common morality" and "religious morality" and determining which influences what legislation can be incredibly tricky. For example;
With abortion, for centuries common morality & religious morality where in sync. Then in the 1800's a political shift came about (Protestant vs Catholic mixed with regular vs irregular doctors) and the new position on abortion was born.
cont-
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka 2 -cont but I'd have to think on part 2 of that. The problem is that there's always additional forces at play. The recent successes of the anti-abortion movement is really a result of the Republican party seizing power in the Senate and trying to avoid dealing with the "we'll fix the economy" platform they ran on.
Even prohibition which was a largely religious temperance movement had additional forces at play behind it, including a strong anti-foreign-import contingent.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@thereprieve And no, I wouldn't say it makes them automatically the wrong ideology. I respect the position the antiabortionist holds but there are a number of factors (to me) that make me object to changing laws on abortion to make them more restrictive.
We use a certain amount of science, philosophy and instinctive/ & or intellectualized morality to set what is now the common cut off date for abortion but when it comes right down to it, that date is pretty much arbitrary.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago
@TheTruePooka - I too, in some manners, respect the ideology of the pro-choice crown depending on why the choice is made. Often, folks like myself, want the "free sex without responsibility" reason to end. Many times folks will make rape/incest exception to denote that the woman was victimized and not irresponsible.
My respect gets stunted the moment someone thumbs their nose at me with the "my body my choice" mantra. While it is a good slogan, it's much more complex than that.
thereprieve 5 months ago
@thereprieve - And please don't worry about any spelling/grammar mistakes. This isn't an essay contest and even if it were, I'm not the judge. =)
thereprieve 5 months ago
@thereprieve *correction - "crowd" NOT "crown"*
thereprieve 5 months ago
@thereprieve
"My respect gets stunted the moment someone thumbs their nose at me with the "my body my choice" mantra... it's much more complex than that."
Why? Why is it more complex than that? Why, is it YOUR decision whether or not someone else can be promiscuous if they should chose to be. I don't advocate sex for fun in general, especially if that's unprotected sex and quite literally no attempt was made to avoid pregnancy. But regardless, that's not MY choice to make for someone.
CharBroiled04 5 months ago
... and Fang follows right on behind, he engaged me in a rather long debate on objective morality vs subjective morality... I dont think it went well for him...
dangerouslytalented 5 months ago
when i listen to an old "nazi" did he say he thought he did the right thing because media, authority and priest told him he was doing the right thing. After all the jews was influencing there politics, legal system and and they was cursed for they was murders of Christ. He felt very fooled and ashamed after ww2 could.
I hear similar rhetoric, but instead for Jews and socialists is it today Muslims and liberals do i feel fear. Ray Comfort and the rest of the Christian right would been good Nazis
Gripen1974 5 months ago
Click link in description.
"What the fuck am I watching?"
UltimaXG2 5 months ago
There is no way comfort believes everything he spouts... he is the equivalent of a troll he has been doing this for too long to take it back and not take an opportunity to make money off of it
alexporterfield 5 months ago
Haven't watched it but from reviews it sounds like all the same talking points coming from the anti choice crowd for the last two decades. Just to bring it up AGAIN, the Nazi regime BANNED abortion for citizens of the Reich (aka 'Aryans')
And good job flipping it back on Comfort too, Pooka
HeavyTrafficAhead 5 months ago
What really pissed me off is that Ray admonishs a kid for saying it is okay to abort a rape baby and Ray comes back at him saying that he is punishing the baby for the sins of the father and that is wrong. WTF does he think original sin is?!?!?!
savageecho 5 months ago
Good vid, Pooka. Txs for the link to Ray's vid.
I wonder what Ray's alternative to abortion be like. Would he incarcerate pregnant females until they give birth against their will and then take the resulting child and raise the child to be one of his supporters to his values, beliefs and way of life? Seig Heil, Ray?
phenixwryter 5 months ago
Funny that Comfort is telling people abortion is never justified in this video. Yet on his blog he once defended genocide in the Old Testament, which included the deaths of babies.
raycomfortfood . blogspot . com / 2009 / 10 / god-and-genocide . html
If babies can be killed when it's part of God's judgment against a sinful nation, why doesn't Comfort consider the possibility that the passing of Roe v Wade might be a punishment on America from God?
GuineaPigDan 5 months ago
Thank you man ... for all your reporting, and your fine rip-up of this piece of mental crap produced by Ray C.
PlanetJeroen 5 months ago
the taliban strips women of human rights
ray comfort strips womens rights
both are sick
MsOneiroi77 5 months ago
Ah, the man who invented banana logic, no surprises his movie was terrible
SatiricalStewie 5 months ago
Thank you Pooka. You expressed the exact same idea that I was trying to formulate in my own mind whilst watching that piece of crap; I'm just not as articulate as you.....
peyo001 5 months ago
I've gotta say that America brings up the craziest people on earth. A Jew who believes in Jesus and he's against abortions - using the Holocaust in the most despicable way just to make a point about his beliefs.
