'180' Documentary Compares Abortion To Holocaust, Goes Viral Among Pro-Life Groups

A documentary film is raising some eyebrows after comparing abortions to the Holocaust. Supporters of the pro-life feature suggest that the movie's content is changing the way some think about abortion.

"180" seeks to "dismantl[e] the moral justifications people give for abortion," by posing hypothetical situations relating to the Holocaust, the Southern Baptist Press reports. The 33-minute documentary has gone viral among pro-life supporters.

Creator Ray Comfort conducts interviews, asking people what they think about Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust. Responses vary from ignorance about who Hitler was to denial that the Holocaust took place.

The creator then creates hypothetical dilemmas, such as asking people if they would kill Hitler's mother while she was pregnant if they knew what he would later do to millions.

Many respondents, who say they are pro-choice, say they valued human life too much to perform some of the actions Comfort posed. Comfort then takes their responses and asks them to consider how killing per Hitler's orders is different from performing an abortion.

The abortion and Holocaust comparison isn't new, but critics, such as author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, say the two issues aren't comparable.

In a 1991 interview with On The Issues Magazine, Wiesel suggests that the issues require entirely different debates.

"It is blasphemy to reduce a tragedy of such monumental proportions to this human tragedy, and abortion is a human tragedy," Wiesel told the magazine.

Wiesel explains that he refuses to believe that an abortion is an easy decision for a woman, and he expresses frustration with calling the woman a "killer."

"...Those who do that [sic] call [a woman] a Hitler and relate [abortion] to the Holocaust prove that they do not know what the Holocaust was," he adds.

In the video, Comfort argues that abortion and the Holocaust are very similar.

"We've got a holocaust in America [where] real babies are being murdered because of women's choice and it's legal. It's like Nazi Germany. He did it legally," the Christian Post reports.

The film, which shows a series of graphic images, is gaining attention not only because of its controversial comparison, but because it highlights 14 people who do not know who Adolf Hitler was, the Christian News Wire points out.

Comments

[Bob Digital]

01:38 PM on 11/23/2011

This video is a riot! Would I kill Hitler's monther while she was pregnant with him? YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! Or just wait until he was born and kill him. Also, who knows how many people he had to ask before he found a few that couldn't describe who hitler was? It could have been a lot, but we don't know because they only use little snips of interviews that they selected to support their message.

[PaulInMiami]

11:39 PM on 11/16/2011

Before happening across this thread/discussion, I had just discovered and watched this "180" video in its entirety. I was very favorably impressed with this presentation, and I wish that it would be viewed by everyone in the entire world, each in his own language.

[meh64]

05:33 AM on 10/19/2011

commenting on this has actually been quite fun

[Joseph Schaefer]

05:36 PM on 10/18/2011

No one, not even a little fetus, has the right to parasitically use another person's body without permission. Which is more important, sanctity of life or bodily sanctity? If you say sanctity of life, and feel the government should enforce this difference, then apart from closing clinics and prosecuting doctors, you also should say the government can come take a kidney from everyone, as this would save thousands of lives every year. If, like me, you feel you should be able to choose when and if you give away a kidney, then bodily sanctity trumps the sanctity of life and abortion remains an option.

[dalemwood]

03:37 PM on 11/04/2011

To "parasitically use another person's body"?? Are you kidding? The little evil foetuses, how dare they!!

[Joseph Schaefer]

05:53 PM on 11/04/2011

Despite whether you find the terminology palatable, this is an apt description.

[Eserve1]

07:40 AM on 10/18/2011

It would be nice if the pro-life movement put more effort into taking care of and protecting those that are already walking and breathing. Meaning; anti death penalty, anti war, anti guns, helping those that are with out. Or was I wrong to assume that "pro life" was about protecting life.

