Regardless of whether one is Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, we hope this will at least help people to understand the importance of philosophy, ethics, and metaphysics to the Abortion issue. Thank you Trent and Dustin for the interesting exchange of ideas and also to Majesty of Reason for hosting it.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.” Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous! An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”. One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood! At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.

@jaskitstepkit7153

Жыл бұрын

If pro life position is correct pro-abortion people are in quite a bad spot.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@marksandsmith6778 Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. As a strict vegan, I sometimes feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family. See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk. To read “F.I.S.H”, which is, without a shadow of a doubt, by FAR the most important work of literature ever composed, Email the address listed on the "About" page of my KZread homepage, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

@@marksandsmith6778 you clearly paid zero attention, then.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@marksandsmith6778 do you have any ACTUAL arguments to counter my perfect and pure pronouncements/teachings, or do you intend to simply make nonsensical assertions, or even more inane, make “ad hominem” attacks, Silly Sinful Slave? 🙄

I'm now at Dustin's opening statement and it's very comprehensive, on a side note I also love his choice of font and background colour.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

And EXCRUCIATINGLY ignorant. 🤡

Great discussion! Thanks for hosting it, Joe!

Guys, what an incredible conversation. Joe, I loved the soccer bonus content! Killer tune as well man.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

❤️❤️❤️

Loving the discussion so far!

This is the best abortion debate I've seen on KZread. It's criminal how few views this has.

@rkdeshdeepak4131

3 ай бұрын

You should watch Dr Avi vs Vegan Gains

Such great content. This is way better than a debate. Thanks for bringing some substance out here.

Good moderation. You made the discussion better than it otherwise would be

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

🙂❤️

Great discussion. Also insane knuckle at 2:00:11

Wow, interesting! I'm excited to watch this one.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

Жыл бұрын

Joe's face/reaction at 56:48. haha I wonder what he was thinking. Edit: He did it again at 1:04:23

Not philosophy-related, and I havent even watched the video yet, but I am always happy to see a W&M alum (Dustin)

Debate? What debate? I'm here for the Bonus Soccer.

Debates need to be completely replaced with discussions like this one. But in my experience, these types of discussions only happen in philosophical circles.

I so appreciate this discussion. And the fact that you made it a discussion rather than a debate I particularly like. I think that helped me keep my defenses lowered. I have just recently come out of Evangelicalism and was staunchly pro-life. I was particularly passionate about pro-life apologetics, and I knew almost all of the arguments Trent Horn is using here. But I also knew that the personhood issue was (at least potentially) the crux of the debate. And honestly I am feeling the weight of Dustin Crummets arguments. I’m curious, if anyone knows, has anyone considered a “human relational” argument for personhood? That human persons not only are persons because of conscious factors, but are persons in how they relate to other people. Eg. my grandma is still my grandma even if she’s comatose. I’m less than an amateur in philosophy, so this might be quite a simple “argument” of mine. But has anyone thought of this? Thank you @MajestyOfReason for facilitating this!

Wow, this was an amazing discussion. Trent - do you have a follow up video to this? Dustin brought up some good ideas that I have never thought of before.

@rebelresource

Жыл бұрын

@majesty of reason you aware of any follow-up from Trent?

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

@@rebelresource I don't think Trent has even shared the video on social media, or anything like that, much less commented on it (someone correct me if I'm wrong). I will probably make a follow up of my own on my own channel at some point.

@rebelresource

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett your argument seems really good and Trent seemed really stumped. I would be interested if he had a follow up post debate.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

​@@rebelresource Trent's opening arguments basically stand or fall on whoever has the correct theory of personal identity. So you can lookup the arguments against Dustin's view of personal identity (substance dualism) to see what Trent's response would look like. You can also look up arguments for a view of personal identity that works with Trent's arguments/the pro-life view (hylomorphic dualism, animalism, etc.).

@rebelresource

Жыл бұрын

@@mnmmnm925 Trent's view of personal identity is that we are organisms not brain cells?

I really like the fact that Dustin avoided all the potential red herrings related to "ensoulment", just by pretending that the mind is in the cerebrum. Ultimately, everything he said about the cerebrum can be rephrased in terms of "the soul" (as a substance), but thinking about the cerebrum made the whole discussion so much more tangible and allowed him to successfully use parody arguments (parody between "the organism" and "the cerebrum"). Excellent strategy that made the discussion go so much further than if he defended from the position of substance dualism

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

I'm glad someone else appreciates Dustin's sensitivity to dialectical context :)

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

mind: Although the meaning of “mind” has already been provided in Chapter 05 of this “Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, it shall prove beneficial to further clarify that definition here in the Glossary. It is NOT implied that mind is the sum of the actual thoughts, the sensations, the memories, and the abstract images that inhabit the mental element (or the “space”) that those phenomena occupy, but the faculty itself. This mental space has two phases: the potential state (traditionally referred to as the “unconscious mind”), where there are no mental objects present (such as in deep sleep or during profound meditation), and the actualized state (usually referred to as the “conscious mind”), where the aforementioned abstract objects occupy one’s cognition (such as feelings of pain). Likewise, the intellect and the pseudo-ego are the containers (or the “spaces”) that hold conceptual thoughts and the sense of self, respectively. It is important to understand that the aforementioned three subsets of consciousness (mind, intellect, and false-ego) are not gross, tangible objects. Rather, they are subtle, intangible objects, that is, objects that can be perceived solely by an observant subject. The three subsets of consciousness transpire from certain areas of the brain (a phenomenon known as “strong emergence”), yet, as stated above, are not themselves composed of gross matter. Only a handful of mammal species possess intelligence (that is, abstract, conceptual thought processes), whilst human beings alone have acquired the pseudo-ego (the I- thought, which develops in infancy, following the id stage). Cf. “matter, gross”, “matter, subtle”, “subject”, and “object”. In the ancient Indian systems of metaphysics known as “Vedānta” and “Sāṃkhya”, mind is considered the sixth sense, although the five so-called “external” senses are, nonetheless, nominally distinguished from the mind, which is called an “internal” sense. This seems to be quite logical, because, just as the five “outer” senses involve a triad of experience (the perceived, the perception, and the perceiver), so too does the mind comprise a triad of cognition (the known, the knowing, and the knower). See also Chapter 06. P.S. There is much confusion (to put it EXTREMELY mildly) in both Western philosophy and in the so-called “Eastern” philosophical traditions, between the faculty of mind (“manaḥ”, in Sanskrit) and the intellect (“buddhiḥ”, in Sanskrit). Therefore, the following example of the distinction ought to help one to understand the difference between the two subtle material elements: When one observes a movie or television show on the screen of an electronic device that one is holding in one’s hands, one is cognizing auditory, textural, and visual percepts, originating from external objects, which “penetrate” the senses of the body, just as is the case with any other mammal. This is the component of consciousness known as “mind” (at least according to the philosophical terminology of this treatise, which is founded on Vedānta, according to widely-accepted English translations of the Sanskrit terms). However, due to our intelligence, it is possible for we humans (and possibly a couple of other species of mammals, although to a far less-sophisticated degree) to construct conceptual thoughts on top of the purely sensory percepts. E.g. “Hey - look at that silly guy playing in the swimming pool!”, “I wonder what will happen next?”, or “I hate that the murderer has escaped from his prison cell!”. To provide an even more organic illustration of how the faculty of mind “blends” into the faculty of the intellect, consider the following example: When the feeling of hunger (or to be more precise, appetite) appears in one’s consciousness, that feeling is in the mind. When we have the thought, “I’m hungry”, that is a conceptual idea that is a manifestation of the intellect. So, as a general rule, as animals evolve, they develop an intellectual faculty, in which there is an increasingly greater perception of, or KNOWLEDGE of, the external world (and in the case of at least one species, knowledge of the inner world). In addition to these two faculties of mind and intellect, we humans possess the false-ego (“ahaṃkāraḥ”, in Sanskrit). See Chapter 10 regarding egoity.

@tymmiara5967

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices And how exactly does that relate to the above video or Dustin Crummett's dialectical sensitivity? I struggle to see the relevance

@Paradoxarn.

Жыл бұрын

Maybe, but it also made Dustin's arguments much less compelling since they then seem to depend on the scientifically false claim that the mind is in the cerebrum.

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

@@Paradoxarn. they don't--I think I even explicitly said they don't (but maybe I merely meant to say that). It just makes the argument easier to present. (I agree that there are animals which have minds but not cerebrums, so there is no *essential* connection. But I also think you are vastly overstating the case for thinking that in typical humans, the mind--in the sense I mean it--is not localized in the cerebrum).

Hi Joe! I hope you respond… I really wanted to ask you a question: what do you think of eternal conscious torment? Like, what do you think of some people saying that “it’s just” just because God is just, so it necessarily needs to be just. Furthermore, people who say that God sets the standard of right and so on… Who say that what we may judge as just and righteous, doesn’t even apply to god, because above us and beyond us; even “well it’s wrong for us to not prevent sickness when it’s in our power and not to our detriment - so we ought to do it; but this not apply to god - who can inflict or perpetuate or allow suffering and so on for our, or his own benefit, and he’s still perfectly good - for example, allowing sickness to build souls etc”; and so, hell would also be just and good for this higher reason? Please, btw, this is a serious question and not a troll post. I couldn’t really think of anyone to try and direct this except to you. Thank you for your considerations

By my lights, Dustin isn’t able to claim the ‘member of a particular kind’ argument for valuing underdeveloped (mentally deficient) humans the way Trent can. 1. I think the basis of his whole position is that it’s “x” level of psychological development that warrants value. So any human that fails that standard, fails to be eligible to receive value. The value is contingent upon achieving “x” psychological capacity. 2. His metaphysics, I believe, rejects realism or at least kinds or natures in general. Again, on that basis the human, or to use his metaphysics-the stuff arranged humanwise, either has manifested x level of psychological development & therefore moral worth or it hasn’t. In contrast, Trent’s worldview includes kinds, souls (form of the body) & therefore can legitimately claim that a being of a certain kind who has failed to reach ‘x’ retains its moral value bc the value flows from being a member of a the human species not in the obtainment of a particular level of psychological capacity. Just my take.

@catkat740

Жыл бұрын

Yes. And then it’s problematic because Dustin can’t give a concrete age for when that “mind” comes into existence. If that’s the crux of his whole argument, isn’t that kind of important?

1:10:53 -- Yes, it is a numerically different brain. As far as I know, all the atoms of our bodies are replaced after some time, and that includes the atoms in the brain. Therefore, unless you accept that the mind is separate from the brain, your brain now is not numerically identical to the one you had when you were 3 years old, for example. What is preserved is the configuration of your brain (i.e., the way your neurons and synapses were connected/wired).

