Mega Churches Showing Pro-life Video That Saves Lives

I just finished watching the video and would like to share some thoughts; I would also appreciate the thoughts of others.

I'll also preface this by saying that I affirm that abortion is unequivocally wrong always.

I think Comfort's line of reasoning in the interviews chosen for this video is disingenuous, though. The comparison of the Holocaust, which was a state mandated genocide, to the legal allowance of abortion is not correct. While it is shocking and appalling to see the estimated number of abortions committed in America since the law allowed it, the state allowed it but did not enforce it, as the Nazi government did die Endlösung. The German state's forced murder of millions is not comparable to the choice of millions of women to submit themselves to the procedure allowed by the American state. Comfort erects a straw man and then knocks it down with an emotionally manipulative argument.

Further, the video seems to submit as successful exchanges those in which the subject gives some measure of intellectual assent to Comfort's argument. I'd be interested in knowing how many such interviews were conducted to get the half-dozen successful ones. But intellectual assent is not action, as Comfort himself has argued in lectures such as Hell's Best kept Secret. Are these minds changed? Will they stay changed? Will they act on this change?

If this forum will allow that to criticize the video is not to defend abortion, I would suggest that this video is not, ultimately, a positive tool. The use of faulty logic and emotional manipulation is not the same as proper reasoning and Spirit-given conviction. If "the cause" is to be won by tricking people into voting republican, I'd think there must be a more honest way to do it.

Edit: I removed an adjective I regretted using.

What information would you like about me? What information would make the difference to you? My hope would have been for you to question my logic, rather than question me because I haven't divulged much of myself.

To rephrase it then, do you think it is appropriate to liken legalized abortion to the holocaust? In my opinion, the two atrocities are of different orders and cannot be so casually brought together.

It seemed to me that Comfort invokes the holocaust disingenuously. The video begins with the question about Hitler and the ignorant young people, then cuts to stylized footage of Nazi rallies and Hitler himself, then Comfort appears and tell us "I'm deeply concerned that a generation is forgetting one of the greatest tragedies in the history of the human race." Now perhaps this opening sentence is about abortion as well as the holocaust, but there is no way to know it given the context. His next sentence begins: "Adolf Hitler..." Now every cue the viewer has received suggests the video is about the holocaust and the danger of forgetting it.

The holocaust, as a concept in popular culture, is highly emotionally charged, as it should be. It should be difficult to speak about the details and one should shudder at them. That being so, it, as an event, is also typically treated with a certain reverence in discussion. The video points to this by mentioning how it is illegal to deny the holocaust in Germany.

So having evoked emotion with the ethical questions about the treatment of Jews, Comfort tries to transfer that emotion to the question of legalized abortion, a comparison that I've said isn't appropriate. I've read a statistic that 3500 abortions are committed daily in America. If one wanted to play fast and loose with tragedy and emotion, one could make 9/11 comparisons, and it would be just as inappropriate and absurd. It seems that, given the state of the battles over abortion in American culture, the video tries to raise the issue in a an emotional way to get an emotion-filled reaction from the subject. This practice is something that Comfort is explicitly against in the context of preaching and leading others to Christ. Conversions based on emotional reaction are easily reversed after the emotion has dissolved.

Legalized abortion is an atrocity sui generis, and doesn't need the holocaust as a comparison to suggest how damnably bad it is. I think to liken them in popular discourse diminishes both - an act filled with hubris.

Does this seem plausible to you? If not, what of it would you think is incorrect?

I'm sorry that you find my critiquing of the video to be hubristic and too logical. I appreciated your interpretation of the video, that Ray is "using solid questioning about defining human and non human." There is, I think, much more in the subtext of his presentation and the tone of the video. It is hubristic to diminish the holocaust, as it is to diminish the atrocious nature of legalized abortion. It is not hubristic for me to suggest this.

I think there's little else to be gained from continuing, though, so I shall pursue this topic no further.

As an aside observation, the footage of the street interviews shown in the YouTube video could set the stage for a variety of social documentaries.

I wouldn't want to venture an explanation here, but to watch the twentysomethngs in the video being so oblivious and ignorant about history is disturbing. I can only hope that the rest were edited out to make a point.

