On Sunday, I received the following question: “In the 180 Movie, Ray Comfort compared abortion to the Holocaust. Is this a right comparison? Did Ray Comfort say anything wrong? What did you think of his gospel presentation?”
In case any of my readers are unfamiliar with the documentary, Ray Comfort walked the streets asking people their opinion on abortion before proving that their “pro-choice” potion is internally inconstant and grotesque. The video has since amassed over 420000 YouTube videos worldwide.
The query above includes three rather broad questions, so will best be addressed by overviewing the entire video. A few things to remember are (1) the video only showed scenes from each conversation (2) the purpose of the video is political: to combat abortion (3) Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen. No matter how much you know, you can always say things better if given even just 10 seconds to think.
1) Is it accurate to compare abortion to the Holocaust:
The video begun with host, Ray Comfort, randomly asking numerous American citizens what they knew about Adolf Hitler; the man responsible for killing over 6 million Jews during World War 2. Most interviewees had never heard of Hitler, some knew he was a world leader, while only a small minority knew of his atrocities. Conversely, German children are specifically taught about Hitler and his crimes to safeguard against another Holocaust. Comfort said, “Those who forget history, are destined to repeat it”. Adolf Hitler said “He alone who own the youth, gains the future”.
Hitler deceived the German people into believing that “the Jews are undoubtedly a race, but not human. They cannot be human in the sense of being in the image of God”. Similarly, abortion advocates have deceived people into believing that babies “are not human”. If babies are human, then abortion is murder, period. The Jews are people, therefore killing Jews is murder. Babies are human, therefore killing babies is murder. If life starts at conception, then the comparison is 100% correct. This is the point Comfort conveyed, which I will explain below.
2) Supporting the Premise:
Ray Comfort then asked those he interviewed the following question, from which the discussions continued. “Its 1943, A German officer is pointing a machine gun at you, and tells you to get in a bulldozer and drive it forward. In front of you there is a big pit. Hundreds of Jewish families have been shot. In the pit many of them are dead but some of them are still alive. Hitler tells you to bury them alive. You know if you say ‘no’ he will shoot you with his machine gun and someone else is going to do it [kill the Jews}. Would you do what he says? If you do what he says, he will let you live”.
I decided to evaluate six respondents one by one. Many more respondents changed their view on abortion to become pro-life, including some who’d personally had abortions or initially said unequivocally “I’m for abortion”. Admittedly, a small minority of people remained pro-abortion.
Respondent 1: In response to the above question, she answered “No – I would rather die not doing that”. From an anti-abortion position, how inconsistent would it then be for this person to believe that a baby should be aborted to save the life of the mother? It would equate to saying “I would hate to die having killed a complete stranger, but it would not bother me if I died knowing that I had killed my own child”. That this is the absurd logical conclusion of her response is confirmed in that she agreed that a baby is a baby in the womb.
This girl later affirmed belief in the existence of God. When asked why she would ‘advocate murder of a child in the womb, if God says do not murder’ (6th commandment) she replied that “abortion should be allowed (women’s choice) though I personally wouldn’t do it”. Comfort pointed out that this equates to saying I would not personally kill Jews but other people should be allowed to do it if they want to. To put it bluntly and from a Christian standpoint, she believes that other people should be allowed to get away with disobeying God. That will not be the story on the day of judgement.
Respondent 2: The most interesting respondent was a young blond wearing sunglasses. She answered the original question, which I will henceforth refer to as the “bulldozer predicament” by saying “I would only (drive the bulldozer) because of fear for my own life, feeling I had no other choice… what can one person do…everyone needed to rise up against him. Where was the world?” Firstly, does the fact that everyone else does something mean it is the right thing to do? That is an ad populum fallacy. Her action or lack thereof against Hitler is not a legitimate argument either way. Needless to say, she clearly admitted that driving the bulldozer would be wrong.