@Justinsweh

Жыл бұрын

That's qualitative identity you're speaking of. Numerically, it is the same brain.

@CosmoPhiloPharmaco

Жыл бұрын

@@Justinsweh On the contrary: qualitative identity is being preserved (i.e., the way the brain is configured). The numerical identity is not preserved, since the atoms are not the same.

@Justinsweh

Жыл бұрын

@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Ah, whoops. I meant it's the same mind.

Hi Joe, really enjoy your videos! I have a random question sort of related to the video but how do you not get burnt out with philosophy? I'm not a philosopher (I took 2 philosophy modules at uni) but when it comes to important topics such as abortion there are so many arguments, theories, opinions etc that I just get tired with it. I could spend 5 years studying a topic such as abortion, come to a conclusion that I think is true but could never be really certain of it. Then maybe a really good refutation comes along, and I spend another five years studying and come to a different conclusion, and on and on it goes. I don't really know how to phrase the question but there are so many arguments and theories out there coming from all different perspectives, how on earth can one keep on top of them all? It seems to be a game that can never be won. Sorry if that makes little sense lol! Any advice or thoughts? Thanks! P.S. Arsenal to win the league?

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

There are really no knockdown arguments on either side. Applied ethics is one very small but enclave in ethics, and ethics is just one field in philosophy. If applied ethics bores you, and you don't feel as though you might be able to reach a conclusion that is satisfactory, there are always other things to study.

@DavidJ329

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingBlast2Fan Thanks for the reply. My question is more about philosophy in general. Applied ethics definitely doesn't bore me. I guess my issue is that there are so many people smarter than I with all sorts of different views. How can we really ever know what's true? I'm probably having some sort of existential crisis, but I just fail to see how anyone can be confident in their beliefs as there are no knockdown arguments either side.

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

@@DavidJ329 Ah, I see. Well, goodness, your inquiry raises many questions and I’m not sure a KZread comment would do you justice. If experiencing philosophical skepticism could be described as having an existential crisis, then yes, that’s what’s happening to you. What sorts of truths, if any, are you confident of? Do you think that truth doesn’t exist, or that philosophical arguments are so weak that no justification exists to warrant belief on any issue, and we should just generally suspend our judgement in most cases?

@DavidJ329

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingBlast2Fan I'm confident in a number of truths. Truth exists, I exist, I'm typing a comment on KZread right now. I wouldn't say philosophical arguments are weak but rather when does a good argument become justification for believing it as true? You are probably right that comments on KZread won't do this issue justice so if you have any recommendations for books/videos etc that would be great. Thanks :)

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

@@DavidJ329 My reply to you was flagged by KZread because it contained links. 😔

Joe, you would consider yourself pro-life, correct? Has anything in this discussion pushed you at all toward one position or another? As always, great content!

If you close your eyes, Trent Horn sounds a lot like Sean Carroll, lol

@VeNeRaGe

Жыл бұрын

lmao xD

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

Holy crab! That’s so true. Now I can’t un-hear it.

@averagejoe2232

Жыл бұрын

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns there’s some universe where Trent is a chill atheist physicist and Sean is a witty Catholic apologist, I swear.

@averagejoe2232

Жыл бұрын

@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns He also looks like Miles Teller. The dude is legendary.

@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns

Жыл бұрын

@@averagejoe2232 I hope he’s aware lol

@TheCounselofTrent @dustin.crummett Professor Crummett, I am wondering if the distinction between mind and organism is moot if it is not possible to say when the mind begins. Surely specifying a beginning to the mind is important if you are suggesting treating minds morally different than how one ought to treat a biological human organism. Thoughts?

@catkat740

Жыл бұрын

I thought the same thing! This is a discussion about the ethics of abortion! Dustin can’t say when it’s right and when it’s wrong.

I’d be interested to hear that they think of split brain research and the indication that perhaps there is more than one entity independently thinking within each of us.

@AkiraIsMissing

Жыл бұрын

Great, let's make suicide illegal next too!

Awesome discussion

I learned a lot from the three and am Catholic, but Trent used a bunch of red herrings and did not sufficiently answer some of Dustin’s objections, so Trent made Trent’s case look weaker than Dustin’s case. What is most detrimental against Trent’s case is when Trent admitted that one organism can be two persons…

NGL you got some good soccer moves. EDIT: I am stealing some of them

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

Much love

It occurred to me early on that this question about membership (in a set H corresponding with humans) was going to be central. Dustin seemed to handwave it somewhat, deferring to the difficulty everyone faces in answering it. He did cleverly intuit that Horn would rely on an Aristotelian causal story for defining membership in H when he pointed out teleology (final causation). The example of a genetically deficient human, such that there is no innate potential for him or her to be a rational animal in actuality, is a very pertinent one for this debate. So, it is clear that materially and formally, this sort of individual would be excluded from human kind all else being equal. Is telos all that we have? I had somewhat expected Horn to rely on a like-begets-like principle here and bring in efficient causation as the second pillar. The example person would, therefore, still be a member of the kind H in virtue of being born to human parents. This seems like a fairly strong reason for accepting that the genetically deficient offspring is accidentally unrational but still substantially human. This is because humans do not beget members of other kinds than themselves.

If we're going scifi, I'd like to throw hive minds and colony minds into the mix (hive: like the Borg from Star Trek. Colony: like the Tines from Fire Upon the Deep)

1:12:55 - I think this is a naïve view of physical objects, and it seems to require that Dustin believes that every object has some kind of "soul" to unify it as one object. Car-souls, tree-souls, etc.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

Dustin doesn’t believe in any composite material objects. In his view, there are no trees, cars, etc. - there are only simple particles arranged tree-wise, car-wise, etc. So they don’t require a soul to unify them - there is no “them”. Only conscious things have souls, for Dustin - souls are defined, in his view, as the subjects of conscious experience.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

For more on Dustin’s view here and the reasons one can offer on its behalf, see the links in the description ❤️

@OriginalWinProductions

Жыл бұрын

Based and metrological nihilism pilled.

This was a great conversation and very balanced. Thanks for facilitating Joe. I do worry sometimes that having this discussion in the abstract misses some of the very real and (I would argue) oppressive consequences of Trent's positions playing out literally as you taped this in the USA. But a good conversation nonetheless and Trent and Dustin did a good job. Thanks.

@chrismathew2295

Жыл бұрын

If you can exercise some degree of intellectual empathy, you'd understand that, on the pro-life view, permitting abortion just is to permit a state-sanctioned regime of wanton infanticide with a higher death count than the Holocaust. Pro-lifers are similarly concerned about enacted pro-abortion policies with grave moral scruples.

@Giorginho

Жыл бұрын

Ok baby murderer

@jaskitstepkit7153

Жыл бұрын

@@chrismathew2295 The consequences are very severe if pro-life is correct indeed.

Ta to all. It's a shame that the discussion had to end when it did as I'd have been interested in hearing Trent's views on when violence would be justified to prevent abortion. It seems to me that in order to be consistent he'd have to take the view that if it's acceptable to take a life to save another then that should apply to a one day old fertilizer egg( I'm not convinced that on his view it shouldn't even apply to someone who merely prevents a couple from having sex, or a doctor who refuses to fertilize a egg in a lab. ). Also I'd have liked a fuller response to the fire in the clinic scenario. In general it seems to me that the whole abortion debate is badly conducted on both sides. The claim that a non sentint 2day old fertilizer egg is somehow equivalent to a person, simply because of its potential future is not one that I believe most people would accept as reasonable. Equally the idea that abortion should be available up to 5seconds before natural childbirth would occur is also preposterous. The answer must lue somewhere in between .Which is what abortion law in most westernised countries does. It seems perfectly reasonable to have a debate about where the line should be drawn,(probably on developmental state rather than a simple fixed time period ) but for this to happen it is necessary for those on both sides to be willing to actually listen to the other sides argument and accept that their own personal position is just that. A personal view...For me personally it seems obvious that killing, for example, an adult chimpanzee is far more morally reprehensible than taking the morning after pill. I accept that some may disagree, but for them to claim that I am simply wrong and that I could not present a reasonable case for that position ( which they should take account of,just as I should take account of their views) is what has led us to a situation where abortion is viewed as a simple polarised issue . Neither moral nor ethical questions are generally that simple. If I am wrong in that, then why is this channel being produced and why are we watching it?

@alexsmith7302

10 ай бұрын

The solution that works just fine is accepting fetus as a person, agreeing with pro-lifers, yet still maintaining abortion as permissible because the mother isn't obligated to sacrifice her body to bring this being to life (as with examples of the violinist). I think that Boonin did a great job advancing this argument further. You can be blamed for being an asshole if you chose not to sacrifice your body to save someone else (especially if you agreed to save them and opted out later on), but enforcing it is ridiculous and unjustified.

We don't value human beings because they belong to the species of homo sapiens. We do it because they're persons. If a human ceases to be a person, e.g., after brain death there is no moral obligation to preserve the human body-apart from sentimentality, a family’s attachment to the body of their deceased loved one. But what made that body valuable is gone. Then Trent gives a very implausible account of personhood. Personhood is something individual, yet he's defined it as being something collective: "belonging to a rational species." His view succeeds in giving worth to unborn humans, but under his definition a body post brain death would be a person, too. I’m highly skeptical of a definition that would endow a braindead body, a fetus, and a live, functioning adult human with personhood, particularly if it means valuing them all equally. And I do wonder, what makes a species rational? Perhaps being comprised of rational beings, i.e. persons. So his view might presuppose a view of personhood that is more in line with the mainstream understanding. The argument about organisms seems to suffer the same problem as the one about humans. Again, it doesn’t seem as though there is something bad about killing an organism. What is wrong is killing an organism if they’re a person. The impairment argument is a bit unclear. Trent thinks that the reason we would be averse to seeing genetically modified humans as slaves is because we interfered with their natural development. But that doesn’t seem to be the reason. I think we would object to it because these genetically modified humans are still persons. The reason they don’t object to their slavery is that they have been programmed to be obedient. But perhaps we should free them even though they don’t feel hurt, and maybe once they’re free they’re going to be able to enjoy liberty even though they didn’t see anything wrong with their previous condition in servitude. The only argument that seems to have force is “the future like ours,” which is a few decades old by now, and which has received many responses in the literature. These are my notes on Trent’s opening. Looking forward to Dustin's opening, as he is an expert in the field!

@brnmte

Жыл бұрын

> We don't value human beings because they belong to the species of homo sapiens. We do it because they're persons. That assertion should be challenged. We can and do ascribe value to other human beings as our relatives before their personhood is ever a consensus. We can choose to devalue their worth likewise, with developmental arguments. Regardless, they're human. Why shouldn't we value the life of other human beings for belonging to our species? To me, this seems more foundational than if we're developed enough into persons to be worth sparing from abortion or infanticide. If we shouldn't be valued as such for belonging to the same species, there's little to say we couldn't also apply proportionate worth based on degrees of rationality. (ie: killing an Alzheimer's patient being less frowned up on than a healthy adult) I also don't see a double standard with brain dead patients, given that it's artificially sustaining life beyond ordinary means.