MC

I've always been perplexed by those who have become so entirely fixated on the issue of abortion. It seems to be the last remaining emotional push-button of what otherwise is a faltering congregation.
Why do I say this?
Simply because most of those who subscribe to the anti-abortion groups utterly fail to be consistent. They profess to be eager to rescue the fetus while entirely abandoning it through it's growing up years. This contrary behavior reveals their empty piousness about the matter.
We have rescued countless births only to abort their well being and futures during their developing years. We have turned a blind eye to our self-defeating cross purposes.
I too find abortion most abhorrent. But I find the hypocrisy of some on this matter equally abhorrent.
Most don't have a twinge of conscience that these same fetus which they insisted to rescue were afterwards hurriedly abandoned to begrudging Food Stamps, inferior education opportunities, a hand-to-mouth existence throughout their early childhood years.
Be consistent! Life is not confined to the womb. It's utter hypocrisy to cry against abortion at birth while agreeing to abort their futures at a later time.
But of course, this disposition might require sacrifice and doesn't exactly fit into the heart-throbbing story of innocence.

Hi! ThingsAbove
Yes, your comment is absolutely correct concerning my Post to the Thread here. I hurry to admit that I indeed deserved your admonition to "Be more careful how you issue your judgments".
Please accept my sincere apology and please know that it is also extended to every other participant here too.
Yes, I 'went-off-the-deep-end' ... an' more than a bit. :(
Abortion is indeed a terrible injustice; a crime!
Unfortunately, I can sometimes tend to wrongly blanket the multitude of unjust and unfair situations in the world under a single umbrella. Doing so, can be something unjust in itself.
Again, my genuine apologies.

Blayne wrote:
______________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
We have rescued countless births only to abort their well being and futures during their developing years. We have turned a blind eye to our self-defeating cross purposes.
______________________________________________________________

Mind sharing how the community is doing this?

AND

____________________________________________________________
QUOTE:
Most don't have a twinge of conscience that these same fetus which they insisted to rescue were afterwards hurriedly abandoned to begrudging Food Stamps, inferior education opportunities, a hand-to-mouth existence throughout their early childhood years.
Be consistent! Life is not confined to the womb. It's utter hypocrisy to cry against abortion at birth while agreeing to abort their futures at a later time.
____________________________________________________________

Ahhhmmmm, Scripture tells us that if you do not provide for your own you are worse then an infidel...I am not aware that it is my responsibility to care for other people's children...Are you caring for other people's children?

I have more to say, but would like to have a clearer picture where you are coming from. If I write before I know this, my post will be too long to suit me - you see, sir, I have worked as a volunteer in a crises pregnancy center for many years...I know what goes on behind the scenes. It destroyed a lot of idealism concerning human nature.

I look forward to your response. If I do not answer tonight it may be tomorrow - I am a very busy lady, helping my husband in our business during the day and by night I am exhausted.

God bless..

ginnyrose

Hi! GinnyRose
A snapshot of my earlier comments could be summarized as follows:
Yes, it is indeed true that abortion is a horrible blight on the social norms of our world and rightly deserves loathing.
I suppose what irks me is that it seems that a lot of those who are so quick to prevent abortions are not so quick to volunteer the taxes necessary to support social programs for our children and afford them a good start in life.

I've never had the displeasure to abandon the children of another to poverty and disadvantage simply because, as you stated, "I'm not aware that it is my responsibility to care for another people's children".
On the contrary! I've had the pleasure to remember the certain advice of Jesus to love one another; "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these".

It seems to me that some of those eager to prevent abortions have little conscience about allowing the growing children have their futures aborted through lack of proper food and shelter and education.

You are indeed free to define who your neighbor is; but Jesus did not permit this kind of selfish exception.

Since you asked, yes, I do care for other children. Not only that, I care for other children's parents as well. I both donate my time and efforts to local charities and food banks on a regular basis. I also train old age persons on computers to enable them to keep in contact with their friends and family by E-Mail.

GinnyRose, I'm not at all trying to diminish your kind eagerness to help pregnant mothers avoid the treachery of abortion. Not in the least! I was simply trying to speak about the urgency of also trying to assist children and families too ... especially during these increasingly difficult financial times that we live in.

Both of these forms of charity and goodwill are absolute moral imperatives for sincere and genuine Christians.

Hi Blayne,

This is where I believe that you might misunderstand somewhat, Blayne.

Christians who oppose abortion oppose it because it is immoral according to Scripture. Period. We certainly do not want to be partakers in it via our tax dollars. Now, you are suggesting that those Christians who agree with the Word of God on the issue of abortion also want to "abandon" the very children that they hope to save from being murdered.

I understand that it may have been poorly worded and I appreciate your graceful answer.

As for assisting families: I suppose that there is some disagreement in this. I believe that the Biblical call to provide for families is first to the father, then the mother and then the willful benevolence of others. There is nothing in Scripture that indicates that it is the role or responsibility of the government to take care of every physical need. In fact, when dispersed incorrectly, it can often break principles of Scripture. The father and mother are no longer needed to be breadwinners when "it takes a village to raise a child."

