im just bored and i want to start a discussion

Legalisation is a nice idea, but flawed. The notion is not condoning immorality, it is to make sure that prostitutes can receive protection, because they are marginalised to no end.

The core of the issue is that most prostitutes can make more money on one night of work than they can busing tables or anything else called 'honest' living. It's hyper hypocritical for people to rile against prostitutes while not changing the values of a society- ie commerce based, to make selling one's body less or not necessary at all- as all 'crime' is actually the appearance of reality as indignant acts being necessary. What I mean by that, is not whether prostitution is wrong or not, but that, in a society which determines that money is some sort of divine favour [sounds familiar doesn't it] or that it's what sets you free, the vision of other forms of work do not make sense in comparison, more money for less work is the virtue of our times- we simply don't judge 'respectful' people as harshly because they wear suits and don't stand on corners to solicit the people. It's even worse for denying them protection as human beings because certain groups wish to be moralising rather than socially reformative.

Scripturally, the Hebrew authors hated prostitution because it was a sign of a weak community, that is one of the reasons they thought up the passage of wives to their next closest male relative and so on. When a society determines that it bears no responsibility for its other citizens then it begins to outlive its usefulness- It sure signs when you begin to see abortion, prostitution railed against and mandatory disqualifications of human dignity- even though human dignity has already been denied to the point they need to cup up babies and sell their bodies- while doing nothing to improve and eliminate these areas from society by reform- making it about social value of the person, rather than 'honest material respectability', then you begin to see the hypocrisy- when people use 'god' to say- what he wants is for me to point out their faults, without understanding my part in potentially causing them and my moral duty to help them as an equal- you're seeing a dying society. You can see that this idea of moralising is not this divine possibility/thing's desire for a society- which is why farmers were supposed to leave a certain amount of sheeves in the field- for the widow and orphans- to get food, bedding even maybe, and to have the dignity of having gathered it themselves and worked for it- though there was no other charge.

However, there is a demographic of people, predominantly women who happen to defy the 'Pretty Woman' notion of prostitution- it's not a life of luxury where Richard Gere comes along and makes sure she'll never have to work again, let alone sell her body. No we're talking about abused women who leave home, psychologically broken, drug addicted force abduction, and those living on the streets or low income/working poor, a wide range, some of them slaves to a pimp, some independent- but they're all trying to make a bit of extra money, or they're trapped- the question which is never answered about legalising prostitution is, despite legalising it- will that provide help? How will the trapped and enslaved- the supposed people it's designed to help get access to it? How will it help those with psychological problems- it most certainly will not remove the underground sex trade- but it could equally produce spoiled brats who now think its a fun fling between now and marrying rich to sell themselves without consequence and make easy money- and trust me, the people legalisation is hoping to solve are not in this for the fun of it- most to no body is unless they're in the ten thousand range or higher. So far, in places it has been legalised, it has enabled women to step out and make a living selling sex, knowing they are safe- they can go into open business for themselves- however it doesn't liberate anyone from their pimps, and so the issue is very unclear- the independant will be helped, but those who need help even more will not be. And that kind of legalisation will annoy alot of people just because... but it will also allow people to feel their moral obligation is satisfied, and make equally bad assumptions about sex workers because it's legal- 'Oh you could just get a job as an open worker.' Etc, never mind that she answers to a guy who will saw her legs off.

There are things to be done that neither include legalisation, nor the more common practice of rejection and marginalisation which see mutilated women left out in train yards, or unable to have sex at all because their organs have been damaged by assault. But that is going to require social shifts that neither pro-legalisers nor pro-descarders [ie removing them entirely] are really interested in doing- because that means re-evaluating money, re-evaluating human life, reforming whole patterns in society, and it is daunting, but it's our duty to our society, but it's easier to do otherwise.

@miracleman-what's your views on abortion?

Something interesting to note... in the time of the bible, prostitution *wasn't* illegal. Jesus preached to them, remember - do you think he could have done that so openly otherwise? And in the OT, well... just read Judges 16:1-2.

'One day Samson went to Gaza, where he saw a prostitute. He went in to spend the night with her. The people of Gaza were told, “Samson is here!” So they surrounded the place and lay in wait for him all night at the city gate. They made no move during the night, saying, “At dawn we’ll kill him.” '

Samson, one of the most holy men of the old testament, slept with a prostitute. Does this get any condemnation in the text? Not a trace. God certainly doesn't mind - the very next day Samson goes out to do the hero thing with his God-given powers still fully functional. The only reason it even gets a mention is to establish the circumstances of an attempted ambush.

Adultery in the bible is very different from what we call adultery today. It stemmed from a form of property law: The crime of adultery wasn't for breaking the exclusivity of marriage, but theft of another man's wife. Men were expected to sleep around a bit with (unmarried) women, as can be seen with Samson and the prostitute or the vast harems of David and the other kings of Israel.