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

@@brnmte Speciesism has never made sense to me. I believe it's impermissible to kill animals. I never made any sort of claim regarding rationality. That was Trent. Humans with severe Down syndrome are still persons. It's not that brain death leads to a double standard. Rather, it's a weird outcome that results from the position that seems extremely unintuitive, and that usually means we have to change our theory.

@brnmte

Жыл бұрын

@@RagingBlast2Fan > Speciesism has never made sense to me. I believe it's impermissible to kill animals. All humans beings are animals. Is it impermissible to kill us because we're animals, or because we can be considered persons? > Humans with severe Down syndrome are still persons. You and I believe so. What's to keep someone else from believing they aren't fully persons, and shouldn't be given the same rights and protections? I see our shared humanity as a safeguard against this form of discrimination, that is ultimately rooted in ableism.

@Yeatlova

Жыл бұрын

About trent's personhood argument, in order to compensate with a braindead body, I think he would say although they are a person and should have a right to life, that person does not have a right to be rescued. Although it would be morally virtuous to keep that body alive, it is not obligatory. He might also handle this by saying when he unplug from the body, we do not intend that persons death, rather it might be the case we merely let that person die because they might have became to much of a burden. In his discussion with TBS 10 years ago i think, trent says a rational species are species that have an understanding of justice and morality. He admits it might include apes, but he also thinks that isn't a problem he would just say ape abortions are bad. However one can object to this by saying although apes sometimes show concepts of morality and justice, it doesn't follow they fully understand these concepts, just like how infants might show concepts of morality and justice, but they aren't rational.

@kimmyswan

15 күн бұрын

@@Yeatlova are you suggesting that a human organism whose body is kept alive by machines, is a person? Is there a specific part that constitutes the “person”? If you started harvesting organs would their personhood persist? At what point do we cease to be a person?

This debate is literally the encyclopedia to the philosophy of abortion. Horn and Crummet are absolutely brilliant. I really tilt towards Crummet's position, but I think Horn could still make a probability argument. Horn could argue, even if abortion is likely not murder, abortion is still unjustified. So long as there's a reasonable probability (Ex. 15%-20%) abortion is murder, abortion is unjustified in most instances.

47:16 This is really interesting to me. I wonder how many people would say that we are how Dustin describes versus we are more than the sum of our parts. 🤔

I don't believe in equivalence (at all points in the pregnancy, anyways), but even if I did I think the objection in the opening regarding "inconsistencies" overlooks a vast number of considerations that are involved in this discussion on the prolife side, and which prolifers understand as a significant part of the discussion, particularly if they consider the violinist argument (in the case of rape, particularly) as worth some consideration. I find that point very weak, and a bit beside the point.

A twist on the IVF clinic question: if you somehow had the choice to save the five year old or you could save 100 implanted fetuses which are in the womb (5 days old)...

@timgoodliffe

Жыл бұрын

I had a thought late a couple nights ago, Would you put out a currently burning IVF clinic, or a fire that has the potential to end a human life

@pigetstuck

Жыл бұрын

@@timgoodliffe I believe that is the standard scenario that my question is based on...

@physics_philosophy_faith

Жыл бұрын

@@timgoodliffe Those are the same scenarios, since embryos are living human beings. Normally it's an IVF clinic compared to a toddler

@physics_philosophy_faith

Жыл бұрын

To the OP, 100 fetuses

I love the fact that Joe is a machine of logic and reason and loves football at same time lol that was simply a 2 hours debate about abortion and he just casually shows him playing at the end of the video 😂😂

genuinely great debate, I ended up on Trent's side, but most arguments from both sides where very well thought out :)

@macdougdoug

11 ай бұрын

I'm just 4 minutes in and Trent has already made 2 fallacies in his 1st argument : Abortion is not intent to kill for the same reasons he uses that unplugging someone from life support is not intent to kill. And accepting that there is an ethical argument against abortion (eg. it is intent to kill) does not mean that you must be against abortion - because you can also accept that the reasons for an abortion outweigh the arguments against (eg. bodily autonomy, protecting the health of the mother etc)

@yurineri2227

11 ай бұрын

@@macdougdoug If you are just got four minutes in you should not nick-pick someone's general summary of their argument Also, I disagree with your objections - abortion does have the intention of killing, if we use the doctrine of double effect as it is usually am I tested when talking about cases such as this, then abortion does have the intention of killing, abortion always leads to death, unplugging does not always lead t death so the acts are carefully different That's the reason why when a doctor tried to euthanize his patient and "end her suffering" with potassium cyanide, his defense of double effect didn't hold up in court, potassium cyanide only serves to stop the heart, you can't claim double effect when the nature of the act always results in death and doesn't provide any type of life-saving benefit that could offer an equivalent benefit I also disagree with the second objection, if abortion is the killing of another PERSON, then you can not kill an embryo for the same reason you can not kill a kid that accidentally wonders in your home, both of those defenses are inadequate against a person

@macdougdoug

11 ай бұрын

@@yurineri2227 If we define "abortion" as the "termination of a pregnancy before term", then we cannot claim that it always leads to death (additionally, if we take the mother's life into account, it can sometimes prevent a death). My second objection was that accepting one argument does not mean that the whole argument has been won - there may be other aspects that outweigh the first argument.

@Grandmaster_Dragonborn

7 ай бұрын

⁠@@macdougdougYes we can. An abortion is only successful if the unborn child is no longer alive, which of course means death.

Great discussion. If a mind has no impact on humanness, then what of removal of a parasitic twin post birth? If both cell groups had individual life to begin with, is it then immoral to remove what is left of a parasitic twin after birth when the cell groups have combined? IMO, there are so many considerations in this matter, so many exceptions, that regardless of my personal feelings toward the procedure I cannot pretend to decide the issue for others.

@Justin-yn5py

10 ай бұрын

Pro abortionists always throw out the most crazy rare occurrences that create some difficult/interesting moral questions and then apply that to the rest of 99.99% of abortions like they are the same thing

@rickskeptical

10 ай бұрын

If the pro abortionist tag was for me, I cannot understand that simply stating "I cannot pretend to decide the issue for others" makes me pro abortion but if it makes you feel better to claim that then go ahead. There are many many difficult decisions that have to be faced every day. I guess having some sympathy for others makes one an enemy to some. The example is a rare one and is one of hundreds of rare occurrences associated with child birth. Many have to face laws today that offer no exception for the law at all and allow for jail time or fines for looking for that care in a state where it is legal. I simply find the whole issue to be anything but simply black and white. Take care.@@Justin-yn5py

I may have missed it, but I didn't hear any arguments in defense of abortion outside the earliest stages of pregnancy. And the arguments I heard in defense of abortion during the earliest stages of pregnancy seem extremely difficult, if not impossible, to implement methods to detect the precise development of any human being in utero. Considering that humans develop differently, including at different rates/speeds, the ethical question cannot be determined by time since last period or even time since conception. So from a purely ethical standpoint, I don't see an argument FOR abortion that could be physically executed which would guarantee that the argument being made to justify the act is the case with certainty, in any specific instance.

"Most people would say", "intuition says" was learned way too heavy upon

5:25 wouldn’t he NOT be able to mirror it? It would be odd for Dustin to appeal to the kind of mind it would be (which is determined by the organism embodying the mind) to justify why an infants mind has higher moral status.

Dustin was really nervous and Trent was very calm 😬 Joe was trying to help Dustin and I can notice his facial expressions when Dusting was not responding with good objections 😂 to me Trent won 🥇

Why not just go with sentience or consciousness? The whole “member of a rational kind” definition seems to categorize embryos and early fetuses (who have never been conscious) as persons based on characteristics that others in that category have. This seems like a very significant distinction. Also, I don’t understand why membership in the species homo sapien should confer moral status.

Here is the issue with the pro choice position. Notice these factors I’m going to point out. 1. Majority of major pro life advocates who are educated on the issue of abortion all have the same position. Unlike the pro choice that differ big time. Meaning there is so many opposing views that fall their self pro choice. 2. Person hood and importance or human value is a opinion based off “you’re not a person until” now this logic can go on and on even after birth. So the question is should we be allowed to Kill these humans based off “not a person to me yet” so I should have a right to kill or cause the death to this non person. 3. Should we be allowed to do as we please to the non person human ?

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

1)The majority of experts in ethics that are educated on the pro choice side also have pretty similar positions. 2) the personhood argument isn’t arbitrary at all, indeed it would be arbitrary to suggest that human DNA is somehow special without any reason for that. 3) yes as long as no right of other moral patients is violated without sufficient reason. Just like you can do anything to your plant or any property you possess.

@chrisarmon1002

11 ай бұрын

@@marco_mate5181 1. I would agree but similarities does not mean logically consistent. Example this is why they even disagree on how many weeks. This is why we have people who like Peter sanger who’s pro choice. There is a inconsistency all over the place with these professors or any academic. Now as for the pro life you you rarely will see different views on person hood. They’re consistent with the abortion issue. 2. Person hood argument is very logical and consistent with the pro life debators. Example they give the reason why! We should not be allowed to have a abortion and WHY! The unborn are persons. 3. So there’s a few issues. I don’t view humans as property based off who I deem a person or not. That’s your logic am I wrong ? I’ll then ask. Would it be okay to abuse your unborn with drugs let’s say meth. Cause the unborn abuse because they’re my property?

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

@@chrisarmon1002 they don’t disagree because of logical inconsistency, mainly because of differences in legal and scientific data available. Just like countries disagree on which drinking age is the correct one, it’s not about logical inconsistency. In terms of pro life the inconsistency comes with the exceptions, the punishments, and the ethical criteria for personhood, which makes the pro life even more inconsistent as a position. The pro life doesn’t have good arguments for considering embryos persons with with the same fundamental moral rights of born human persons. If the unborn has not reached personhood yet then any action towards the fetus isn’t wrong as long as no unjustified harm is caused to a person, which can include the future person if the fetus isn’t aborted.

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

@@chrisarmon1002 suppose your child was genetically modified not to develope a brain, then you wouldn’t be wronging your child is you used the body as a sex doll. This wouldn’t necessarily mean the action is morally permissible, just that the wrongness would not depend of any violation of your child’s rights.

