I didn't see this already posted in the Christian forum area so I thought I'd post it.  It's a great video and gives a lot to think about no matter which side you align yourself on in this very important subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI

It is posted somewhere, but I honestly can't remember what thread it was in. It might have been buried.  However, I do have to agree that the movie is absolutely awesome.    I tried watching their video series which they email out, and unfortunately those are a little more disappointing.  They're not bad, but you sort of feel like you've seen them all once you've seen the first one.

The 180 movie however, is lovely.  I think everyone should watch it, even if they're not in a saving relationship with Christ. It's definitely an eye-opener.

First, I really dont know hop anyone can not know who Adolf Hitler is, you would be hard pressed to find someone in Europe who dosent.
Equally, when you start comparing things to Hitler, Nazism or the holocaust it really dosent help your argument, its not a well thought out argument.
For one thing, you cant prove at which point a fetus is alive. You can state what you believe, and state it as fact but it dosent make it so. We know those murdered in the holocaust (not just Jews I might add) were sentient, the same cant be said for month old babys.
I cant remember my time as a fetus, or even as a young baby, can you?

If everyone who got pregnant had there baby, poverty, crime, disease, it would be even worse than it is. There are teenagers who are stupid enough to get pregnant, equally if they have the baby the rest of there life is potentially ruined, they cant study, get a career, and the state and there family have to support them. its not a good environment for the child and they are liable to repeat the cycle, maybe even in a worse manner than those before him. It would be detrimental to society.

Sentient:
And do you disapprove of cutting down a tree? do you abstain from eating vegetables, fruits, or even sentient animals? Using paper? i think no. Do you regard them as equal to you?
Yes? then why do you deny them life.
No?Then your argument falls flat. If vegetarian you think sentient life isnt as important, if you eat meat then you dont think being sentient automatically means you have a right to unhindered life. If you eat eggs its downright ironic, since youre basically eating animal fetuses.

The aids virus is living, yet that dosent mean it should be cherised.
There are living organisms yet we dont act like they have any real thought proccess.
We are our brain, your sould, your character, its all your brain, your body is a tool to serve it. Until your brain has formed, you arent you. you arent sentient.

you are constitutionally given the right to life, but as the USA dosent list the moment of initial conception as life a fetus isnt covered, until the point where you are barred from abortion (whatever the limit may be per state). Until they are born they arent even legally citizens of any nation.

If all it takes to be human is basic traits of an organism then maybe we should stop people killing weeds, pulling up moss, or using bleach.

Your argument stems from your idea that a fetus is instantly alive, yet most developed nations dont support that theory, what exactly makes you better qualified than all the experts of these nations?

thenumberone :    I'll respond to each of your statements one by one.


---BEGIN QUOTE---
And do you disapprove of cutting down a tree? do you abstain from eating vegetables, fruits, or even sentient animals? Using paper? i think no. Do you regard them as equal to you?
Yes? then why do you deny them life.
No?Then your argument falls flat. If vegetarian you think sentient life isnt as important, if you eat meat then you dont think being sentient automatically means you have a right to unhindered life. If you eat eggs its downright ironic, since youre basically eating animal fetuses.
---END QUOTE---

No, I don't view any non-human living thing as being equal to humans.  Animals, plants, parasites, birds, fish, insects, etcetera are not equal to human beings.  We have a responsibility to take care of them, but they were created for our benefit.  The animals and plants were created as food for us.  We should take as best care of them as we can, but we are also to use them for food, clothing, etc et era.  Humans were not created for us to eat or to use for clothing.

---BEGIN QUOTE---
The aids virus is living, yet that dosent mean it should be cherised.
There are living organisms yet we dont act like they have any real thought proccess.
We are our brain, your sould, your character, its all your brain, your body is a tool to serve it. Until your brain has formed, you arent you. you arent sentient.
---END QUOTE---

A baby in the womb is not a virus seeking to destroy its host.  To compare it to such is illogical.