Here in the UK, we took the approach of decriminalising prostitution itsself and instead criminalising the act of paying for sex - the idea being that prostitution is still effectively illegal, but it's the johns who go to jail and thus the prostitutes are still able to seek police help without fearing arrest. It seems to work a little better than the older approach of locking up prostitutes who were often forced into the profession by poverty, but the approach does have it's criticisms. One of them is that living off the proceeds of another's prostitition is illegal, a crime that is intended to criminalise pimping - but in effect also makes it very difficult for prostitutes to ever work or live together, exposing them to further danger.

Personally, I think it's just silly to ban at all. Why is sex in the odd position of being legal to give away, but illegal to sell? The only reason is an archaic moral code. If I were somehow in a position to dictate the law, my ideal solution would be to legalise and regulate: Make prostitution perfectly legal *with a licence!* That way it would be possible to mandate condom use (Plus another backup form of contraception), regular STI testing and record-keeping. The johns would benefit from knowing that if they use a licensed prostitute they are getting someone almost certain to be disease-free and wouldn't have to go through the shady business of kerb-crawling, while the prostitutes would be able to work in the safety of clean brothels with CCTV in the waiting room and security guards rather than having to risk their safety with anonymous clients down alleyways and in cars. The pimps would disappear, replaced with regular employers who pay taxes and enter into employment contracts - and if the prostitute doesn't like the working conditions, she'd be free to leave and find work elsewhere, knowing that her former boss isn't going to hunt her down and beat her.

There'd still be a little bit of unlicensed, underground prostitution going on - but I imagine not very much. Who is going to choose an illegal, potentially-infected prostitute on the street over the comfort and safety of a licensed professional just to save a little money?

It could work. It should work. The only problem is that as soon as anyone suggested that idea seriously, there'd be a huge moral panic from the more conservative members of society who view prostitution as inherently evil for no reason other than the force of a thousand years of cultural habit.

@SuricouRaven @MM athiests attempting to interpret the Bible.

@superanonymous from a Biblical perspective both are "lawful" however they go against purpose. God provides all things why would we use these things for our own selfish pleasures, this is not a Christian outlook, and as such we cannot be followers of Christ while indulging ourselves. I would say your question is flawed to begin with you are seeking law, in this, you lose sight of grace. It must be about Christ or you reject Christ focus on Him. Read the epistles.

God is Almighty

Blah blah blah 'I'm @paulg1 I can dismiss people because I'm a biblidolatrist, and I am so wise that no one could express futility better than me' blah blah blah.

And I am not an atheist you moron, I have no opinion on whether god is real or not, I follow Acquinian teaching on the matter because it makes sense to me.

YOU DARE TO IMPLY THAT THESE PROSTITUTES ARE SEEKING NOTHING BUT PLEASURE AND INDULGING THEMSELVES- I CANNOT EVEN INSULT YOUR BLACK HEART PROPERLY- THAT WOULD GIVE YOU CREDENCE TO EXIST. YOU ARE A FOOL, Legalising prostitution is a real issue being discussed and already passed in many countries, if you stepped out into the real world you'd know that. And holy shit, where do you get off, 'talking about the real world, the one christ entered, is rejecting him'. You have proven your own stupidity and arrogance- you would have human beings die because you're stupid enough to think their reality is based on money and pleasure- well it's quite the other way around- they're slaves, or they're barely getting by, no one is doing this for the joy of it- though you tend to think they are- what does that make you you perverted cur

Do you see now why I refer to PaulG as the smug one? He won't even address our posts, simple dismisses everything we say on the apparent grounds that unbelievers are not worthy of his attention - and just to rub it on, goes on to imply that Superanonymous is rejecting Christ by dareing to so much as ask if there is a reason behind the conventional Christian view. Everything he says is accomponied by an unbearable air of smugness.

By your own words you are no Christian or Catholic of any sort and you continue to do that which I have already stated for your correction and edification, you wish to claim things about me which you have no insight of and you continue to attempt to defame me with insults like I said before you expose yourself constantly.
You have nothing. Aquinian not Acquinian, you do not follow this, how about you read the topics of ethics in Thomas's theological summation.
Jesus Christ is the redeemer and....

God is Almighty

In reply to the OP, prostitution was allowed in the Bible. In Proverbs, there are warnings against having sex with married prostitutes (the strange woman). Priest's daughters were not allowed to be prostitutes, which implies permission for others. Men were not allowed to prostitute their daughters, thankfully. The only prostitution that was forbidden was "sacred prostitution", that is when the prostitute served an idol or fertility god. This is the scenario in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 and much of the NT, so when you see the word "fornication (sexual immorality)", translate "cult prostitution" and you'll understand the passage better. There are three or four places where it has an alternative usage: incest, homosexuality and premarital adultery, but those are the exceptions to the rule. This usage of the word "fornication" and "uncleanness" is in keeping with Jewish sexual taboos as spelled out in Leviticus 18. So, there is no basis for outlawing prostitution from a biblical standpoint and it should be regulated and controlled as in Nevada and other places. Adultery, however, is totally a different matter... its stealing a man's wife and that has always been forbidden in nearly every culture, often punishable by death. There's no comparison between the two, unless the man is selling this "wife", in which case we have a gray area.

