Some ads are provided by Google
They are not endorsed by The New American
| Pro-Life Movie 180 Goes ‘Viral,’ Changes Hearts & Minds | | Print | |
| Written by Dave Bohon | ||||||||
| Saturday, 05 November 2011 18:00 | ||||||||
|
But the video, which is garnering attention worldwide for how effectively it reveals the murderous truth about abortion, is not only a YouTube phenomenon. Comfort said that his ministry is using it on college campuses, and pro-life activists have been purchasing DVDs to distribute to others. “It’s not only being watched online, people are buying it to give away,” Comfort said in a recent press release. “We have sold more than 150,000 copies in a matter of weeks. One small church purchased 16,800.” Trackback(0)
Comments (4)
![]()
George Tolhurst
said:
|
|
... I've watched The Silent Scream. Now I need to watch 180 as well. This well written article brought a tear to my eye. We really do need the electable very pro-life Doctor Ron Paul for our next President. I believe that he will do his upmost to stop the murder of these unborn babies and certainly work harder than any of the other candidates. |
Marcy Fleming
said:
|
RON PAUL IS OPPOSED TO ANY FEDERAL ANTI-ABORTION AMENDMENT He opposes Federal amendments period. His mentor, Murray Rothbard, had the best pro-abortion choice argument ever in The Ethics Of Liberty (pages 98-100) available from Amazon and elsewhere. Check it out and ignore emotionalistic agit-prop disinformation flicks by the fetus fetishists. |
Ken E.
said:
|
@ Marcy Fleming - Have you even watched the movie, Marcy? That's what this article is about, after all. BTW, I've read some of your comments on related stories at this site in the past. You've certainly made your viewpoint well known here. And you know how to express it forcefully. But for the life of me, when I read your comments, all I really hear from you is, "I have the right to sex without consequences!" Well, ... all of our actions have consequences, some more so than others. I can't change that. Us right-wingers didn't make that up. And sex has big consequences, it seems. For you, that includes the possibility of becoming pregnant. For me, it includes possibly getting someone pregnant. Why not then just abstain from sex until you can handle becoming a mother? Faced with the possibility of impregnating someone, and knowing that I'm not ready to be a father makes me choose to 'keep it in my pants'; why can't you just choose to 'keep your pants on'? Knowing that that choice exists for you is what makes me conclude that what you really want is sex without consequences. |
Marcy Fleming
said:
|
KEN E Totally Misses The Point I never wrote that there were no consequences for having sex. Since only women can get pregnant from sex they are the only ones that the right to decide whether to carry to term or not. If men could become pregnant these laws would never have existed. Your libelous insinuation that I must be promiscuous because I advocate the individual rights of the woman to bear or not is an ad hominem fallacy. You don't play the game, pregnancy, and you don't get to make the rules. If I drink too much I can abort it with two glasses of water before I go to bed and that is the responsible thing to do. The irresponsible thing is for loose women to have children because they are slipshod about sex. Furthermore, why shouldn't any woman abstain from sex unless you regard procreation as the only purpose of sex ? But it's not. You can use birth control and not get someone pregnant. You present us with a false dichotomy, having children or abstaining from sex. Most people most of the time do not have sex to have children. Those who do are free to do so. I never used vulgar language like 'keep it in your pants.' I wouldn't presume to dictate to you and I appreciate the same courtesy back. |





Since its launch on YouTube on September 26, the pro-life documentary 