---BEGIN QUOTE---
you are constitutionally given the right to life, but as the USA dosent list the moment of initial conception as life a fetus isnt covered, until the point where you are barred from abortion (whatever the limit may be per state). Until they are born they arent even legally citizens of any nation.
---END QUOTE---

The right to life means that you have the right to receive and experience life until an act has been committed which justifies the death penalty.  The baby in the womb (which I will refuse to call a fetus because your definition for one is not one I agree with) has not murdered anyone or raped anyone.  It has done nothing to deserve the death penalty.  Also, abortion is a death penalty applied to the baby in the womb without giving it the opportunity to a trial by its peers and the right to face its accuser and speak on its own behalf.  It is the death penalty minus human rights legislation.

---BEGIN QUOTE---
If all it takes to be human is basic traits of an organism then maybe we should stop people killing weeds, pulling up moss, or using bleach.
---END QUOTE---

That is not all it takes to be human.  There are many traits in human beings that can not be found in any animal or plant or mineral or any other such thing.

---BEGIN QUOTE---
Your argument stems from your idea that a fetus is instantly alive, yet most developed nations dont support that theory, what exactly makes you better qualified than all the experts of these nations?
---END QUOTE---

Politicians are not qualified experts.  If you view the medical and scientific definitions for life, a "fetus" is actually a living being.  If you are about to argue the "no it's a parasite" argument...guess what...parasites are classified as living. 

You rebuted my claim of a fetus not being sentient by saying there is non sentient life.
My point in the analogy was that I dont think you even agreed that non sentients were as important, and apparenlty I was correct because you think animals are unimportant, even animal fetuses?

Genesis 1:25-27:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

you:
"but they were created for our benefit. The animals and plants were created as food for us."

Actually, according to that we were made after them. Other passages state we can eat them (but a lot of them you arent supposed to) but that isnt entirely relevant.
To link it, the argument for why only human non sentient life should be protected, is based only on your faith, which can not be used to constrain others whom do not feel as you do.

you:
"A baby in the womb is not a virus seeking to destroy its host. To compare it to such is illogical."

I wasnt comparing it to a virus. it was an analogy. That basic signs of life dont mean you are truely alive, sentient, required to be protected etc.
And also that regard the brain as the actuall life form, until thats formed its not a live human.

you:
The right to life means...

You are talking as if the baby is being convicted of something, it is aborted because the mother cant or wont go through with the pregnancy.
Do you support the death penalty? That would be a very interesting stance.
To die you must have been alive, and life, complicated as it is, is defined by the relevant authority (looks it up) which in your case would be your state, since I was apparently correct in assuming its not Federally managed. I dont know what state your from, so I dont know what there definition of life is, but I highly doubt its the hour after the 'act'.

What traits do you need to be human then? Im pretty sure many that you hold true arent even found in the early stages of birth. Whether you will admit that is another matter entirely.

you:
Politicians are not qualified experts


Well you've got me there but neither are most people with an opinion either, myself included. Plus they generally consult those educated in the matter, such as medical boards. If theres something I dont understand, I consult a book or google, or ask someone who knows. That dosent mean its going to be right. Those who study it their whole lifes are always going to be likely to be correct.

The definition of a word is down to language, not what a profession deems it, I took the first definition I googled, and it came up with unborn offspring.
There are various conflicting definitions out there, so there will always be contention.
Whilst some in the medical profession regard fetuses as human, others dont. Those investigating stem cell research dont generally feel its a human corpse.
Parasites are classed as living, so was whatever you had for dinner last night.

thenumberone :  

#1

---BEGIN QUOTE---
You rebuted my claim of a fetus not being sentient by saying there is non sentient life.
---END QUOTE---

Incorrect.  You claimed that a "fetus" is only life if it is sentient and that since we can't prove it is sentient we can't prove it is life.  Below is your statement:

---BEGIN QUOTE---
For one thing, you cant prove at which point a fetus is alive. [...] We know those murdered in the holocaust [...] were sentient, the same cant be said for month old babys.
---END QUOTE---

By saying this, you were stating that unless a baby can be proven to be sentient it is not life.  I rebuted your statement to prove that something does not have to be sentient to be labeled as living.