@chrisarmon1002

11 ай бұрын

@@marco_mate5181 here is where I disagree. The pesos. Hood argument itself. Is the same with any major pro life advocate. The science also remains the same with the pro life advocates. So as for the who’s a person who’s not and why is the same for pro lifers. Example some pro choicer like this debate says 20-24 weeks I believe. Some people have it way higher or even after birth. Now as for your example, what defines a right ? Also the drug abuse. If that’s not a person why would it be wrong?

I'm also not convinced by the transplant argument. I agree about the transfer of consciousness, but the conclusion that the self exists as the mind exclusively, independent of the body, assumes a definition of self that needs to be disambiguated. In the new body the self is different from the self as it originally was, and is not maintained, even if there is psychological continuity. I think an understanding of hylomorphic animalism could argue this well, though I'm not fully familiar with it. It simply doesn't make sense to completely divorce the body from what we are, particularly when the body is the host of the mind and determines the sort of experiences the brain will have, supports it, and prolongs it. If a mind is in a human body, the mind's psychological development will be as that which is in a human body, and experiences human things. This totality of experience, I would argue, is a huge part of what we are (though not us in totality). If this experience is dependent on what the mind is in, then there is some degree to which our bodies are a part of us. A human brain in a jar is not a human. Its experiences will not be that of a human, but as a brain in a jar, experiencing a jar life. That jar life will construct the mind's identity, what it values and prioritizes, and is incorporated into every aspect of its experiential life. Its type of being, and what it is, is distinct from the type of being which exists for a brain in a human body, which is oriented towards what a human body is oriented towards. In fact, the brain is a governing function of the human body and allows the human body to achieve what it aims to achieve even independent of the mind, and the mind's desires is directed by things which exist prior to it--for example, procreation and eating. There is very much a manner in which we exist as animals, as well as minds, even if we grant that a mind may persist psychologically with or without certain consistencies of the body. There is also the manner in which what we are includes the cumulative effects of our interactions with the world, and so there is an aspect of our existence which actually exists outside of both the mind and the body, which others may be privy to in a way that we are not, or, perhaps, no one is privy to. The FLO is key in closing this topic in order to resolve the variety of consistencies and inconsistencies in the existence of the body. Also Trent's point at around 1:14:30 appears correct in terms of reality, and only has difficulty when put into categorical words. It is actually true, even if it doesn't quite fit into the words of "composite object," "object", etc.

Now that I have some free time (at least until the kids show up again 😉) I will try to interact with some Trent´s and Dustin`s remarks. First, I have to say that although I unambiguously reside on the "Pro-Life" side of the debate I think Dustin did a great job criticizing Trent´s arguments and it seems to me Trent was not that well prepared to respond to Dustin´s critiques (no offense 😉). Further, I think Trent was not well advised to more or less accept an unqualified animalist view (at least it seemed to me that he had not much to add or criticize with Dustin´s presentation and therefore Olson´s view). As I already noted, my own "Pro-Life" conviction is rooted in an Aristotelian hylomorphic ontology. The idea is basically that the human soul is an intellectual (rational) substance which has subsistence existence and is united to the body as a "form", where the latter also is the organizing or activity principle of a living substance, which, among other things, both ontologically establishes the nature of a specific being and determines the purposeful and orderly sequence of changes that are undergone in the process of growth and development up to maturity. What makes the human soul and therefore every human being a rational substance with subsistence existence (which means that a human being is at least in principle capable of surviving its physical death) is derived from the observation that human beings are capable of both corporeal powers (which flow from the animal or sensory faculties) and incorporeal powers (which flow from the rational faculties like intellect and will). To generalize this point, according to this conception, no non-rational being can ever develop rational abilities without undergoing a substantial change. Rather, a rational being, as long as it is properly formed and develops and matures in a healthy way, begins to exercise these abilities at some point in its life, precisely because they have always been latently present in its nature. To say that a certain substance has a potential to evolve in some way does not therefore mean to make a prediction about the future, but an assertion about the nature of that entity at the moment. Saying that a zygote is "potentially rational" therefore does not mean that a human being becomes a rational being and thus a person when he starts to exert these powers, but instead that his (latent) personal rational nature will (probably, but not necessarily) unfold and become realized when he develops into an adult human being. Therefore, on the substance based view, the universal and inalienable dignity and the right to life of an organism is constituted by the fact that it belongs to a species or genus whose healthy members have the intrinsic capacity to develop, under conditions conducive to life, the disposition constitutive of the species-specific nature for the formation of rational and moral capacities and that the exercise of these capacities, such as rational, abstract, self-reflective and moral thinking as well as rational action which is based on it, contributes to the perfection of the individual and collective existence of these beings. This view is thus based on the thesis that every human being (born and unborn) actually (and not only potentially) possesses a rational and moral nature and, as such, deserves basic respect and protection as a rational and moral being. From this it follows that a human person begins to exist at conception which is an event, typically involving the union of sperm and egg, which consists in a change in the intrinsic nature of a cell or group of cells, where that change confers on the cell or group of cells (or their descendants in case of division) the intrinsic potential to develop, given the right extrinsic factors, into a mature human being. Therefore, whenever there is empirical evidence that a human organism is self-directing its growths towards a mature member of the species, a human "soul" is present, and this confers the universal and inalienable dignity and the right to life to this entity. Now, it is surely possible to critique this view (which I think is a "feature" of nearly every philosophical position 🙃), but I hope it became clear that my view is not a form of animalism which Dustin has criticised. In a nutshell: On this view it is possible that "I" exist without my physical body, but it is not possible that my living human physical body exists without "Me" . Therefore, "I" am not identical with my body although my body is an essential part of me and crucial for me to function properly. Before I move on to comment on Dustin´s view I briefly address his two headed alien from Episode One. If this creature naturally is one inseparable organism with two heads, then it seems to me that it is constituted by one rational soul with two distinct persons present. At least from a hylomorphic view I do not see a serious problem with this case but of course I am open to explore issues that may come up. For part II, see the first reply 👇

@jogo5660

Жыл бұрын

Concerning Dustin´s view it is not at all clear to me that, given that the soul is a completely separate substance from the body, why it can only be present when the physical structures for consciousness are present. As a Christian he surely believes that the soul survives the death of the body and therefore is capable of existing without a specific or any physical structure at all. Therefore, since on substance dualism we have no method to reliably detect the presence of a (human) soul (at least as far as I know) I think we should err on the side of caution and attribute a soul to every living human being. Furthermore, even if we adopt McMahan´s view that we are essentially "minds", there is, at least by my lights, a crucial tension in his formulation of the conditions for diachronic identity. He suggests that "[our minds] are objects composed of the parts of our brain which are directly responsible for our mental lives, begin to exist when these parts reach the level of development and integration needed to sustain our mental lives an cease to exist when they irreversibly lose this level of development and integration." In the first part of the sentence, it is expressed that our existence as well as our identity presuppose the immediate capacity for consciousness. This would imply, however, that even the temporary loss of this ability implies that we cease to exist correspondingly temporarily and begin to exist again upon the renewed acquisition of this ability. You would therefore consequently lose your right to life and it would be permissible to kill "you" (or, more precisely, the associated biological organism) if your brain has been so severely damaged by an accident or disease that you have lost the capacity for consciousness - even if you can regain this capacity at a later time, e.g. through available curative treatment. Maybe to avoid this problem, McMahan added the second criterion (which, at least by my lights, is completely ad-hoc). According to this formulation, not the actual presence of this ability seems to be decisive for him, but the irreversible loss. This view thus ensures the identity and personhood of temporarily comatose people whose brains may (re-)acquire the capacity for consciousness at some point in the future. However, if indeed the potential for regaining consciousness is crucial, then there is no intrinsic difference between a temporarily comatose person who has lost consciousness (including the current physical structure for consciousness) as well as even all mental content and a preconscious unborn developing human person that could be morally relevant. Both the comatose and the unborn human being are living human organisms that either temporarily lack the capacity for consciousness or have not irreversibly lost it. It is even easily conceivable that in some cases an embryo acquires the capacity for consciousness earlier than a correspondingly severely damaged born human being in a temporary coma. Thus, if Dustin does not want to accept that someone who has temporarily lost his ability for consciousness as described in the foregoing case also has lost his right to live it seems to me McMahan´s position does not help his case. On the other hand, if we accept substance dualism and that the human soul does not depend on the existence of any physical structure at all, I cannot see a decisive argument that a zygote or an embryo cannot have a human soul and should not be considered a person. Finally, concerning the cerebrum transplant cases I think we should be very cautious to use thought experiments of which we do not even know if they are possible at all and to which people have completely opposite intuitions in order to draw moral conclusions from them in other areas. For example, I do not think that "I" am my cerebrum or that "I" really go with my cerebrum. It seems to me that my cerebrum contains all my memories and many things that shape my character but that "I" am indeed, at least in the physical world, inseparable from my physical body. To illustrate the problem with these thought experiments, consider the following case: Suppose your cerebrum is deteriorating and the doctors propose to you that you will shortly die. However, it is possible to use stem cells from your spinal cord to grow a new cerebrum in the lab and replace the existing one. Would "you" now want to undergo this procedure? Suppose further that the doctors inform you that after this procedure you will experience severe pain for several days. Would "you" now be afraid of being in pain? If Dustin´s/McMahan´s view is correct it seems to me, it would be irrational to want to undergo this procedure and it would also be irrational to be afraid of being in pain because after the surgery "you" would no longer exist. Or imagine that a man anesthetized and kidnaped a woman to rape her. But this guy is also an exceptionally talented neurosurgeon who has developed a procedure to temporarily remove the cerebrum of a human being and place it back sometimes later. Suppose he also adopts Dustin´s/McMahan´s view that the human person goes with the cerebrum and therefore he thinks that he has found a clever way "to rape a living human woman without raping a human person". Therefore, he cuts the cerebrum out, rapes the body, cleans everything up and places the cerebrum back in the woman´s head. Now, according to Dustin´s/McMahan´s view it seems to me that we cannot say that a person has been raped but only that the evil neurosurgeon "stole" and misused the body which is the property of a person. But this seems highly counterintuitive to me, and I suspect that every woman in this situation thinks that "she" really has been raped and the removal of the cerebrum does not change that fact in the slightest. To sum things up, I think Dustin really did a great job dialectically criticizing Trent´s arguments and both interacted in a cordial and winsome manner. Therefore, kudos to both of them and thanks to Joe for setting up this discussion. Likewise, I am really looking forward seeing Kaczor to interact with Dustin! I hope I also succeeded in explaining my own view and to constructively criticize Dustin´s view and some of his arguments.

@Yeatlova

Жыл бұрын

@@jogo5660 Wait Kaczor is interacting with dustin? That sounds like fun, but it would also be nice if we could get francis beckwith with dustin too.