@paulg1....you close off discussion as if someone like Miracle Man who has an Acquinian belief system or SuricouRaven (who is atheist, I believe?...right, SR?) has NOTHING credible or wise to offer?....that is simply flat-out ridiculous....you limit yourself in your own view of God by doing so, as if God ONLY reveals Himself to His sons and daughters...even Paul spoke of how God has revealed Himself in Romans to all....obviously, again, I am a more orthodox Christian in my foundational belief system and do not agree with MMan nor SR with those particulars, but I do listen to them and often find myself agreeing with and appreciating their points.....(though SR likes to just bob-and-weave like a boxer!)...

Listen up...you might learn something about the Bible that might actually be true...

"Be Silent!....Be Still!"

I finally read some most of what @MiracleMan was writing about the "why's" of girls getting into prostitution and sex work, and there's much truth in his comments. Its not glamorous for most. There's risk involved for both the girls and their clients. I liked your reference to the commandment under God's law to leave the edges of the field unharvested as a gift to the poor-- not a handout entirely, as you said, since they still had to do their own gathering, etc. Society does have obligations to their needy and there are services available for those who have been abused or harmed.

@SuricouRaven You've got some good ideas. The UK law is confusing... I guess it encourages some type of secret way to pay for services, or a denial that payment had been made.. "he's my boyfriend". A little factoid that the Church has conveniently forgotten is that both Augustine and Aquinas insisted on keeping prostitution available in the communities under their influence because it was a necessary evil in their view... it kept people from worse sins like adultery and :shudder: self-abuse, which was truly evil.

http://whatdoesgodthinkaboutprostitution.blogspot.com/

Read the comments... good stuff.

I'm not talking about myself and prostitutes, I mean either for the good/bad of society in general....@paulg1

And I wasn't seeking law, I was seeking opinions from people....Can you let me do that paulg1?

@paulg1-Dude you do not come off with a Christian spirit at all. YOu seem to proclaim the gospel more for the glory of yourself than for anything else....but that's just me

@superanonymouse I apologise I must have misinterpreted your question (From a biblical perspective...) and I didn't think I was getting in the way. At least you are aware of your sources. Maybe that will help you determine where they are comming from. but let me re-iterate, I apologise.

My political opinion if I had to vote would be against because it degrades society further and does not improve anything, however there should be equal protection under the law for all it's citizens irrespective if they are homeless or their surname ends with Gates, perhaps state sanctioned keep it in your pants rehab, similar to getting drug addiction rehabilitation would help those using, having said that if a base jumper jumps of a building without a parachute/permit is it the fault of the building security/owners/police?, similar prostitutes place themselves(sometimes) in extreme situations where help always comes to late. the link that eastcoast sent you has at least 2 flaws in it, in my opinion.

Also this site, a very long time ago, had a forum about a post from Pastor Mark Driscoll eastcoast knows about it, here is a link I found the appendix to be very informative, the rest well l didn't agree with everything being said, however the appendix might help you find perspective to your topic. http://theresurgence.com/2008/11/17/download-porn-again-christianfree

All the best.
God is Almighty

@paulg1- Yea no hard feelings

@paulg1- have you considered legalization would eliminate the "black market"of prostitutes and maybe you could regulate it somehow. That would reduce std's, pimps, violence, abuse
Hey I'm just the guy asking the questions

I read that Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine opined that prostitution should be a "necessary evil" in society, though I am unclear what their full positions on the subject were....MiracleMan?...anyone?.....I'm just refreshed that two giants of the Church even felt that way....pretty impressive and obviously challenging at least for the Conservative American Church, let alone political conservatives...

They regarded prostitution as sinful, I'm pretty sure, however they felt that it was a necessary evil to regulate lust among the heathen and avoid worse sins. That's my impression of their position.. they were being pragmatic.

More or less. The medieval church had some elaborate rules for deciding how sinful a sin is (And thus how much you need to bribe the church for absolution), and prostitution was far from the worst. Lust was actually *worse* than the act of sinful sex - so better to just let men slate their lusts with a prostitute than to leave the sinful fire ever burning inside of them. Or, even worse: If men didn't have access to prostitutes, they might be tempted into fornication with innocent women, destroying their purity and their value as wives as well as causing them to sin themselves. No, as the medieval theologian says, better to tolerate the modest sin of prostitution than to fight it and in doing so create rampant unfulfulled lust and fornication.