In repose to Comfort asking “Do you value human life”, she replied “I do value human life”, but then modified her answer to include the clause “it is a women’s right to choose”. Logically, this would mean that Hitler also had the right to choose. Comfort responded “Just as you felt strongly about the life of Jews and that we need to rise up as one person and speak against it, don’t you think we need to do the same thing when it comes to abortion.” She acknowledged this “parallel” to be “a valid point.”
Comfort continued by asking “do you think it’s a baby in womb?”, to which she responded “yes”. Next Comfort asked “what justification is there for killing a baby in the womb – can you think of one?” She could not “Um… for killing baby in the womb” **long pause** “Everyone’s situation is d…” She intended to say different, but Comfort interjected to ask “Give me a situation where it is justifiable… you can kill a baby because of…”. To this, she replied honestly “You know what - I can’t think of one.” From here she was convinced, she responded to his final question on abortion “Do you think you will vote and think differently” by saying “Yeah I definitely will. I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference”. She changed her stance on abortion from the mother can always choose, to abortion is a murderous Holocaust that should be actively opposed.
Just as Hitler convinced the German people that Jews were not human, so too have politicians convinced the populous that foetus’ are not human. Comfort convinced the respondent, we need to proclaim that abortion is wrong and educate people that and why abortion is wrong. This is precisely what Germany is continuing to do regarding the Holocaust.
Respondent 3: This respondent was a female in her thirties. She answered “I’d do it” to the bulldozer predicament; of abortion she said that “I think in some situations it can be necessary”. However, she then admitted the humanity of the child in the womb, and when Comfort asked her to “Finish this sentence for me… killing a baby in the womb is okay when”, she replied “never”. She was convinced, shown by her answering “Would you ever vote for anyone who is for the killing of children in the womb?” with a resounding no, and “Changed you mind about abortion?” with a resounding yes.
Respondent 4: This respondent was a man, likely in his twenties. He answered the bulldozer predicament with an unequivocal ‘no’. However, this respondent then gave an unusual answer as to whether abortion is wrong: he agreed that it is “not okay to kill child in womb”, but then said the mother has the right to abort her baby.
Comfort pointed out that this response equated to saying “What Hitler did was wrong. I think it’s his choice. I don’t think it is okay, but he did it. It was his choice to do so. He had the sanction of German people because they allowed him in. It was okay even though I don’t agree with it.” The respondent recognised that “Me saying that it is okay for someone to choose is the same thing as saying it is okay for Hitler to choose”. He changed his mind on abortion, to embrace pro-life.
Respondent 5: He answered “no” to the bulldozer predicament, then said of abortion it is “better to have a plan and give it thought” before undergoing an abortion. Comfort correctly pointed out that this equates to saying “Before you bury Jews, give thought, then you can bury them alive”. He accepted the legitimacy of this comparison, and became pro-life.
Respondent 6: This Asian lady, firstly stated her belief that “there is a foetus there not a baby”, but confessed that she did not know “when a foetus becomes a life.” Comfort then responded by way of analogy “I am a construction worker, I am going to blow up that building. There is a possibility that there is someone in there but I am going to blow it up anyway.” After a pause, she responded that abortion should happen if the baby would be born with birth defects, and therefore a low quality of life. To this, he asked her if it was okay that the Nazis killed kids with downs syndrome. She responded ‘no’, in acknowledgement that the analogies were both correct, and said that abortion was ‘never’ acceptable.
3) Where Comfort went wrong:
I remarked in my introduction that “Ray did not have the luxury of having time to think and respond behind a computer screen”. There were certainly occasions where he could have improved his phraseology or given a better response altogether, but overall he did a great job in applying the law of contradiction to abortion. However, while acknowledging that abortion was the topic of discussion, he needed to provide the biblical framework to tell exactly why abortion is wrong.
Abortion is not wrong because it can be legitimately compared to the Holocaust. Abortion is not wrong because it violates the law of non-contradiction. Abortion is not wrong because the pro-choice position is purely subjective. Don’t get me wrong, to condemn the Holocaust yet support abortion is contradictory, and the pro-choice position is purely subjective and therein contradictory; these are all valid arguments, but they are not the Biblical framework as to why abortion is sinful.