@jogo5660

Жыл бұрын

@@Yeatlova, in the video about his plans for 2023 Joe mentioned that he is planning to host a conversation between Kaczor and Crummett. Btw.: I am currently reading "Philosophy, critical thinking and ‘after-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’" from Michael Tooley and I am astonished how even a giant like Tooley has such a superficial knowledge of hylomorphism and the arguments for the immateriality of the intellect. His arguments against the Thomistic view are, at least in my opinion, mostly popular arguments against substance dualism (changes in the "brain" lead to changes in the "mind", therefore the mind is the brain) to which many replies are already put forward (e. g. by Swinburne). Here he is summarizing why he thinks the hylomorphic view is untenable: "In addition, however, recall that an immaterial mind is only one aspect of a Thomistic soul, since the latter is also ‘the ultimate internal principle…by which our bodies are animated.’The Thomistic soul, then, is also supposed to explain life processes, which means that the Thomistic view is on a collision not only with contemporary psychology, but also with contemporary biology, according to which all life processes are capable of a molecular explanation."'' What? 🙃

@mystique-1337

Жыл бұрын

I think an issue with that position is that hylomorphism can very well be used under a delayed hominization framework, in fact that's what happened with Aristotle and Aquinas.

@jogo5660

Жыл бұрын

@@mystique-1337 I think it could have been used this way because Aristotle and Aquinas had a very poor understanding of modern embryology (but even before these scientific findings there already was a debate about that issue). They thought a human being transitions from a vegetative over an animal to a human soul/form. But today we know that a human zygote already is a complete human organism that develops as a human being and not towards a human being. Therefore I think it is no longer tenable to hold to a delayed hominization framework.

I'm trying to wrap my head around that fetal personhood bill in North Carolina that says "Any person has the right to defend his or her own life or the life of another person, even by the use of deadly force if necessary, from the willful destruction by another person." So if my crazy neighbor knows my girlfriend is seeking an abortion, and decides to kill the abortion provider, his act of killing the provider is less wrong (or not wrong at all even) than the provider performing the abortion? Or even better, is my crazy neighbor entitled to shoot and kill my girlfriend too? After all, if she intends to terminate her pregnancy, using deadly force to stop her would seem to be permissible. If she were to die, and the fetus die too, at least that would be a natural death, and not the result of intentionally killing the innocent human person in the womb. To me that just can't be correct so I think this "equal wrongness of killing" principle must be false.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

What is your METAETHICS?🤔

@xxcrysad3000xx

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Like most people, I don't have one. I barely even have a coherent system of ethical beliefs.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@xxcrysad3000xx so, you ADMIT that your original post is simply spurious subjectivism? 😬

@xxcrysad3000xx

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Spurious? Not at all. It's completely genuine. Subjective? Maybe. I don't deny the possibility of objective morality (moral realism), I just don't know what it is or how we would discover it, and I'm pretty confident you don't either.

I think we got into Jimmy Akin territory here😊

Great conversation! I researched and wrote on this issue for the last two years (I am not an expert, I do this in my freetime and I have three kids to entertain, too 😉). I hope I soon find time to comment on some points which were raised in this exchange. Personally, I favour some form of hylomorphic dualism. In my view a human being is an immaterial substance with material parts (which means that a human being can be deprived of all material parts without ceasing to exist but can only function proper with a material body). In the meantime, I only want to ask why the video thumbnail features Trent and Max Payne 😁

i neve thought that i would see philosopher who plays football

I am anti-abortion. It Must be legal. We know that it's not a question of "can we stop them" we know we cannot. It's how do we prevent as many as possible. Making it illegal increases abortions. We need effective solutions like birth control and education.

@JohnSmith-bq6nf

8 ай бұрын

I do kind of find it funny that right wingers harp on if guns are illegal, it won't solve the problem because they will still get them illegally anyway. We already saw the same goes for abortions. It will just be pushed into black market where people make quick buck and risk mom's life too.

@jerardosc9534

5 ай бұрын

What evidence do you have that making abortion legal prevents the most abortions? I reject that it does but even if it did, do you apply this to other immoral actions as well???

24:20 You don't even need to appeal to sci-fi, dicephalic parapagus twins are already a thing, e.g. Abby and Brittany Hensel.

I made the same face as Dustin at 8:20

I really appreciate this kind of discussion. But for me it was annoying that Dustin defended theories wich he do not believe. I understand the importance of dialactical context, but in this case seems to me that it was more a philosophical game than authentic persue of truth. Of course, I deeply appreciate the exposure of the different arguments. And Joe is brilliant guiding the conversation.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for your comment my dude! So, I don’t think that’s right. Everything Dustin said can be modified very slightly to fit with his actual substance dualist view - just replace “cerebrum” with “soul”, and basically all his arguments stay the same. So he isn’t really defending views he doesn’t believe; he’s just casting his arguments in a slightly different light to help remove irrelevant barriers to his arguments (Eg, objections to dualism like the interaction problem). Again, it’s important to recognize that all of Dustin’s arguments can equally be run with his view. So he isn’t defending any *argument* he doesn’t believe.

@adriang.fuentes7649

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason I did not pretend to be disrespectfull with Dustin. I think he is a good philosopher. I just was expressing the subjective actitude I had when watching the discussion. Maybe because I care so much about this issue and it seem kind of univested to defend views he does not really endorse. But I understand your point. Thank for you reply!

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

@@adriang.fuentes7649 Wow, heaven forbid a human is disrespectful to someone. That never happens in the world.🤦‍♀🙄

If there is literally no person until the brain "parts" are there then why do we get so excited to learn, or fearful to learn, that we are pregnant at 10 weeks or whatever time before the brain parts are there? We all realize a human being just entered reality when conception occurred, why else do people want to get an abortion? Don't people want to get an abortion because that living thing inside of them will have a future like ours? Need to eat, sleep, be taken care of, all the characteristics of a human being?!

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

We get excited because we know we will have a future child, regardless of whether or not there is a new child in the world

@YuGiOhDuelChannel

11 ай бұрын

@marco_mate5181 We can have that feeling even if we are no pregnant, the difference is conception makes it actually real. You can't have a real future human being and not at the same time, your comment is a total contradiction.

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

@@YuGiOhDuelChannel there is no contradiction in what I’ve said, the contradiction would be that you have and not have a future child. Not that you have a future child but lack a present one.

@marco_mate5181

11 ай бұрын

@@YuGiOhDuelChannel whether conception makes it real or not is irrelevant to why people are excited about it. They are excited for their future children and parenthood, regardless of whether the child is really existing yet.

@YuGiOhDuelChannel

11 ай бұрын

@marco_mate5181 If there is no child actually existing why would they be excited about it? That is the contradiction. You cannot be excited about nothing?

Personal identity over time is a tricky philosophical subject (unless of course you’re an animalist or believe in an immaterial soul), one with many difficult philosophical and ethical problems. Personal identity over time is connected to the concept of “a future like ours”. Intuitively, this is not a very good rationale for anti-abortion advocates. It seems susceptible to situations where we will inevitably value one “future” over another. Should we value the “potential” existence of a future like ours over the future quality of an actually existing person? Should we value the future of a fetus over the future of a 90-year old?

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

"Should we value the “potential” existence of a future like ours over the future quality of an actually existing person?" Well, the future like ours argument implies that abortion is as wrong as murder. So now that question is, can we perform an action that is as wrong as murder in order to benefit another person's interests? Obviously not. "Should we value the future of a fetus over the future of a 90-year old?" Probably. I value the future of a newborn more than I value the future of a 90-year-old, and I think the vast majority of people do as well, so it's not a controversial bullet to bite.

@kimmyswan

Жыл бұрын

@@mnmmnm925 The Future Like Ours argument is the claim that a fetus has the “right” not to be killed AND the “right” to whatever it takes to sustain its life; however, there is an argument to be had that the “right not to be killed” does not confer upon the fetus (or anyone else for that matter) the right to another person's body. I’m actually not so sure that most people would value the future of a newborn over the future of the 90 year old. And if they did, would they not have to then ask themselves “at what point do I no longer the value the future of a potential person (fetus) over the future of an actual person”? At 40 years old? 30? 10? It’s a bit of a slippery slope and at some point the bullet will be too big to bite.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

@@kimmyswan "The Future Like Ours argument is the claim that a fetus has the “right” not to be killed AND the “right” to whatever it takes to sustain its life; however, there is an argument to be had that the “right not to be killed” does not confer upon the fetus (or anyone else for that matter) the right to another person's body." You don't understand the argument. The argument doesn't rely on the concept of "rights," nor does it establish a right to life. It establishes the wrongness of killing. Go read the original paper called "Why Abortion is Immoral" by Don Marquis to get a better understanding of the argument. "I’m actually not so sure that most people would value the future of a newborn over the future of the 90 year old." I highly doubt that. Which death would people view as more tragic, the death of a toddler or the death of a 90-year-old? "And if they did, would they not have to then ask themselves “at what point do I no longer the value the future of a potential person (fetus) over the future of an actual person”?" Why does it matter if we value the future of a younger life more than the future of an older life? I don't understand why you think this is a bad implication of the argument.

@kimmyswan

Жыл бұрын

@@mnmmnm925 Marquis's most recent formulation of The future like ours argument: Premise 1: Having a future of value is the basis for the right not to be killed. Premise 2: Fetuses have a future of value. Conclusion: Fetuses have the right not to be killed. Premise 1 fails as it is a claim on behalf of a fetus to the right not be killed and implies by its very nature a “welfare right” to access to the body of a quite specific woman. Anti-abortion advocates might disagree, but humans in general do not have welfare rights to the bodily integrity of other persons. Premise 2 fails if “a future of value” implies a SELF-REPRESENTED future of value. A human fetus (and other non-human animals) do not have the dispositional mental states required to represent their own future and thus abortion cannot be wrong.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

@@kimmyswan That formulation of the argument is NOT by Don Marquis. It's by a pro-choice ethicist named MT Brown. Your comment just copied-and-pasted some passages from Brown's paper, a paper that Marquis himself already replied to decades ago. Lookup "Deprivations, futures and the wrongness of killing" (2001) by Don Marquis to see where Brown's reasoning goes wrong.

I know you can't fix this, Joe, but I hate the KZread disclaimer. It says "abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy." That's not how the law defines it in my state. Also, medical assistance for a live birth is a procedure to end a pregnancy. KZread is being rather misleading.

Perhaps this will be more fully addressed later in the video, but the claim that it's morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent person seems obviously mistaken. There are hypothetical scenarios in which it would be morally permissible to do so. One example would be performing an abortion when it's required to save the mother's life.

@Seethi_C

Жыл бұрын

That’s a circular argument though, because the ethics of abortion is the very topic of discussion. Can you provide an example outside of abortion where we consider it ok to kill an innocent human?

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

Жыл бұрын

@@Seethi_C do you the difference between a Fetus and a new born child?

