Recently, on September 26, 2011, the (in)famous protestant evangelical preacher Ray Comfort has released a documentary titled "180", where he attempts to argue that abortion is comparable to the Jewish Holocaust carried out by the Nazis during World War II. Comfort's goal with the film is to convince his audience to change their mind on the issue of abortion with the tactic of having them do a 180 (hence the title) on abortion by bringing in the issue of genocide of millions of people (jews, catholics, homosexuals, etc.) during the Nazi's genocidal campaign, and with Hitler's goal to take over the world.
In this review, I will not cover every single aspect of the film, as the film itself uses a lot of rhetorical strategies to attempt to persuade the audience to go against abortion. To make it extremely clear from the get go: On the issue of abortion, I am pro-life, and I make absolutely no apologies about that. I agree with Ray Comfort's position that abortion as an intrinsic act in of itself is an immoral act because, similar to the death penalty (which I am also against), it takes away the life of a person (which in this case is inside the womb). The reason I make this disclaimer right from the get go is because I do not want to give people the impression that I am criticizing Ray Comfort's film because I have this agenda to make abortion a moral act, or that I support the act of abortion itself, or that would I consider myself on the "pro-choice" side of the debate. While I am pro-life, I do recognize the situational ethics that are involved when it comes to specific cases such as rape, incest, and life of the mother. While I feel that pro-life arguments (while complicated arguments) can be made in regards to those specific situations, the purpose of this review is NOT to argue for pro-life or against abortion or to argue that an unborn fetus is a person, but to strictly critique Ray Comfort's film "180".To begin this review, let me first explain the positives of this film (which I would argue are few but will point them out anyway). The first thing that I felt the film did a good job at was it's production values. Ignoring for now the propagandistic nature of his presentation, one can see that Comfort and his crew put a lot of effort into their presentation. Nothing was said that was unclear, nor was there any miscommunication as to what they were arguing. The green screen that is used to make Comfort's point is put into good use, and the audience automatically can see what Comfort is attempting to do. Another positive thing I can say about the film is that Comfort does make valid points regarding the casual attitude have towards abortion. Abortion, I would argue, is not an issue that should be taken likely (with some people comparing it to a headache or an inconvience similar to a tumor), but an issue of whether or not having an abortion constitutes the killing of an innocent life. Abortion is an issue that needs to be taken seriously, and I feel Comfort does make a valid point in showcasing this casual attitude people have about abortion. However, with all that said and done, the film suffers greatly from strongly noticeable flaws.
The major flaw that I found with Comfort's film is that it's central argument is a huge non-sequitor. The first fourteen minutes of the film is Comfort interviewing various people and asking them about the holocaust and Hitler. What follows is mind boggling stupidity, as the majority of the people Comfort interviews claims to either never heard of Hitler, or "vaguely remember him." Either this is evidence that Comfort had actors play people who are this historically illiterate, purposely picked people this historically illiterate in order to try and make his argument work, or that he really did interview people THIS historically illiterate. I question the idea that people in everyday life would be historicall illiterate, especially considering that the story of Hitler, the Nazi's, and the Holocaust has entered our everyday language and culture (for example, when someone calls you Hitler, they are basically calling you evil). However, for the sake of the argument, we are going to grant Comfort that people can be this historically illiterate and that these interviews were not staged. How does people being ignorant about the horrors of holocaust follow that they must believe that abortion on the same level? To attempt to suppliment these interviews, Comfort attempts to bring in an interview with an anti-semetic neo-nazi named Steve and using him as a rhetorical framework to bring up Comfort's claim that Hitler hated the 10 commandments, hated Christianity, and used that a motivating factor in carrying out the holocaust. Being that I am not an expert on World War II history, I will not attempt to either say whether or not that Comfort's claims regarding Hitler in this aspect are accurate. Nevertheless, I will grant Comfort's claim strictly for the sake of the argument. Comfort then, after supplimenting the audience with these interviews and these claims about Hitler, along with graphic images of dead bodies from the holocaust, brings up two rhetorical questions, which are the following (paraphrased): 1) If you could go back in time and kill Hitler while he was still in his mother's womb, would you kill him so he couldn't have the opportunity to carry out mass genocide? and 2) If someone put a gun to your head and told you to bury jews alive, would you do it? Or would you attempt to save the jews? Once Comfort brings these points up, Comfort than suddenly sneaks in the topic of abortion and attempts to ask the audience (in this case, the people being interviewed) how their attitudes about the holocaust is suddenly not the same for abortion. The problem with this tactic is that while Comfort's point about the attitude of abortion is valid, it's a non-sequitor to argue "the holocaust is wrong, therefore abortion is wrong." Comfort presents this to the interviewees, but does not present a convincing argument as to why they should believe abortion is on the same level as the holocaust.
To get a better understanding as to why I see this as a fallacious argument, let me present Comfort's argument (as I understand it) in syllogistic form:
Premise 1: State sanctioned genocide (the holocaust) is morally wrong.
Premise 2: Abortion is state sanctioned genocide.
Conclusion: Abortion is morally wrong.
Now, before any of my fellow pro-lifers jump on my neck about this about how I'm wrong about this argument being fallacious, let me first unpack my argument. Syllogicially, this syllogism is valid, but it is not sound because premise 2 is problematic (as in barely, if at all, supported). Comfort does not successfully support premise 2 because he not adequately explained to his audience why abortion is one the same plane as state sanctioned genocide. Comfort irresponsibly jumps from one topic, then jumps to another, and expects his audience to automatically see how state sanctioned genocide and abortion (or more accurately, the pro-choice option) is on the same playing field. It does not help that Comfort has disingenuously gotten his interviewees to be placed in a state of mind about a particular topic (in this case, the holocaust and the idea of state sanctioned genocide) in order to get them to think about the topic of abortion, which clouds one's thinking regarding a particular topic because it does not allow time for one to really think through the morality of a specific topic. Another problem is that Comfort does not adequately explain why one should be against abortion if one is against state sanctioned genocide. The main central issue of the whole abortion controversy, when you break it down to the bare essential questions, is the question of whether or not an unborn baby at ANY stage of the pregnancy is a person (I argue that it is, but that's an argument for a different time). Ray Comfort does not address this question. According to the pro-choice argument, an unborn baby is not a person, and to even make a sound comparison between abortion and state sanctioned genocide, you must first convince the pro-choicer that an unborn baby is a person! This is why I believe that Ray Comfort's central argument is a non-sequitor. Even if we granted Ray Comfort's comparison, why should one OUGHT to be against abortion if that person doesn't believe an unborn baby is a person?
That being all said, Ray Comfort's film isn't entirely useless. It does make valid points regarding people's attitudes about the issue of abortion. However, because Comfort's main argument falls flat, I cannot recommend his film, even to people who are pro-life. Other (and better) sources that support the pro-life position are out there. Ray Comfort's film is not one of them.