After all, there is a difference between what is the church's responsibility, what is the responsibility of a family and what is the responsibility of government in regard to children. It has never historically been the state's role to take care of children with a parent. And, of course, the parents should be tasked to provide for that child.

The Christian position on the issue is first that a father should care for the needs of his family. If the living father isn't present, then that is a different issue altogether. And, yes, it is nice that the government can be around to assist those who are in desperate and dire financial need through unemployment and temporary services for which they have been contributing (even if our American "needs" are not even close to the historic concept of "poverty").

And, of course, our notion about what the government should do with our tax dollars isn't what the abortion debate is about. These are two separate issues. The murder of unborn children being allowed by the state and the question of whose responsibility it is to feed, clothe and care for them are two different things altogether.

And, of course, I don't know of any Christians who want to "abandon" the poor. But, again, this debate isn't about what Christians want -- but about what the role of government should be in the raising a child or "providing" for others. So far, the government has a difficult time doing things like delivering the mail, managing schools and completing other tasks. Why should they be tasked with the grave responsibility for the dependency of a child (rather than the family)?

Abortion is murder...and God hates it.
This is beyond dispute for believers.

As for who is supposed to take care of families or children, well, that is another debate altogether.

By the way, I do believe that believers should care about those who are in need...even if I question the extent by which the government should be taking a responsibility that is given to believers.

Chris, you said it so well - better then I could. Thank-you.

Blayne, the issue of abortion is at its heart a sin issue - rebellion against God: rebellion against his laws for life, including morals.

In our counseling we were required to address the spiritual aspect of their soul. With only one or two exceptions, my clients knew they were in sin, they told me they were headed to hell, they knew they needed to repent - I could not tell them anything they did not already know in their spirit. The Holy Spirit was convicting BUT they chose to disobey. Simple.

The dynamics that create a child is based on a decision made by the woman. She chose to engage in "risky behaviors". Now what?

There is the child. That is what. I have a solution to this issue that does not meet with the approval of many but one I believe to be Biblical. I will admit up front it is a hard one, but it has the child's best interest at heart. That is the child should be adopted out - it needs a MOM AND a DAD, not an either or. Period. Blayne, I believe if social pressure would be so strong for one to do so, it will go a ways in preventing "risky behaviors". Many single girls choose to breed to have a baby. They want a child sans a husband. The gov social programs makes it easy for them to do so: they will apply for all kinds of assistance and they do qualify.

When I was growing up in the 50s and 60s it was considered a shame to fornicate and have a child. This worked well because it created in us a fear of engaging in behaviors that would lead to sin. Today too many girls keep their babies and "aw, she/he is so cute..." All this does is destroy any shame associated with immorality because "everybody else does it." And babies are cute!

The problem is that women are having babies based on bad choices and now they expect us to support that choice and its consequences. Is it not odd that they would refuse to listen to the voices of their elders but now whine because we stay consistent to our advice? But then a person who is in rebellion cannot reason logically - it is all about what I want at the moment and what I feel like at the moment. Total selfishness. And the child is the one that suffers, hence my declaration the child should be adopted out to couples that want a child.

Blayne, in my opinion, society would be best served by exposing them to some hell-fire and brimstone preaching that is effective in instilling the fear of God in the hearts of people. There is wrath to come upon the lives of the disobedient. As God's people we cannot diminish this terrible judgement upon unrepentant people.

God bless.

ginnyrose

PS: Yes, we also provided goods to our needy clients. But for many they felt they were entitled to everything they needed to raise this child - they presumed upon the goodwill of generous folks. In giving them what they want it only worked to reinforce in their minds that it is larger society's job to provide for them - they have no responsibility to care for themselves or their children. Oh, but they did have money to buy cigarettes...

The crises pregnancy center provided classes for these women that taught them parenting skills among other things. If they attended they were given 'money' that could be used in 'purchasing' items in the baby store. But you know what? Not many wanted to take these classes.

Does this tell us something?

Another point I failed to make.

The single mothers want to experience the benefits that comes from being supported by a husband but they do not want to pay the 'price of having one.' And that price is submission to a male, their husband. Submission is a dirty word today. "I want what I want, when I want it and nobody is going to tell me I can't!"

It is a sin issue. And too many well-meaning folks work to keep the prodigal comfortable while in the pig pen instead of allowing him to feel the grave discomforts of his choices that will motivate him to return to his Father.