@wardandrew23412

Жыл бұрын

@@Seethi_C It's not a circular argument. Even most anti-abortionists make an exception for cases in which the life of the mother is at stake, and I know of no anti-abortionists who argue that an abortion should not be performed to save the mother even if both her life and that of the fetus would be lost as a result. Other hypothetical examples having nothing to do with abortion are easy to come by. One of these was brought up following the events of 9/11. In a situation where an aircraft has been hijacked, shooting the plane down before it can be flown into a building is morally permissible.

@Seethi_C

Жыл бұрын

@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Yes, there is a difference in age. Still wrong to kill either of them.

@Seethi_C

Жыл бұрын

@@wardandrew23412 It's circular in the context of this debate. They are discussing whether abortion is wrong and one of Trent's arguments is that it's wrong to kill innocent humans. You're attempt at a counter example is abortion, which Trent would disagree with. If you want to say generally that "sometimes it is ok to kill innocent humans", you will need to give an example outside of abortion if you want to convince pro-life people.

Dustin won

I liked that

The reason to reject Trents first argument is because of sleepwalking killers. A sleepwalking killer is legally innocent but can nevertheless be killed if thats the only way to prevent him doing harm to you.

@harlowcj

10 ай бұрын

A death sentence is the only possible solution you could think of to deal with someone who murdered in their sleep?

@alexp8924

10 ай бұрын

@@harlowcj which part of “if its the only way..” you can not comprehend?

@harlowcj

10 ай бұрын

@@alexp8924 I can't comprehend the scenario where it's the only way.

@alexp8924

10 ай бұрын

@@harlowcj imagine pregnancy: the person is innocent but there is no way yo avoid the harm it does to you without ending its life in the process.

@harlowcj

10 ай бұрын

​@@alexp8924In that case I would say that the correct decision would be to save as many lives as possible. You shouldn't kill one to save another, you shouldn't kill the Mother to save the child. But if the child is not yet viable and dies indirectly as the result of a medical procedure to save the Mother's life, that would still be the correct choice.

I'm pro life but I have to admit that Dustin won this debate (although I reluctantly refer to it as such since it was meant to be more like a dialogue than a debate). I wish Trent presented a more robust case for animalism

@jolssoni2499

Жыл бұрын

Can't present a robust case for something that's obviously false.

@acemxe8472

Жыл бұрын

It wasn’t even really a debate. Dustin even conceded that Trent’s first argument succeeds due to most people would side with Trent’s assumptions. The “debate” was more so about Dustin’s specific view and whether or not the arguments work with his view, not so much the generic populations. Given that, I would say the opposite, namely that Trent won.

@gleon1602

Жыл бұрын

@@acemxe8472 what makes you say Trent won?

@acemxe8472

Жыл бұрын

@@gleon1602 By virtue of his arguments being based upon general populous intuition as opposed to being specifically for Dustin’s view.

@acemxe8472

Жыл бұрын

@@JustADudeGamer That’s not an equivocation. This is a biological term. The unborn are humans. Thats why there is an argument, we defend the notion that killing the unborn is wrong. And those who reject that idea are inconsistent.

Counter example 1: killing/ assisted suicide of the terminally ill. So its intentional

@brandtgill2601

Жыл бұрын

2nd: persons hold no value in themselves

Crummett's first argument that the self/person goes with the cerebrum assumes that the cerebrum is the mind (or the only part of the mind that matters). But this is nonsensical from a psychological perspective. The mind is the set of faculties responsible for all mental phenomena, the cerebrum is only part of the brain. In fact, according to mainstream psychology, the mind is embodied in the organism, not just the cerebrum, not just the brain and not just the nervous system but also the endocrine system and the immune system. Thus you do not go with your cerebrum. It might be that parts of your personality and memories go with the cerebrum, but given the embodied nature of the mind, not everything will be transported. The person in the new body will plausibly be a new person which is an amalgamation of two people, where the nervous system, endocrine system and immune system of the new body will interact with the transplanted cerebrum and influence it as well. Here the mind is not transplanted, instead a mind is Frankensteined together, with the previous two people involved arguably no longer existing, having ceased to exist to become the material for a new person. As a side note, I personally suspect that it makes a huge difference to Crummett's case if we are minds as souls or minds as cerebrums.

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

(1) Your own diagnosis of the case ("The person in the new body will plausibly be a new person which is an amalgamation of two people") also implies that my view is correct. There is no new *organism* created, so it follows that people are not their organisms. You apparently grant that people are their minds, and simply have a different diagnosis of what happens in the transplant case. It remains true that we won't exist until a mind develops. (2) It is certainly by no means scientifically established that the parts of you which are *directly responsible* for your mental life, in something like the sense of providing the supervenience base for your mental states, are spread throughout your body. But supposing they were, that wouldn't really matter. If your mind is composed of your cerebrum, midbrain, endocrine system, etc., it is still not identical to the organism, even though it's spread throughout it--the organism existed first, and has various parts (e.g., fingernails) which the mind doesn't have. So there's still the question of whether we're the mind or the organism. The cerebrum transplant case might then be a counterfactual example which shows us that we are our minds--we'd go with the cerebrum *if* the mind were localized within it--even if in reality we wouldn't go with the cerebrum, since the mind isn't localized within it.

@Paradoxarn.

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett "There is no new organism created" I am not so sure. In the case of Frankensteins monster, is there no new organism created? I intuitively would say that a new organism is created. Perhaps you don't think this is analogous, although it seems like it is to me. "You apparently grant that people are their minds" I am open to either view here. I lean towards substance dualism (which I realize is a view rejected by many neuroscientists, for example), but I think it makes sense to think of people as soul-body composites given the important function which the brain etc. seems to have. Even if people were merely their souls or minds, it does not seem to me to make much difference. For example, even if we could establish that killing the body of a person does not harm the soul or the mind, I think we would still consider killing the body to be wrong. "It remains true that we won't exist until a mind develops." If we are souls, then this depends on what you mean by a mind. Can a mind be unconscious, for instance? If the mind is embodied, then why cannot a fetus have a mind? "The cerebrum transplant case might then be a counterfactual example which shows us that we are our minds--we'd go with the cerebrum if the mind were localized within it--even if in reality we wouldn't go with the cerebrum, since the mind isn't localized within it." Ok, as I said, I think we might very well be soul-body composites, or let's say mind-body composites. Even if we could transplant the mind, I don't necessarily buy that we would go with the mind. Even if there is a continuity of consciousness for my mind in this new body, I think there are important nonconscious aspects of who I am which are not transferred which remains in my old body. Perhaps what I would agree with is that part of me has been transferred, perhaps the most important part of me. Moreover, maybe it isn't all or nothing. Maybe I have survived in a wounded state, similar to how my body can survive even if I lose an arm. Still I don't think your reasoning is enough to show that we are our minds.

I think this missed the whole point of what an abortion is, the ending of a pregnancy. In this time at a certain point if the fetal gestation ending a pregnancy means the end of the life of the fetus and after that point the fetus is viable. It is the right of the pregnant person to end the pregnancy whenever they want. If in the future it is possible to transfer the fetus to another receptical for gestation and birth, all of these arguments will be irrelevant.

Dustin is such a baller

@logans.butler285

Жыл бұрын

Is that a compliment or an insult?

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

Dustin is wrong.

Dustin should have a discussion on his case with someone like Patrick Lee or Robert P. George.

This debate wasn't so much on the "ethics of abortion" but on the philosophical considerations of personhood and minds.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

… which are directly relevant to the ethics of abortion and serve as premises in arguments for the impermissibility of abortion…

@pigetstuck

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason I can see how it could be. But there is also the "sport" of philosophy where someone defeats arguments but isn't really addressing the ethics, which it felt like Dr Crummett was doing a bit.

@pigetstuck

Жыл бұрын

"dialectically I'm saying..."

@jaskitstepkit7153

Жыл бұрын

I mean the core of the argument is what makes someone human.

@pigetstuck

Жыл бұрын

@@jaskitstepkit7153 exactly.

Dustin appeals to Jeff McMahan’s account of personal identity, but McMahan himself doesn’t believe the mere existence of consciousness is morally indicative of personhood. Like Peter Singer, he doesn’t believe that a newborn has the same intrinsic value as an adult because newborns don’t have a developed psychology. But Dustin argues that just the fact that a baby is conscious is sufficient, contrary to McMahan.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

Right -- Dustin modified McMahan's specific view based on Dustin's other commitments. Nothing wrong or dialectically untoward with that :)

Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. As a strict vegan, I sometimes feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family. See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk. To read “F.I.S.H”, which is, without a shadow of a doubt, by FAR the most important work of literature ever composed, Email the address listed on the "About" page of my KZread homepage, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

What makes abortion legitimate in the case of rape?

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic the life of a human being is destroyed when a raped woman chooses to abort her child, but the suffering endured by the raped woman may be so great that an abortion is justified. If she is forced to give birth to the baby, she may hold deep-seated resentment towards her offspring and neglect or abuse the child, which would cause serious emotional and/or bodily distress. Therefore, it is imperative that complex cases be adjudicated by an appropriate authority.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices you still didn't answer my question lol Sure, resentment or psychological trauma could be a result of carrying the pregnancy to term but how exactly does that justify ending the child's life? Should ppl be justified in killing once it prevents bodily or psychological trauma? Let's say a person breaks up with you and you experience suicidal thoughts, would you be justified in killing them? I'm curious if that's what you believe

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Search the Stanford University Encylopedia of Philosophy or Wikipedia (both are online encyclopedia) for "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Then, return to this comment thread and inform me which logical FALLACY you have just used, Slave. “Woe to you who LAUGH now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe to you when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.” Luke 6:25

@bitchd7839

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic There's a difference between doing violating someone's rights and choosing not to help someone. We do not have the freedom to violate people's rights, but we do have the freedom to not help people. We have the right to prevent or undo actions that violates our rights. Rape pregnancies violates a person's rights like stealing or assault, so we can prevent or undo the violations through self-defense, abortions, or other punishments and compensations. Not breaking up with your partner to prevent them from suicidal thoughts is not helping them. It's the same as not donating to money charity or not donating blood to a dying person.