Abortion is sinful because people are from conception humans made in the image of God who commands that people are not to be murdered. Abortion is wrong because it transgresses the law of God, which expresses His holy and righteous character and standard. This is where Ray Comfort needed to begin: Christian morality does not start with “the Holocaust was wrong”; it starts with God as the standard of morality.
Ray Comfort convinced people that abortion is immoral and contradictory according to logic and their subjective standards. However, he failed to Biblically communicate why abortion is wrong, what standard abortion is wrong against, or show people how they are suppressing the truth of God by accepting morality but rejecting the necessary precondition for morality (God). The Bible was sometimes used as secondary. He would have swept the floor in a political debate, but would have been deducted marks in a theological essay.
Charles Spurgeon once said “Morality may keep you out of jail, but it takes the blood of Jesus Christ to keep you out of hell.” Comfort appealed to the morality and rationale of the respondents, when God’s standard should have been his starting point. This is evidenced by the nature of the responses of those who became pro-life, of which I will give two examples:
“I had just said about the Holocaust where was the world. If everyone was to band together and make a difference.” She saw abortion to be wrong because she in her conscience was convinced that the Holocaust was wrong. She changed her mind due to logic, not conviction of sin. “Me saying that it is okay for someone to choose is the same thing as saying it is okay for Hitler to choose”. This man saw abortion to be wrong because he saw it illogical to be against the Holocaust yet for abortion. The answer lacks a Biblical framework as to why either of them are wrong; the guy got educated on logic, not sin.
I remarked earlier that “If life starts at conception, then the comparison is 100% correct.” The comparison is 100% correct, but that the comparison is correct does not make either abortion or the Holocaust right or wrong. They are both wrong because murder is lack of conformity to the character of God. What would Comfort have said to someone who supported the Holocaust?
While recognising that the focus of the video was to raise political awareness that abortion is murder, a Christian in bringing every thought captive to Christ, should make God, not logic the final arbiter of truth. Ray Comfort separated morality from the foundation of morality.
Ray said that “As we spoke about abortion it often lead to the issue of morals.” The issue of morals should have been where Ray started, not where he ended up; abortion should have been the example he used within this framework, not the framework itself. He could make logical points, but a logically constructed tower without a foundation cannot stand. He needed to prove that (1) life starts at conception (2) babies are human (3) murder, therefore abortion is wrong (4) because God is the standard of morality, not because of a common belief that the Holocaust was an atrocity.
4) What about his gospel presentation:
I noted earlier that Ray convinced people that abortion is wrong, yet did not convince them it is sin against God. I explained that the former is not the launching pad to the later, but an example to be used when proclaiming the later.
That they believed in morality, yet suppressed the source of morality is most clearly shown by how they responded when Ray Comfort finally explored why abortion is wrong. The respondent wanted to feel as if they were doing the right thing, yet did not want accountability to God. They saw themselves as good people getting better, not as sinners under the wrath of God.
Comfort asked one person “Do you believe God exists”, he answered with a dual denial of the existence of God and any sort of afterlife. Ray then asked a second question “If there is a heaven, do you think you’d get there. Are you a good person”, to which he responded “Yeah, I’m a good person.” This person was a Holocaust denying Neo-Nazi.
A girl who changed her mind to oppose abortion said “Oh yeah – for sure [I would get to heaven] God wouldn’t be mad at me.” What? So you supported murder, yet God does not care? This is a textbook answer of a humanist who likes to think of themselves as moral and logical, while suppressing the foundation for morality in unrighteousness.
Ray Comfort then correctly told many “You’re a self-admitted lying thief and blasphemous adulterer and you have to face God at judgement day and the thought of being morally responsible to him is abhorrent to him, so you deny his existence.” To most people, they admitted that they would go to hell if God judged according to His commandments, being confronted with the truth. Some of them admitted that the prospect of hell frightened them. But this is not faith.