@superanonymouse I hope you'll understand why I answer your question in a round about long-winded way.
What do we think of the person handing us an ice-cream cone, once we have what we want what is that person to us? We pay them for their service and go our way. It is interesting that people are looking at the problems because of STD's and a bad "black market" instead of looking at the problem where it is important to look which is at the people in this industry. We think that by reducing the effects that people will be better off.
I doubt it would prevent STD's in the same way that capitalism hasn't stoped sweat shops(knock). Just change the words pimp for employer(knock). There are people which care and there are people which don't, I doubt legalising it will help that problem, what it will do is proliferate initially which is what making it illegal was supposed to prevent, remember that it was never illegal before, it was made illegal afterwards those reasons might be questionable in some minds, the hatred toward people is very questionable. When people start feeling valuable again I think things might change. I think no matter what the rules are going to be people need to understand that caring for each other costs far less.
I read a very good piece of scripture recently about Namaan an army guy(actually quite a big shot) with leprosy (2 Kings 5), it was strange that through out the story there is a sense that to humble ourselves is very difficult. To do the smallest of things like smile greet and take time to listen is more difficult than doing the big things which make us feel good because we are doing stuff.
So often we hear the words if you want to change something then look at the mirror.
Everything points to don't worry about trying to change the world and people around you, rather change yourself and things around you eventually will change too. There is even a prayer which equates to this idea as well, Lord give me strength to change the things I can, the patience to accept the things I can't and the wisdom to know the difference. The commandment is simple love your neighbour it's not get your neighbour to love you or get your neighbour to love your other neighbour.
Just some food for thought.

All the Best
God is Almighty

There's an old saying, probably originating among the common folks under Catholic instruction, "Its better to cast your seed in the belly of a whore, than to cast it upon the ground." http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/sayings.cfm#belly This saying was the popular conclusion, the moral of the story of the account of Tamar, Onan and Judah. The rabbis strictly condemned "wasting the seed" and the Catholic church adopted this ancient belief as well. There was much ignorance of sexual science in older times, of course. They believed, even people like Kellogg and Graham believed, that masturbation was harmful, that it used up the virility and strength of a man, and there was a belief early on that destroying the seed was taking a life. ( See homunculus ) Thus, at least when a person had actual sex with a woman, though a prostitute, he wasn't destroying a life, or wasting the seed, which were regarded as sins worthy of death, viz. Onan.

When it comes to Aquinas and Augustine in terms of sex, I find it very hard to take them seriously. It's very obvious, that both of them latched onto the contempt for all things female as weaker in Ancient, esp. Greek texts. I find it very difficult to miss the fact that they felt women were an evil, because to them sin had not infiltrated the mind- but women could. It's very hard not to notice that they notice the chaos and distraction and affection and eagerness that beautiful women conjure up in men- and being intellectuals, and geniuses in some places, they didn't know how to deal with deep feelings, so they went about finding a reason they were so unable to study- concluding that the soft temptation of women creating madness is a sign that they are not recommended to the human condition- because two muscular brained coy boys couldn't figure out how to understand part of their own beings.

Both Augustine and Aquinas has this tendancy to talk about the good in something, like with sex, talk about it's wonder and beauty, and then come around and say, 'But it's not the ideal, merely an necessary evil.' They even go so far on the topic of sex in all forms, that it is a necessary evil because without it, now that we die due to sin, we would disappear from the earth, and that would be utter doom, so the only reason we have sex is, almost so god doesn't forget us. Though they fail to answer if these things are necessary evils why god loves them so much to keep them going instead of just solving the problem. They even go so far as to imply sex was necessary until Jesus, and not so much now.