23:40 - Gross though it may be, this is a great refutation of the "organism" standard proposed by pro-life people like Trent.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. As a strict vegan, I sometimes feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family. See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk. To read “F.I.S.H”, which is, without a shadow of a doubt, by FAR the most important work of literature ever composed, Email the address listed on the "About" page of my KZread homepage, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟 Incidentally, the plural of "person" is "persons", NOT "people".🙄

The arguments on both sides of this debate are inherently flawed. While they are deep, I don't think they go deep enough. They both make way too many assumptions. Two which seem obviously false to me are: 1. There are objective values/humans are inherently valuable 2. The mind is a distinct substance (encounters the interaction problem) or idealism is true. Even if the mind is a distinct substance, one could easily argue the mind is present at conception. It simply is in a blank state. Therefore, one could argue the semantics surrounding the term 'mind' to fit a pro-life perspective. I lean more towards there are no objective moral values or duties from a metaphysical standpoint. Also, personal identity =/= species. A human being is a type of species. A certain kind of organism. In other words, a human being can be an organism with a particular genetic make up distinct from its hosts/parents with the potential to develop one (or more in unusual cases) brain(s) which function in ways aimed towards survival, whether conscious or unconscious. Personal identity has to do with the subjective experience(s) of the organism. Therefore, there can be two personal identities in one human body e.g. Siamese twins or people with multiple personality disorder. Also, to call a person a composite object has to do with mereology but simply because an object can be divided into parts does not mean the object itself is made of parts. Ofc one could take a Russellian logical atomist approach but one could equally take an existence/priority monism approach towards humans beings. It seems to me what is right and wrong should more or less remain a legal and societal matter where the ppl in power influence it's society to conform to the beliefs shared by the majority of its lawmakers/peers. There will almost always be moral disagreements but moral disagreements can't determine any objective standard and that's because there is none. I have yet to hear a successful refutation of Hume's guillotine. I also think any argument for abortion leads to a slippery slope since it argues by questioning the arbitrary starting points and replaces them with one's own axioms. To prevent discrimination based on age or one's stage of development, we should grant moral status to our species at the earliest stage i.e. conception. Now, the strongest argument for abortion seems to be the self defense argument. If we can agree that a human being starts at the embryotic stage, then the question is: should the mother have an obligation to carry the unborn child to birth. I would argue that unless there is a guarantee that the mother would die as a result of the pregnancy then it comes down to a matter of numbers and how society places value on both. If society does not want to determine which life is more valuable or there is no possibility that both lives can be saved then the decision comes down to the mother. Either the mother values self-preservation more than that of her child. Leaving such decisions with the mother will more than not lead to the mother most likely choosing her own life due to her own natural survival instincts. Side note. Alot of these hypotheticals conflate logical possibility with metaphysical possibility. It first needs to be proven that one could survive the transplantation of one brain into another body and still have a sense of self.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

"The arguments on both sides of this debate are inherently flawed. While they are deep, I don't think they go deep enough. They both make way too many assumptions. Two which seem obviously false to me are: 1. There are objective values/humans are inherently valuable" 4/5 of Trent's opening arguments don't make that assumption.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@mnmmnm925 He may not have argued this explicitly but he assumes it to make his case.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic Please explain how his opening arguments (beside the first one) make the assumption you charged them with.

@CMVMic

Жыл бұрын

@@mnmmnm925 'it's wrong to directly kill innocent human beings' or 'humans have a right to life'... The only way I see he can justify these claims without appealing to intuition is by assuming human life is valuable. Refer to @3:03

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

@@CMVMic That's his first argument. I'm asking how his other four arguments make that assumption. Here are the arguments I'm referring to: 3:55, 6:49, 9:25, 11:02 How do these arguments make that assumption?

Dustin's view basically supports the farming of human embryos. right?

@jaskitstepkit7153

Жыл бұрын

If their cerebellum doesn't work it's free game for him.

@mnmmnm925

Жыл бұрын

correct

@JohnSmith-bq6nf

11 ай бұрын

No that is a nice strawman. I can frame prolifers as evill too. Also pro life view is if get raped have carry a baby 9 months and possibly die in childbirth killing 2 people.

Dustin slew. Great debate!

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

Great and lowly are RELATIVE. 😉

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

On abortion, he didn’t slay anybody. He just argued against a specific formulation of animalism.

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOtherCaleb ANIMALISM?? 🤔

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Yes

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOtherCaleb Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

It doesn't make sense to regard fetuses as persons and not fully grown non-human animals as not persons

Crummett's second argument is that the possibility for an organism to have multiple mind implies that we are minds instead of organisms, has the same problem as the first argument. The mind is embodied, thus the two brains in the same body, would not be entirely separate and would thus be part of one mind. Certainly there could be two perspectives, two conscious experiences, but this does not make so that there are two minds. This can be seen in case of split brain patients, where the main connection between the two halves, the corpus callosum, is severed. As far as psychologists can tell, split brain patients are probably not two people, but instead seem to be only one person where each half of their brain, however, is only able to access its half of sensory data. Crummett's argument seems to me to rest on the assumption that the mind is unified beyond the sense in which it is unified as being part of a single organism. But the notion that the mind is unified in that sense seems to me to be unmotivated. Consider the passage of time. Is my mind the same mind that it was 10 years ago? Indeed, am I the same person that I was 10 years ago? Some would say no. On what basis can we say that they are wrong? In contrast, it seems much more obvious that I am the same organism that I was 10 years ago. Even if the passage of time does not seem like a compelling example, the fact remains that the assumption that the mind is unified is disputed by eminent philosophers such as Daniel Dennett (at least that is how I interpret him and his multiple drafts model).

Dustin's last argument about justified violence to stop abortions sounds like he's begging the question. He's attacking the implications of Trent's view based on intuitions that only follow from his own view.

@sneakysnake2330

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, I agree, they seemed pretty weak to me, and as you say, they only apply if Dustin’s view is correct. The idea of women getting an abortion going to prison for murder is only objectionable if you don’t think they committed murder.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

I don’t see it like that - in principle, a pro-lifer could easily share the intuition that it’s wrong to assassinate abortion providers. In fact, I’ve talked to pro-life friends of mine about this discussion, and many of them said they share this intuition. Similarly, people’s actual behavior - including the behavior of pro-life individuals - can reveal their intuitions about some of these cases. For instance, very few people think that spontaneous miscarriages very early on are a severe public health crisis demanding significant research and social programs to help prevent. And yet under Trent’s equivalence thesis, this is, indeed, an *extremely* morally devastating state of affairs, and in light of that, it calls for precisely those sorts of reactions (spending billions on research to help prevent this, etc., just as we do with grown humans). And yet very few intuitively think that this is that devastating and calls for such reactions. (This, too, was something about which those pro-life friends said they shared intuitions.) So I think it’s mistaken to say that every of Dustin’s examples beg the question in that manner. Not only are their actual pro-lifers who share those intuitions, but the widespread in/actions of pro-lifers reveal that they share some of the intuitions, too.

@sneakysnake2330

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason Fair, I suppose what we mean by “violence” and to what degree of violence we mean would determine whether the action is justified or not.

@jimbojackson4045

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason Dustin's example stated that the laws and public opinion would have to be pro-life for his example to work, since it's trying to get around the counter that violence would be bad PR for pro-lifers. I doubt these pro-life friends of yours believe defensive violence against abortionists is wrong if the law and public opinion say abortion is murder. Are you sure they answered with that context? I'd guess they actually gave you the "No, bc of bad PR" response. Also, you'd have to be sure they weren't lying to save face, since claiming violence is okay can be an unpopular opinion. (Also, assassination wouldn't be necessary. Arrest or defensive force would suffice.)

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

​@@jimbojackson4045 As Dustin explains after 1:52:00, his examples are meant to be *controlling* for political blowback, PR, etc. [i.e., it is stipulated that those factors aren’t relevant - they’ve been eliminated; there won’t be such blowback, etc.], and he explicitly stipulated that the only way to stop the abortion provider in the imagined scenario - it is, after all, a thought experiment meant to pit Trent’s view against intuitions - is to assassinate them. His point was then a fishing expedition for intuitions: he submits that - intuitively - even after controlling for these things, it is wrong to assassinate the abortion provider. Sure, some (perhaps many) pro-lifers don’t share this intuition. But some (perhaps many) *do*, and so it is false to say that Dustin’s examples are question-begging. They plainly aren’t. Second, whether assassination isn’t necessary is irrelevant. Dustin’s case stipulated that the only way to stop the abortion provider was through assassination. We can easily cook up a hypothetical situation in which this stipulation holds, and ask whether Trent's view delivers the intuitively correct verdict in this scenario. And Dustin's claim is that it doesn't. [At least, it doesn't for those who share the intuition, which won't be everyone, ofc.]

Crummett's third argument is an ad hominem argument, and not a very good one. Yes, people have multiple, complex and sometimes incompatible views on difficult moral questions. This does not help us in determining which position to take on this difficult moral question.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

I think Dustin’s point is that Trent’s view implies these other views (Eg, the extreme badness of very early miscarriages, or the permissibility in principle of assassinating abortion doctors). But most people find those views intuitively implausible (Eg, as evinced by no one caring to implement social programs and massive scientific research to prevent such early miscarriages, etc.), and hence we have reason to reject the view which has such implausible implications. This isn’t really an “ad hominem” style argument; it’s really just modus tollens: if Trent’s view, then such-and-such implications; but those implications are false; so ~(Trent’s view). (Note: I’m just explaining Dustin’s argument here, not necessarily endorsing it.)

@Paradoxarn.

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason Ok, that kinda makes sense. I think the fact that Dustin does not explain how Trents view implies these consequences combined with him focusing on moral intuitions combined with the fact that he points out that pro-life people does not accept these consequences confused me here. I certainly do not buy that believing that abortion is equivalent to murder implies these things on its own. The fact that people disagree about how to treat normal murderers suggest that believing that murder is wrong and that a certain act is murder does not on its own imply anything very concrete about if and how to punish the murderer in question.

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason yes, that's right. And Trent himself appeals in debates all the time to what "most people think," so he can't think that's an illegitimate move.

The brain appears in the womb by week 5 and the first charges are there by week 7 so Dustine is pretty much a pro lifer with his views.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

The question isn’t when the brain appears; it’s when the structures that are responsible for consciousness are present and sufficiently developed for consciousness to arise. This doesn’t happen until many weeks later.

@jaskitstepkit7153

Жыл бұрын

What causes constiouness is the ultimate question in biology. So I find your approach very problematic. The brain never stops growing and changing during its life so self awareness varies accordingly. Consciousness is a unification of all the faculties of the brain. There are times that the brain is damaged or not developed so this consciousness is weakened but never really GONE. My question to Dustine or you (if you agree with him) would be how much consciousness is enough for someone to be considered a human like us because rudimentary brain activity has rudimentary consciousness. I find such question impossible to answer as we don't know how embrios or newborn babies think. Therefore, we should play it safe since we are debating about inocent people here. That is the reason we should consider the beginning of life at the point when the brain starts working or else we risk too much.

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

@@MajestyofReason I’d argue that the potential of human consciousness is what grounds the value of humanity, not pure actualized consciousness.