[Katie125]

10:50 AM on 10/18/2011

I'm not speaking for the pro-life movement, but I just wanted to say that the Catholic Church is extremely pro-life and does all of the things you mention in your comment. The Church is anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthenasia, the Church does not condone mindless war, the Church does more for the poor, homeless, and needy than any other group. Out of all of the groups that claim to be pro-life, the Catholic Church promotes life and helps the living more than any other group.

[Eserve1]

04:38 PM on 10/18/2011

The Catholic church is one group that I keep forgetting about and I can understand their point of view. It's the rest of this pro life movement that have hijacked that message and have focused heavily on just that issue while remaining quite about or in support of the rest.

[SmileAndActNice]

01:36 AM on 10/18/2011

I want to take a moment here to thank all the pro-choice folks and to remind you that pro-choice women make the best Moms.

Deceemobile posted a traditional "you hate children" attack:
-----
I suppose you might tell your kids when you're angry with them - "Hey you're lucky I didn't kill you when I had the chance".
-----

Pro-choice women get mean words like this thrown at us all the time. But we are, of all women, the ones they least apply to. We believe in choice. We believe that pregnancy is something *we do*. Not something that is *done to us*.

Which means we always do pregnancy the right way.

Is it fun? Nope. But it is hardship we face with eyes open. An ordeal we endure by our own choice. And because humans value more the things we strive for each moment of it makes us love and cherish our children more. The nausea, the swollen feet, the aching backs ... the tearing flesh the blood ... the fear and uncertainty ... all of it sharpens and tempers our love. It makes us value the goal, the child, more.

Those who don't believe in choice... if they don't want to be pregnant they become passive victims -not active agents- in their pregnancies. The pregnancy is a punishment, not an endeavor. The process becomes destructive instead of strengthening. And attitudes of hate and resentment towards the children become probable.

[rhurc4]

07:38 AM on 10/18/2011

"Pro-choice women make the best Moms"?! That's the most hysterical thing I've ever read!

[SmileAndActNice]

09:46 PM on 10/18/2011

You think people who don't want to be mother's do a better job than people who do?

Explain please.

[rhurc4]

07:55 AM on 10/18/2011

by the way, I'm pro-choice.. I just think the choice is whether or not to take your pants off. None of us have the right to behavior without consequences. You simply need to accept the consequences of your actions and quit saying to yourself that you have some inherent right to meaningless "reproductive activities" without consequence.

[InTheSouth]

02:47 PM on 10/18/2011

Now that's is funny. Go tell your BS to some hormone hyped teens. See how far it goes. LOL

[SmileAndActNice]

09:30 PM on 10/18/2011

If I were a cat or a fish you'd have a point.

But I'm a human.

And recreational sex is very meaningful for humans.

I recently celebrated my 10 year anniversary. Do you think my marriage lasted this long without recreational sex? How long would your marriage last with no spice in the bedroom?

If I say, "make-up sex" do you think I'm referring to painting each other with eyeshadow and lipstick or do you immediately understand that I'm talking about a sexual encounter used to defuse tensions and bad feelings from a disagreement?

Unless you love single motherhood and detest monogamy you have to admit that sex is a many splendored thing whose primary purpose is not reproduction. Reproductive sexual encounters are typically a tiny fraction of a healthy person's total and of those an even tinier fraction actually results in reproduction.

Furthermore, if you research reproduction in hunter/gatherers you'll realize that we evolved this way. They space births by 4 - 5 years typically and they aren't using abstinence to do it. Not even remotely.

[OldBear]

09:59 AM on 10/17/2011

Way too much religion and not enough patient confidentiallity or science.

[Susan RM]

09:59 AM on 10/17/2011

I truly get perplexed by these ridiculous arguments. What is the goal here? Truly? Is it to change the law or stop abortion because history has shown us that changing the law does NOT stop abortion. It just changes the manner in which abortions are carried out.

If you really want to stop abortion, then focus on the problem. Education women AND MEN of the consquences of their actions. Have commercials on what happens when you cannot afford getting pregnant and raising a child. FOCUS ON THE CAUSE -- focus on the REAL ISSUE!!