#2
---BEGIN QUOTE---
My point in the analogy was that I dont think you even agreed that non sentients were as important, and apparenlty I was correct because you think animals are unimportant, even animal fetuses?
---END QUOTE---

Once again, you claimed that babies are only life if they are sentient.  My rebuttal was simply that something doesn't have to be sentient to be life.  Is non-sentient life unimportant?  You claim I think it is.  Re-read my post.  non-sentient life is not unimportant...we are commanded to take care of all life (sentient and non-sentient) on this planet.  However, non-human life is not equal to humans.  Non-human life is intended for us to use as clothing, food, etc et era.  We are not intended to eat other humans or use the skin of other humans for clothing.



#3

---BEGIN QUOTE---
Genesis 1:25-27:
Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”


Actually, according to that we were made after them. Other passages state we can eat them (but a lot of them you arent supposed to) but that isnt entirely relevant.
---END QUOTE---

Read the verse you posted.  They were created for us to rule over them.  The order of creation is irrelevant when we are speaking toward the purpose of the creation.  Also, you must use scripture in context.  At the time of this scripture man did not eat meat.  He only ate fruit from the trees.  He also did not wear any clothing.  Why?  Because sin had not entered the world and as such death was not in the world.  Since no person or animal died because the world had no sin, there was no meat eating or need to use animal skins for clothing.

Read on, and after man has sinned, God kills animals in order to make clothing for Adam and Eve.  Later, because of sin in the world, He tells man that he no longer has to restrict himself to fruit and herbs and such, but he can now eat meat.

The pre-sin world and post-sin world operated by two different laws.  However, God declared us as masters over the animals and plants.  He did declare that both were for our food and our clothing.  He did command us to take care of them.  Hence, non-human life is not equal to us for we are commanded not to eat one another.



#4

---BEGIN QUOTE---
And also that regard the brain as the actuall life form, until thats formed its not a live human.
---END QUOTE---

You are on very dangerous ground with this line of thinking.  Many scientists world wide and even Hitler, himself, used this argument to justify the cruelest of experiments on human beings who were mentally challenged.  Take someone in a coma.  A person in a coma does not exhibit qualities of "sentience" yet they are still human.  There are individuals so mentally challenged that they don't have sentience by your definition of the word.  A human is a human at conception because God has chosen to form that individual in the womb.  He knew that individual before He formed them.  It is God and not you nor philosophical reasoning that decided that individual was human.  It is an elitist attitude when we start deciding at what point a human is...human.  Such thinking is what leads to the arise of racist organizations such as the Third Reich, Black Panthers, KKK, etc et era.

quote 1:
As far as a human is concerned, yes. Humans are sentient. If it isnt, then its not human.

Quote 2:
No, but as we have already established, you regard non sentient, and sentient non humans as inferior. So if the start of the human isnt yet sentient, its really not human yet, and isnt consciously alive.

3:
I said you dont think theyre "as important", not unimportant.
And as fetuses are not yet human they are less. "a heap of building materials is not a house."
Also, no one is using the fetus for food or cloathing, so thats not really a relevant statement.

5:
Mentaly chalenged people have brains. Its got defects but they're still brains. Same for those in a comma. And tbh, if it seems like they will never wake up id vote to turn life support off.

No, what causes kkk, nazis etc is they believe certain humans are better. And thinking a human isnt alive at conception dosent mean you are a racist. You're confusing the two.

God forming them:
Does that mean that god decides to create a baby in rape victims?even the most shocking pregnancys? By claming that god made them, and that for that reason you cant stop them, you are opening pandoras box.

Also, because I feel like it-

The kkk:
Were formed because a bunch of poorly educated, isolated individuals disliked the changes they were seeing, namely, blacks, asians, eastern european and non protestants entering the usa.
Back then, abortion was illegal. Now it isnt, and the kkk are tiny.

Black panthers:
Hate breeds contempt, they formed because whites treated them like dirt, and literaly got away with murder so long as the victim wasnt white.
Most were muslim, and they didnt support abortion. Theyre gone now

Third reich:
Unfairely treated after ww1, and bankrupted by the usa when they demanded there loans back, the people voted in the party that promised change. Most didnt agree with the extreme policys.
And hitler didnt aprove of abortion, he wanted a large workforce.

So yeh, its not the cause of such things.

Well, I honestly didn't go past the second quote since your words made it quite clear you didn't read what I typed.  At this point, it would just be spammy argument to continue so we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point.