Anyways. In terms of the example of a base jumper, I would suggest that it is partially the base jumper's fault, and partially the police's fault, his parent's fault, the publisher of whatever information he got on base jumping- in almost every way fault is collective. f we do not answer for every death except old age or natural disaster, then in some way we are making commentary on both human life and citizenship. And Society gets the fools, delinquents, criminals, leaders, and freedom fighters it deserves- and sometimes the ones it doesn't, but less frequently in either good or bad directions. If we do not take some form of responsibility, even for what we should be able to, in some way very easily shun and deny, then we eliminate our ability to ask for accountability when something goes wrong in society. A student walks in a kills their class- this is indeed the student's actions, but if we do not assess how this can be avoided, how social dynamics played a role, what was the condition at home, would more widely accessible supports have eased tension and prevented or forestalled the events, then we lose a very strong ability to expect our right to punish to be real. In some cases, the strongest kind of justice is a universal apology to both the criminal and the victims, that clearly we were not there for either of you as needed be. We seldom ask what our responsibility is to the accused or guilty, however, they are going to prison or are condemned because they did something adverse to society- if we do not consider if we have an obligation to their basic present life, or if we had something to do with their adversity, we almost legitimise their actions. If we say 'we have no responsibility to you' and this leaves someone exposed to desperate actions, or has no recourse or defense, and revenge or survival dictate desperate and irrecoverable acts- which we deny responsibility in, we are implying that there is something credible in that action, because there's something then credible in our distancing from it. It makes the commentary, that this person does not belong to society, that they were properly alone, isolated, abandoned- and if this is not their society, how are they going to be held accountable for that- what is their relation to society is by our deflection we imply they are not within its membership, and at which point, if this is the case, how is the measure of law applicable and serious toward them, how does it impart consequence, the person is being interred by a foreign influence, and their crime was 'across enemy lines', so to speak, by all intents, what makes the social jurisdiction to punish stick, if their was no social jurisdiction to cradle and assist dangerous cases into health before they hurt someone? It is a slimy justification, at every moment, expected to be a memeber of society, even at punishment, but the sense of responsibility of law, and social esteem continues to predicate the question 'What are you to us.' Crime seeks attention sometimes, and oddly the response of 'we will not help you, because you obvious at some point before this needed it' is beyond fiasco. And society replies 'We will not do anything but punish you', then the person who hurts others is asking for help in the only way it is available- because of social denial, because of rejecting social culpability.

As for prostitution, legalisation will not solve the problems. However, it will allow the issue to come into the light of every day and be dealt with. This was the problem with Alcohol prohibition, speakeasies sprang up without the rule of law, and more women were assualted, more families were bandoned, more people were murdered, and without any recourse from the law who was policing alcohol instead of people. The same is true of marijuana, the was true for abortion- say what you will about it, but before it was legal, the chance that both mother and child would die was almost certain, you'd have an abortion, AND your would collapse, maybe in the same back alley it happened in and die. Some women lost the chance to have children ever again when their circumstances changed- but because of coming out into the public light, we now have AA and NA, and several other organisations, we have many other 'non-abortion based agencies to provide another option that abortion, where before it was sneezed at as taboo and not very much was done against it- this is still a huge problem and before we're willing to tell people not to cut out their babies, we need to change the values of our society, to support single mothers, the elevate them out of poverty, the change the stigmas surrounding out of wedlock pregnancy- to alleviate the despair many of these would be parents are found in- and make their lives bearable, tangibly hopeful- otherwise we have no right to tell them what to do, and that is collective society repsonsibility- a healthy society would legitimately have no need for abortion- but there is a huge difference between no need and burying it in the back alley again, because you want to be spared the hard work of strong society you have kept and earned, and fought for- maybe that's why, we have gone through so many transitions each one reminding us never to trust one another, and none of us telling that message to fuck that, that nothing is really important.

Anyways, with prostitution, it has to be legalised in a way that those in most need have universal access to protection and safety, it has to be done with intensively funded nd active extraction and psychological agencies, and the only way to do that, is to remove the restrictions that those social workers and the people who are active prostitutes face all the time- like being unable to council them while they are whoring- but they want out, and still have to pay the bills- that is what legalisation can accomplish. There is more to be done, too many people stop at the legalising, and opinions have to change, we have to do more than just legalise- we have to actively make sure those who need it most are strenuously protected-

experiencing even prostitution in a safe environment will do wonders for people to heal from rape and psychological traumas and move past many mental impediments and the supports that can be freely offered within safe conditions can get people off of prostitution. But for that to really change, we have to alter the number one value and lubricant in our society- money has to go, it doesn't matter the slavery, the mental problems, the poverty- what matters is that of money as the number one thing that gets life going, because it is easier to make money having sex, something priceless has to be offered, not religious by gawd, something tangible- and money made easy while money is king is always going to be the problem- for the slave driver and the independent- when you can make three grand a month or more for sex- and half that waiting tables with outstanding bills- well, society is creating that problem by making wealth a virtue. A moral blockade may appear to solve the problem- they can't get money then it will end, no it means money is more necessary, they have to go out to more dangerous places, and the only ends are murders and starvation which we caused by sending them out there without protection.

Prostitution is wrong. People shouldn't use others for personal gratification. I think there is a problem with making unenforceable laws. It undermines the fabric of justice in society. There should not be any laws that we do not enforce equally on all of our society. If we as a whole hate the idea of prostitution enough to eliminate it we should but we don't. Can we just stop making "play laws" that everyone knows we don't have the will or ability to enforce. Law is not a way to sooth our conscience or make us feel better about opposing evil. In my opinion law should be a common ethic and not a bully pulpit. Bottom line make laws only when needed and enforceable.

@paulg1-you made a good point at the end

@miracleman- to be quite honest I don't read anything longer than 2 or 3 paragraphs. But I think I get the gist of what you were saying.