[schnauzergirl]

03:28 PM on 10/18/2011

While that would go a long way to reducing the number of abortions, it still can't stop the need. No form of birth control is 100% effective all the time and developemental and genetic abnormalities are going to happen regardless of the laws of a country.

[deecemobile]

08:47 AM on 10/17/2011

Abortion is considered by many to be an "unseen" holocaust, but that isn't Ray's main concern in this documentary. Rather he is trying to expose the contradiction between taking life in an "unacceptable" context (holocaust) and an "acceptable" context (abortion). If the actual holocaust was unseen - never documented or memorialized - it would probably find itself forgotten on the same dusty, basement shelf as abortion.

[SmileAndActNice]

02:03 PM on 10/17/2011

Abortion is acceptable because it is an act of self defense.

And I can see you all eager and ready to jump in with the favorite fallacies prohibitionists use when this is pointed out so to preemptively answer the predictable questions:

1) it doesn't matter that the fetus has no malice (or love or anything). An attack is an attack even if the attacker is unaware of his actions. Motive impacts future sentencing but has no impact on self defense options. Look at how the law handles the retarded, insane, sleepwalkers, or doped up.

2) No I'm not saying all pregnancy is an attack. Thats like saying all sexual intercourse is rape. Absurd. The difference between a criminal fetus and a beloved one us the same thing that separates lovers and rapists. Her Choice.

3) Bodily autonomy is an inalienable right. She can't surrender it to me with a signed, notarized, contract. Express written consent. the contract is illegal. Implied vaginal consent certainly can't make her body the fetuses property. There is no way you can spin gestation as something it is entitled to.

They call it the Gift of life for a reason.

[deecemobile]

09:29 PM on 10/17/2011

That is the most disgustingly selfish thing I have ever heard. I suppose you might tell your kids when you're angry with them - "Hey you're lucky I didn't kill you when I had the chance". And your logic is based purely on word play. As if this whole issue comes down to semantics, but it does. It seems that whoever can skew language the most gains the upper hand. Sickening.

[rhurc4]

07:40 AM on 10/18/2011

It may be the "Gift of life", but that gift isn't given by the woman.. The child is carried to birth by its mother, but that simply process is in no way what causes actual life to happen.

[Hillbilly49]

04:12 PM on 10/16/2011

Tea-Publicans believe that women cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies; while telling us international corporations should be able to make decisions about all mankind without regulations.

[NYC123]

03:58 PM on 10/16/2011

Case: A pregnant women of 3 weeks crossing the street gets hit by a drunken driver. The baby dies from the trauma. Our laws will charge vehicular homicide on the driver - true or false?.

[SmileAndActNice]

04:33 PM on 10/16/2011

irrelevant.

The fetus is not consuming the flesh of the driver. It poses no threat to him. Thus the driver has no grounds to act against it in self defense. Furthermore, the fetus is not his property. So he has no more right to kill it than he has to kill my cat ( which, I must note, I may lawfully kill. There are severe penalties for killing someone else's pet but none for killing your own so long as you do so in a humane manner ).

The pregnant woman, meanwhile, is being consumed by the fetus and may act against it in self defense.

Our view of the holocaust would be very, very, different if the jew's were doing to unwilling german's what pregnancy does to a body.

[SmileAndActNice]

04:42 PM on 10/16/2011

Case:

A couple is unable to carry to term so they contract the services of a surrogate. An egg from her and a sperm from him are combined in a lab and implanted in the contract surrogate.

A term of the contract is that she may not abort the pregnancy - for which she accepted $25,000.00 in advance - without the approval of the couple.

The surrogate is at a fair when a fortune teller tells her that she will die in childbirth. This freaks her out because she is a very superstitious person. She gets an abortion against the couples wishes.

Our laws will find the surrogate in breach of contract - true or false?