I watched the first part of his movie, the one that talked about the Holocaust. When he made a turn and tried to confuse people with arguments against abortions as if there is any resemble to the Holocaust - I just stopped watching.
Btw, I didn't know who this idiot was before that.
iDoctorIL 5 months ago
So.....Godwin's Law?
Nagneto 5 months ago
Question. Do women have misscarriages through "natural" causes? Does god have a hand in creating every living being? Well then why is it ok for god to "murder" innocent "babies"? That doesnt seem to add up. So its ok when god does it?
Baldmother 5 months ago
@Baldmother The answer they would give is; "God is not answerable to human morality." So yes. God is allowed to kill or do murder.
Hey, I don't make this sh*t up. I just report it.
TheTruePooka 5 months ago 10
@Baldmother Not to mention the 26,000 living children that die EVERY DAY because of lack of food and/or clean water!
bradjbourgeois73 5 months ago
@Baldmother
Don't believe the "Pro-Life" Hype.
Yahweh hates babies. Just check Psalm 137:9 for Yahweh's opinion on tykes.
LordCustos3 5 months ago
my mind has been blown. you have not only handed ray his ass but you have given my the perfect summation of an argument I have been making about various people who's rights are stipped of them for little more then the thoughts in their heads and no I am not talking about crazy people. point is I thank you for this video and your summation of things cause It is important.
TheBadcop69 5 months ago
Do you have an overbite Pooks?
When you close your mouth, your top jaw juts out noticeably somewhat, which mine used to before a retainer and car accident forced insurance-paid jaw surgery
=D
TAz69x 5 months ago
I tried hard but I just couldn't make it through Ray's propaganda flick. it would seem he's learned something from the Nazis.
deepashtray 5 months ago
I'll bet your poor cat must have a pretty thick hide by now :)
TheCanadianDude 5 months ago
That's pretty funny! Ray Comfort is so rediculous that he makes Jews defend Nazis! He is indeed, the troll king.
CamillaCalamity 5 months ago
@CamillaCalamity You got that right, that takes a SPECIAL kind of trolling, right there.
GoblinXXX 5 months ago
I think you're using godwin's law wrong. godwin's law just says that if a debate goes on long enough, then one side will compare the other side to the nazis and on the internet this generally means losing the intellectual debate (unless you're debating skinheads or neo-nazis). all it means is he has lost the debate, but he lost it a long long long long time ago. i mean, there is a reason he's called the bannana man.
satanisthetruegod666 5 months ago
...you had me at Holocaust...
Kclaybond 5 months ago
It was disingenious for Comfort to describe himself as Jewish when, as a Christian, he clearly is not. And I also wonder if he is aware that the Nazis were strict anti-abortionists, as far as "Aryan" woman were concerned. By 1943 performing an abortion upon an "Aryan" woman carried the death penalty.
ThomasTrue 5 months ago
phenomenal video!!!! bravo! i watched 180 the night it was released, and i found it so absurd and dishonest, i couldn't even muster up the words to address it. thanks for putting it out there so eloquently.
jakluk4 5 months ago
Good vid, Pooka.
I like way you laid it out, and laid bare Ray's dishonesty
SiriusMined 5 months ago
When you wagged your fingers at the camera and said "shame on you", I was dying laughing. :-)
SiriusMined 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out my blog where Ray gets owned even more. We knew about 180 months ahead of schedule and posted it online early. Don't want to make Ray Rich? Go to on Operation 360 on blogger and to see the movie check out tinyurl dot com /3gondsx
th3w01fv2 5 months ago
True Pooka's words are never upsetting.
smaakjeks 5 months ago
All these Xtian anti-abortion types seem to forget that their God is the greatest abortionist of them all. About 25-30% of early pregnancies end in a miscarriage (a.k.a. spontaneous abortion), often before the woman even knew she was pregnant.
No way Planned Parenthood can beat that.
God is not against abortion. He, or at least his fundie fanclub, is against women choosing their own reproductive destiny.
62netty 5 months ago
Ha my favorite crackpot of all, banana man.
JerezJulio 5 months ago
got about 19 minutes into 180 before giving up. ray is a thoroughly disgusting human being.
dv8tion242 5 months ago
@dv8tion242
Wow... I can't believe you made it that far, I can't bear to listen to him for a full minute :P.
Seymour13 5 months ago
@Seymour13 You know.. curiosity and cats.. But as noted, if you repeat the same bullshit enough times, there will be some members of the population who believe anything. Once you have them, their voices carry (not unlike that til tuesday song of the same name- just with a slightly different meaning) throughout their areas.
dv8tion242 5 months ago
"The Holocaust, Nazis, Ray Comfort, Abortion and Individual Rights"
ALL IN SEVEN MINUTES? I'm in!
mullen2105 5 months ago
Excellent video. I sometimes wonder if Ray Comfort is just a dedicated satirical comedian.
Surfking9000 5 months ago
1 dislike? It seems Ray Cumfart watched your video...
Gekkibi 5 months ago
Todd bless Ray Comfort! Just when you think there's nothing to laugh at, he keeps bringing the stupid!
RadarKat73080 5 months ago