I have a link about abortion that you might be interested in watching. It's pro abortion (i'm not going to be sneaky) but I think you might find it challenging to watch, and to argue their logic...might

http://180movie.com/

@superanonymouse Is it pro-abortion or pro-life?

The term 'pro-abortion' annoys me, because it isn't actually accurate. Even those who campaign for abortion access aren't in favor of abortion for it's own sake - they just regard it as something that needs to be available, either because it is the least-worst of many poor options or for more abstract reasons of gender equality or self-determination. To call them 'pro-abortion' is like calling their opposites 'pro-breeding.' Inaccurate, and offensive enough to ruin any possibility of a meaningful debate.

Anonymouse did get it wrong though - the 180 movie is actually a recent and well-known pro-life program. I've not yet gotten around to viewing it myself, but I know that it actually opens by comparing pro-choicers to Nazis, which means most of them leave in disgust before actually watching more than thirty seconds.

I made it through six minutes, but that's all I can take. It's not addressing any of the real arguments on abortion. It isn't going into bioethics, or even theological perspectives. No, it's simply saying that anyone who isn't pro-life is a Nazi, admires Adolf Hitler and denies the holocaust. Really. I'm one-sixth of the way through, and so far every word has been about the holocaust. Every single word. I am going to refer to it as "Godwin: The Movie." I've seen less Hitler in documentories *about* Hitler!

This type of rhetoric is great for stiring up existing followers, but as a way of actually converting people it is counterproductive - it just makes their own side look manipulative and stupid.

Yeah, I am about one third through too, and I cannot really ascertain the unifying message, it gets one detail right, Hitler hated Christianity- unfortunately, while it could use robust facts in this, it takes a very wishy washy pulpit approach and uses rhetoric where it could use reason as well.

Not merely that, but the 'would you kill Hitler?' question is absurd, what principle on human life can deny it to anyone and still be called a principle- the principled MUST answer no. So is the bulldozer question, people cannot know what they will do until the moment it arises, and that pressure which we have no experienced cannot be the basis of our judgement, not merely, because those who easily deflect scorn by stating their refusal, would in that duress refuse nothing. It's like the first question, having a free will to not shoot Hitler, would you indeed then go through with it if there were a gun to your head... it has no answer.

And there's the ambush, that is pretty dirty, entrapping people like that, and reducing a complex issue to an isolated yes or no. It's actually what you might call, very Nazish.

Here's the more likely reality predicated on this 'sixth commandment' ambush- Baby is born, stay with the mother, grows up in poverty, becomes addicted to drugs, a drug dealer, gunned down, or in prison, becomes a man without a criminal record, most miraculously, takes up a retail job, is entrenched in poverty, turns to other various forms of a life of crime outside of drugs, or what is more likely, most likely, makes it through highschool, joins the military- so much for the sixth commandment- which due to the ptsd incurred while on tour, will likely lead to that soldier's suicide- don't kill your baby so they can kill other people far away that you never think about, just like that baby as soon as it leaves the womb. And that's just if the child is male, it doesn't account for Rape, which by the way can be worse than murder, because it comes with social stigma and the prolonged irrecoverable torture of the loss of dignity and virtue- which lead to prostitution and suicide and mental illness. It doesn't account for the abuse which will occur in faster care. Now, I know you're going to say they don't all end up like this- but a few miracles do not unmake reality. The freedom of a few does not under any circumstances justify the damning of the many when you can do something about it- which is exactly what this video is not doing- something about it in a way which solves or combats all the contributory problems.

The story of Hitler and Christianity isn't so clear. He spoke of the religion positively a lot - claimed to be a Christian, write in Mein Kamph that he was doing God's work, even said in the founding charter of what would be the Nazi party that it was to be a Christian party. But he was a politition, and polititians do tend to lie a lot - it's still much debated how much of that was genuine faith, and how much merely pandering to the people to win popular support.

There is something of an irony in the film's message too. One of the very first things Hitler did once he took power was to pass laws more strictly criminalising two of the crimes he most hated, and set up a new police department dedicated to enforcing those two: Abortion and homosexuality. Hitler, amazing as it may seem, was pro-life. He would later make exceptions to those laws for his eugenics programs, so it clearly wasn't his greatest priority.

It's not just the lack of non-Hitler-based arguments, but how clearly edited it is. The producer is doing his best to manuiplate his source video, but he doesn't have the skill to hide his attempt. It's glaringly obvious that he has simply taken a huge number of interviews then stitched together the lines from each one that support his argument... either that or the majority of Americans don't actually know who Hitler was, which I find hard to believe.