Answer below backwards:

eslaf - .lagelli flesti si noitroba gnitibihorp esualc ehT

[powerage]

02:26 AM on 10/15/2011

I do see the parallel based on the fact that the end result is the same with both instances even though the method of may not be the same. Those who once were living (Jews) ended up dead. That which has great potential for life (fetus/baby/embryo) is terminated. If it wasnt for the "termination" itself, it WOULD undoubtedly be a child able to sustain life on its own. Just because you call it something else or use another word doesnt change what it is. You can call black white but it just doesnt make it so. If this isnt the truth I dont know what is.

[Lee Vegas]

02:55 PM on 10/15/2011

you can call an embryo a person, but that doesn't make it so.

[powerage]

04:47 PM on 10/15/2011

Did I? If you read it slowly you can see I gave three options and "person" was not one of them. I suppose you can choose whatever option is most convenient for you. With that being said... If an "embryo" is not "terminated" what does it eventually become? I would hope we can at least agree on "a future person and a big responsibility."

[meh64]

05:18 AM on 10/19/2011

...you do see the obvious problem with your shortly stated "argument" right?... (by that, I mean the obvious reversal of it in case you didn't)

[arkady967]

08:15 AM on 10/16/2011

The language is changed to protect the abominable. If you notice, the media won't even call a child a baby until it's been born - even if it's a child able to survive of it own postpartum...

They prefer to use the latin. I think they do it to blunt the impact. It's a device. One used deliberately. One used in an attempt to dehumanize. The Nazis did similar things. They would not allow Jews to refer to their fallen, persons destroyed by the Nazis, in a manner that aknowleged, clearly, their full humanity. They would beat Jews that did. The corallary is obvious in the use of language regarding abortion. That included the beating - though the beatings are mainly in print thus far.

[SmileAndActNice]

02:06 PM on 10/16/2011

You are projecting. You attribute your own sins to other people.

Attempts to change the meanings of words, first of all, predates the Nazis by a good margin. It was probably first done about 5 seconds into the first verbal argument early human's got into. It's been done in both good and bad causes and trying to make a Nazi comparison out of it is as ridiculous as comparing any man with a silly mustache to Hitler.

But it is YOU attempting to mangle the language to advance your agenda. You and yours have desperately, desperately tried to change the meanings of all manner of common phrases.

You want to redefine "pregnancy" as "minor inconvenience". A radical shift in the meaning of the word.

You want to redefine "I'm havING a baby" to mean "I have a baby" which is nonsense. When I am bakING a cake I don't have a cake yet. I have flour, dough, etc. I'll have a cake in the future after I am done makING it. When I am havING friends over I am always referring to something that will happen later than I am preparing for now. Once the friends are actually here I say "I have friends over".

You want to define "Mother" as "Completely unimportant and disposable thing that its no big deal if a child doesn't have." hence your enthusiasm for child abandonment (adoption).

[Saijanai]

12:37 AM on 10/15/2011

An interesting thought: the USAF was able to devise personality inventory tests to eliminate people who believed in Armageddon from the prospective missile silo crews without having to ask any religious-related questions simply because people who believe in that kind of thing have basic personality profiles in common...
How much do you want to bet that the same personality test would catch most, if not all, of the people who are absolutely certain that abortion is murder and worthy of the death penalty?

[OlongapoEd]

06:38 PM on 10/14/2011

The forced-birth crowd has been using this malicious "analogy" for years.

[CDGreene]

06:05 PM on 10/14/2011

Such a ridiculous comparison. Let's call the pro-life people what they truly are: anti-women.

[powerage]

03:02 AM on 10/15/2011

I was always taught not to call names. But with that being said, is it fair then to call pro-choice people anti-children?

[chilemamita]

03:43 PM on 10/15/2011

Yeah, I have to agree. That argument is laughable - to call pro-lifers "anti-women." The most ardent pro-lifers I know are strong, independent women.

[CDGreene]

05:24 PM on 10/15/2011

Maybe pro-actual living people, not clumps of cells like you TBaggers.

[powerage]

04:41 AM on 10/16/2011

fallacy*