When it came to the blond mentioned earlier (affectionately called respondent 2 by myself), Ray asked “Does it concern you if you died today and God gave you justice you’d end up in hell”, to which she replied “I think God’s a loving God… and he would see my heart”, to which Ray replied “He does and he sees a liar and adulterer and blasphemer at heart”. He then presented her with the gospel. She listened intently to the gospel message (unlike the others), and as with all the others, I pray that God uses 180 as the seed to grant her repentance.
When Ray presented the gospel message, he did a very good job, incorporating all the key elements of sin and salvation, Christ and Him crucified. My friends concern was regarding what he thought to be an Arminian slant in the gospel message.
Telling the unregenerate sinner to repent and believe is not Arminian. It is Biblical. If a Calvinist does not do this, they should certainly learn to. Telling the unregenerate sinner that if they repent and believe, they will be saved is also Biblical. You should give the imperative command, without making it an indicative that they can believe apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Also, Ray Comforts is not Arminian: he would never say “God is knocking at the door waiting for you to let Him into your heart.”
The only part of Ray’s gospel presentation that I disagree with is “Jesus stepped in and paid you fine on the cross.” Jesus may have paid for that persons sins on the cross, or he might not have. We do not know the elect from the reprobate. If Jesus died for those who will go to hell, then God would be punishing them for the exact sins that Christ paid for. That would make God unjust. The gospel is not who Jesus died for, it is what Jesus work accomplished - that Christ alone is sufficient for salvation. We should not proclaim “Jesus died for you” but (and expound of course) “If you have trust in Jesus Christ alone (Who He is, and what He did), you will be saved”.
Ray also said “Not willing that any perish”, undoubtedly quoting 2 Peter 3:9. The verse certainly cannot mean that God decreed to save everyone, yet will not save some. It regards God’s perceptive will, that He wants everyone to obey His command to repent and believe (read John Calvin). I believe this is how Ray Comfort was using the verse.
My evaluation:
Everything Ray Comfort said about abortion was 100% correct. The comparison to the Holocaust, the subjectivity of pro-choice, that abortion is murder, that abortion transgresses the 6th commandment. His presentation would have been ever better if he started with God’s revelation of His standards.
In all, Ray Comfort has made a phenomenal documentary that will be of priceless benefit in combating abortion. We have already seen its effects in challenging and convincing many of pro-life, and many pro-lifers have found some helpful points in the video. I hope that the video helps create inroads politically, by influencing people to prioritise voting for pro-life candidates, and to lobby and campaign against abortion.
Conclusion:
After six weeks, a baby has eyes, hands and heartbeat. Over 53 million unborn babies have been killed in the Holocaust of abortion in the first 37 years after Roe vs. Wade in the USA alone.
A left wing politician once said to me “History will recognise our movement [pro-abortion] as the great battle for women’s liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mount Sinai. You are a tyrant who orders women to do the very things one doesn’t like [have a baby]”.
Change a few nouns and you have the actual quote “History will recognise our movement as the great battle for humanity’s liberation, a liberation from the curse of Mount Sinai. God is a tyrant who orders one to do the very things one doesn’t like”.
That was said by Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler hated the 10 commandments, he hated the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicted his political agenda to murder Jews. Abortion advocates hate the 10 commandments, they hate the command “You shall not murder” because it contradicts their political agenda to murder the unborn.
“Over 53 million human beings have been murdered in Americas holocaust, sanctioned by political leaders who have been put into power by American people. Never give your vote to any politician who advocates the murder of a child in the womb”. Do not vote for Barrack Obama and others who support abortion. Let us vote them out of power, to ensure that out textbooks recognise abortion for what is it: a Holocaust against the unborn.
A baby is a person from conception (Psalm 51:5 139:13-16). Therefore, a baby is in the image of God from conception (James 3:9). What does God say about shedding the blood of a person in God's image (Genesis 9:6)? God condemns it!
As every single baby is a person made in God's image, what must God think of abortion and infanticide (Genesis 9:6)? God views abortion and infanticide as murder.
Do you support abortion and agree with Hitler’s actions during the Holocaust, or do you agree with God that the Holocaust was murder and Abortion is murder? There is no third option.
(C), Jonathan Wiliams, October 2011.