Fourteen minutes in and it *finally* shuts up about Hitler. Though I am sure it'll return to the subject soon. It's still using the cheap editing approach, though: Ask a few hundred people for their views on abortion, and pick the most obviously unintelligent of the pro-choice responses in order to make their whole faction look like a bunch of idiots. It works, because it exploits the confirmation bias, but it's still basically just a deceptive movie-making trick.

Made it through to the end and... wait...

Is that...

BANANAMAN! Yes, it's him! Perhaps after being rightfully ridiculed for the incident with the seedless fruit he realised that logic isn't his strong suite, and decided for 180 to just rely on pure emotional manipulation.

yeh same dreary presentations... trying to box people in, like a vacuum cleaner salesman. Very Tedious person.. his other evangelism spiel was novel at first, even seemed biblical, but these "gotcha" presentations only impress a few. Trapping people doesn't produce converts, just resentment.

I didn't recognise him until the end, but it was by Bananaman - he gained some infamy in atheist circles by arguing that the banana proves God exists, because it is so perfectly designed for human consumption. An argument promptly ridiculed by anyone who knows the slightest thing about bananas: They are designed, but not by God. It's been selectively bred for millenia, the original wild banana is quite unappealing.

As for the 180 movie... it's just a pack of lies. Not the argument itsself - the 'abortion is the new holocaust' argument has been around for a long time - but the way it's made out to be some super new invincible argument he came up with himself, when really all he has done is selectively edited interviews. He converted two people... out of how many hundred did he interview, I wonder? And really, I wouldn't be at all surprised if those two were actors.

I forgot I posted that link. But I think it's good. Answer me this.....It's okay to kill a baby when?....

"Riddle me this Batman" I'll have to look at the video again... I saw it a month ago and didn't watch it all and really didn't follow it that closely. I'm already pro-life so I wasn't that interested. Using the phrase "baby" in the question is inflammatory, since that was the crux of the matter way back in the Roe v. Wade decision. They couldn't prove that a fetus is a person, therefore they couldn't defend it by the constitutional guarantee to right to life, liberty, etc. For a different side of the debate: http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html My view is that, yes it is definitely a human life, unique in its DNA, and if all is left to follow the course of nature a baby will be born and should be born. However, calling it a definite murder may be an over reach, since no one actually knows when the spirit enters the body. Adam's soul didn't enter him until he took his first breath. Yet, the bible says that the body without the spirit is dead, so if the body is alive, it implies that a spirit indwells it.

But as to the question of whether a fetus is a separate living person: what about a miscarriage... was it ever an actual human life, or was there something screwed up with it and that's why it was rejected? If something was screwed up with the fetus, what of the spirit in the fetus? Was there one? I would look at it this way: Err on the side of caution. We wouldn't raze a building if we thought there were homeless people still living inside of it. We would delay the demolition until we could be certain no life would be lost in the process. Today's ultrasound technology has done a lot for the pro-life cause.

Another problem with the question posed is 1 Samuel 15:3 and similar passages. It comes across smart alecky, rather than a sincere concern for a young woman in trouble and her unborn child. My five cents.

That's the the thing @superanonymouse, it's not an isolated issue- you want to ask your question- 'when is it ok to kill a baby?' Never, it's indefensible- now let me ask mine, 'when is it ok to abandon a citizen?' the answer is the same- abortion is a fall out of abandoned citizens- and you cannot defend against it morally until you are going to help those citizens- it's never an isolated issue- you'll come back with 'if they can't afford children they shouldn't be having sex', but they're having sex to feel human, to give their lives meaning, to find intimacy, because it costs no money to have sex, then they have a baby, and they can barely afford to live on their own, the pain of loneliness is a juggernaut, reinforced by poverty, and poverty reinforces abortion- and it's not their fault dude- Jesus should teach you something about what is whose fault- or did he just go after the religious leaders because they had bad theology- way I remember it their theology was next to perfect, but they were still black hearted, dropping off bags of gold while old widows left their last pence to then go home and starve or hang themselves.

East, I think the pro-life side sometimes focuses too much on the 'life' side. A fetus does have it's own unique DNA, a beating heart and other such aspects. So does an earthworm. It isn't really about life - the key to the argument is finding that which makes humans deserving of protection. I'm not sure what that is, but I know a few things it isn't - and it isn't DNA, a heart, fingerprints, thumb-sucking, a human-like shape or any of the other things I've seen pro-lifers talk of in order to try to induce empathy.

I think empathy towards all living things is a good thing.

It's also an unrealistic thing. Someimes, you just have to go and poison some disease-carrying mosquotos or trap the rats that threaten to devour the food stockpiles. There is almost no moral outrage against killing in those situations, so it can't be the 'life' part that is so important. If it were really about life, the pro-life side would be campaigning against antibiotics.

Eastcoast said:"Using the phrase "baby" in the question is inflammatory, since that was the crux of the matter way back in the Roe v. Wade decision. They couldn't prove that a fetus is a person, therefore they couldn't defend it by the constitutional guarantee to right to life, liberty, etc. For a different side of the debate: http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html My view is that, yes it is definitely a human life, unique in its DNA, and if all is left to follow the course of nature a baby will be born and should be born. However, calling it a definite murder may be an over reach, since no one actually knows when the spirit enters the body."

I think there is a verse related to that

New Living Translation (©2007)
"I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb. Before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as my prophet to the nations." - Jeremiah 1:5

Now I know God was referring to this specific prophet, but that prophet was human just like us, and I think that God knew all us before we were born, and while we were in our mom's womb. It's unfortunate some get cut off somewhere in the middle. If God "knew" us, I'd definitely say that means we have a spirit, even before we have one.

"It's also an unrealistic thing. Sometimes, you just have to go and poison some disease-carrying mosquotos or trap the rats that threaten to devour the food stockpiles. There is almost no moral outrage against killing in those situations, so it can't be the 'life' part that is so important. If it were really about life, the pro-life side would be campaigning against antibiotics."

Do you really want to compare killing mosquitos to killing, humans...?
I for one value human life more than an animal's life. I think society has got their priorities out of order. No wonder the world is the way it is. Save the trees they say. But kill the babies? ...yea okay you don't like that word...

I guess neither did Hitler. Hitler didn't have such a high value of human life (when it came to jew) Sorry to use that argument. But aren't people who degrade human life, if not directly then indirectly, agreeing with hitler? Okay Hitler is a strong buzz word. Let's say they are agreeing with...any cold hearted person who ever thought that human life wasn't so valuable...

I don't think anyone has the right to judge who shall be given life and who shall not except God. Bottom line.

I guess people who believe that are pro life and those who don't believe aren't.

So, having a grasp of Scripture entitles you to being able to unscrupulously determine the life decisions of other human beings regardless of faith, realistic non-religio-centric circumstances, like illness, poverty, overbearing taxes, health care, debt- who is going to be the safety net for these people once they have had their babies- who is going to intensify the foster home syndicate to actually treat these children properly? Who will allow the use of condoms despite reducing disease and pregnancy, without whining 'Oh but they encourage young people having sex.' Yeah, no shit, because, just like you, [you being most face saving public liars who can't admit their lust] your children have about as much reliable will-power as you did when you conceived your little bundle, or the one before them, or the oldest little bundle. Can we please have a very serious, issue applicable discussion here which actually makes arguments which do not resort to scripture as an attempt at a 'case closed' brow wiping bs end to the evening. I've been in conversations like that where the discussion gets real, and the answer is 'Yes, but me pastor, you layman. I fuck your argument, we can't let reality in.... hmmm there, now, yes, mhmmm, scripture scripture, delusion, we're morally superior, insulation, we don't need to expose to X, uh, ghastly ghastly- how other people without middle class buffers etc etc... well, wasn't that close, sigh, 'feeeyou... foiled again reality.'

"I for one value human life more than an animal's life."

But why? That's the real question. What is it that makes humans more valued, and when do they get it?

"Hitler didn't have such a high value of human life"

Actually, one of the very first things he did on taking power was to create a new department dedicated to prosecuting abortionists - abortion being illegal at the time. He'd later add exceptions for undesireable ethnic groups. It looks like he was anti-abortion... but he was also pro-genocide, and when the two came into conflict he chose the latter. People like to imagine Hitler as just a symbol of all that is evil, but the real picture is far more complicated. He may have been quite eager to order the deaths of six million people (estimated), but he was also a strict vegetarian on moral grounds.

"So, having a grasp of Scripture entitles you to being able to unscrupulously determine the life decisions of other human beings regardless of faith, realistic non-religio-centric circumstances, like illness, poverty, overbearing taxes, health care, debt- who is going to be the safety net for these people once they have had their babies- who is going to intensify the foster home syndicate to actually treat these children properly?" -MM

I'm just preaching the message. I didn't say I wanted to make decisions for people, just hoping they would hear the message and that they would make the right decisions.

Miracleman, let's not make put word's into people's mouth to try to make a point.

["I for one value human life more than an animal's life."]-me

But why? That's the real question. What is it that makes humans more valued, and when do they get it?-suricouraven

Well that's a good question. It's called the golden rule. If you had a choice to kill a dog or a stranger you'd probably kill the dog. It's loving your neighbor. The dog isn't your neighbor. Anyone else want to take a stab at that question ^^

Hitler justified killing jews by saying they were basically NOT human. Because any one with a conscience wouldn't kill an entire race of people just because they didn't like them. This was a propaganda tool by Hitler.

Some people don't think fetuses are people : / I don't buy this

@miracleman- Is not having enough will power an excuse to have a baby? Or should people take personal responsibility and stop blaming it on the Christians -_-