@educationalporpoises9592

Жыл бұрын

@@TheOtherCaleb I agree. I think the FLO argument is actually very strong, but not formulated as strongly as it actually is

I’m a little bit surprised that Dustin’s Pro-Choice position amounts to holding that abortion isn’t as bad as murder, that the badness of the fetus’ death isn’t on par with the death of a person, and that the woman’s situation warrants some consideration. The person holding the Pro-Life position should grant these. Maybe Trent doesn’t because he’s a catholic, but this doesn’t seem to be rebutting the Pro-Life position as much as it it attacks Trent’s particular version of it. One could say that the killing of a fetus is bad, yet not as bad as killing a person, and that the situation of the pregnant woman might or might not constitute sufficient justification for terminating a pregnancy, yet even if it does, killing a fetus is still bad and regrettable. I think this is the moderate Pro-Life position that most people hold to. Many people feel that the health of the mother, rape, very young age, extreme poverty might be good justifications, but the vast majority of abortions are done more out of preference than necessity. The Pro-Choice advocate maintains that abortion is permissible in those cases. Pragmatically the Pro-Life position succeeds if it can maintain that it’s actually not permissible unless there are morally sufficient reasons. Dustin in effect sounds like a moderate Pro-Lifer, whereas Trent is more of an extreme Pro-lifer. I would have liked to see a more robust defense of the Pro-Choice position. Also, If we’re minds, and minds don’t develop until after some time after birth, doesn’t that just mean infanticide is permissible? Dustin’s claim that minds develop at some point during gestation seems wrong. Just some notes on Dustin’s opening.

@MajestyofReason

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your comments my dude! So, Dustin intentionally constructed his opening to address Trent’s views. His purpose wasn’t in every argument to offer a generalized defense of a broadly pro-choice position; some of his arguments were along those lights, but the rest were intended to target specifically Trent’s views.

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

The capacity for consciousness is sufficient for having a mind, on my view, and that develops at some point during gestation. Newborns are conscious. I did focus specifically on Trent's view, rather than trying to develop a fully-fledged ethic of abortion, though, as I said, much of what I said has broader application (I take it that, e.g., "elective abortion at six weeks is murder" is the mainstream pro-life position in the US, and is supposed to be the justification for outlawing it). A few reasons for the focus: (1) I was talking to Trent, (2) I think developing a fully-fledged ethic of abortion is quite difficult and I am not sure what to say about all of it, but I am very definitely sure that Trent's view is wrong, (3) a lot of the people Trent debates don't seem to realize how extreme his views are, and I wanted to highlight these, (4) I think views in the neighborhood of Trent's are the most damaging, in terms of political and social consequences. It may also be that my actual views are more moderate than yours (or than those you are attributing to the pro-choice side), though I am sure I don't count as a moderate pro-lifer.

@antipositivism3128

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett ???? The most arbitrary statement you made is how you draw the line of what is sufficient to be characterized as the capacity for consciousness

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett I appreciate your response. Applied ethics is really hard to talk about, especially where it concerns the interests of half of the population, and it's a major political divide. Here is a distinction I have personally found to be very helpful: Morally pro-life, but legally pro-choice. It's clear to me from recent developments that a complete ban on abortion as it has happened in some states is really problematic, as enforcing it violates fundamental rights to privacy. If terminating a pregnancy is illegal from day 1, what are the measures to enforce such a law? Just thinking about what it would take to prove that someone has had an abortion is terrifying. An implant tracking if you've conceived, and then people knocking on your door after a miscarriage assuming that you must have committed murder. We're already seeing situations where doctors are not able to perform lifesaving operations because they don't want to take the responsibility of having to prove that the embryo wasn't viable, or that the mother truly was otherwise going to die. I think intuitively we all agree that the fetus has some worth, but it's clear that it's not as much as a person, and if preserving their right to life is infringing on the rights of persons in a way we find very objectionable, it might be the lesser of two evils to permit abortion. In this way I believe we're able to talk about abortion as a legal issue, without getting into the weeds of personhood. The vocal -ultra MAGA- conservatives who want a total ban on abortion should maybe see the imprudence of criminalizing abortion, seeing as they're against big government, and value their right to privacy.

@RagingBlast2Fan

Жыл бұрын

​@@MajestyofReason Thank you for hosting these! You're a gem!

So much time soent trying to build walls between us and the rest of animals, why? Under theism I get theres a soul or something, but largely this was a secular discussion. If your view entails that animals also shouldn't be killed, what is the issue? Why does this keep getting levied as an issue? Unfortunately this keeps frustrating me and im just loosing the drive to finish it. I also find this kind of abortion debate to be largely a waste of time. I feel that this topic is too hard to parse out and it doesnt matter. The real debate imo is around when the right to life is aupported above autonomy. If you try to say its not or is a person with rights, you basically lose the other side immediately. Ignore whether it is or isnt because we dont know for sure and ask what do we do if it is. If it isnt, its clesr theres no issue, no problem. So lets discuss what if it is, now what? Does it hold the right to the mothers body without her ongoing consent or not?

So, I am not a human-being (as defined by science)?

Not a persuasive argument from Dustin.

@logicalliberty132

Жыл бұрын

Not a persuasive comment from Rob.

@JohnSmith-bq6nf

11 ай бұрын

How is it not? An early fetus does not have the same cognitive functions as you and me do.

@JohnSmith-bq6nf

11 ай бұрын

what's more different "sperm/egg vs zygote" or "zygote vs 9m fetus/baby"

@robb7855

11 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Humans are valuable. Humans with extremely impaired mental ability are still valuable. Obviously mental ability is irrelevant.

@robb7855

11 ай бұрын

@@JohnSmith-bq6nf Look at biology 101 text books. What is the first stage of a human organism?

Get secular pro-life, Monica. She’s the best!

@dustin.crummett

Жыл бұрын

I'm supposed to have a discussion with her in a few weeks.

@computationaltheist7267

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett Where is the discussion happening?

@logans.butler285

Жыл бұрын

@@computationaltheist7267 OOhhhh, you'll want to be there to see how Dustin gets destroyed? 😼

@computationaltheist7267

Жыл бұрын

@@logans.butler285 Please, tell me what is the title of the video so that I can go watch it.

@logans.butler285

Жыл бұрын

@@dustin.crummett Well it's been a few weeks already Dustin. Where's the link?

Dustin demolished Trent's opening lmao

@treycastle9119

Жыл бұрын

I really didn’t see that

@TheOtherCaleb

Жыл бұрын

When lol

@JohnSmith-bq6nf

11 ай бұрын

Exactly I feel like Dustin destroyed him lol. Pro life people of course will still ignore Dustin's points.

I think the problem that I have with a lot of prolife arguments is that they are too broad, and not specific enough. Same with pro-choice arguments. I really think the argumentation should just go as deep into understanding reality as possible, how we exist, and how we act as we exist, and what we prioritize socially. As opposed to developing different arguments, we should just go deep into reality and figure out the best way of understanding things. Personally I'm convinced the prolife position most appropriately does this when approached correctly.

@anteodedi8937

Жыл бұрын

You know what? We don't even need to develop any argument at all. Pro-life is the right position and we intuitively know that.

@bitchd7839

Жыл бұрын

Although the generic pro-life "life begins at conception; the right of the child's life exceeds the right of the mother's bodily autonomy on every case unless the mother's life is at risk" stance is flawed, but I agree that their arguments point towards the right direction. Pro-life arguments believe that the right to life exceeds the right to bodily autonomy, so their arguments mostly revolve around when life begins or which type of life has which rights. Which is the correct way to tackle the ethics of abortion. Pro-woman's choice arguments believe that the right to bodily autonomy exceeds the right to life, which is only true if the woman's rights were violated in the first place. If the pregnancy was not consensual or the mother's health is at risk due to the pregnancy, then the mother's choice overrules anyone's opinions. But if the pregnancy is safe and consensual, even if we prove that the fetus does not have the right to life and that abortions are acceptable for any reason, the father should still have an equal say as the mother and both must consent to the abortion.

@educationalporpoises9592

Жыл бұрын

@@anteodedi8937 This isn't true. I'm very prolife and I find the prochoice position intuitive. I also find the prolife position intuitive. It's not that simple.

@anteodedi8937

Жыл бұрын

@@educationalporpoises9592 While I find the pro-choice and the bodily autonomy thing hypocritical. No woman aborts for the sake of 9 months bodily autonomy.

THESE ARGUMENTS ARE TORTURE! First, a PERSON is a human being with the full compliment of RIGHTS and DUTIES. The word PERSON comes from the latin personae and the greek prosopon which mean FACE and the hebrew adam which means human being. A person is an identity of a human being that a court must recognize, which in times past often only applied to land owners who had the power to enforce their person which is authority. Might is the right RES GLADII and the claw is the law LEX TALIONIS in NATURE and the PERSON is the FACE of the RIGHT and LAW. That's true across all cultures in all times, no matter how far removed your philosophy seems to be if it has FORCE your back to the bedrock of the Face of the Right and Law. GOD is the FACE of RIGHT and LAW having complete POWER in AUTHORITY to ENFORCE, and he is a PERSON in CHRIST JESUS, with the full compliment of LIFE, LIBERTY, and PROPERTY and all who bear his FACE also have EQUITY in his PERSON therefore his gift GRACE of that image and face on all human beings requires all human beings NOT ANIMALS, NOT ALIENS, NOT ANGELS, human beings like Jesus Christ be treated with FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS in EQUITY with those same RIGHTS balanced and PROTECTED by LAW as our common DUTY to the FEDERAL FACE of our humanity YHVHJESUS. That FACE began in this universe of humanity at his CONCEPTION and continued to his DEATH and was verified in his PERSON by his RESURRECTION to be the FACE OF JUSTICE. Everything else is arbitrary and prideful arrogance.

@FlyingSpaghettiJesus

Жыл бұрын

Until you can prove this gods existence you’re appealing to, there’s no logical or rational reason to take you seriously. Because your whole argument is built on presup that you haven’t even demonstrated to be accurate. Try again.

Regardless of which side ends up being right, I'm convinced that the political enactment of pro life policy inescapably results in a Handmaid's Tale distopia

Lol Dustin is Moloch apologist?!

Start of video, my stance: yeet em all 100% of the time until we get to the last generation. No one should have kids

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

You seem like such a SWEET soul. 🤪

@brandtgill2601

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices like sugar.

@brandtgill2601

Жыл бұрын

@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices id have watched the rest of the video but the first 2 points were rather irrelevant/ didn't say anything of truth. Humans and animals have value in the fact they can reduce suffering and can suffer themselves. So idk why he puts an emphasis on humans when "identify" beings with "desires" is much more consistent with actual human values... oh wait its because it doesn't work for his narrative. Yeah I'm the sweetest

@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices

Жыл бұрын

@@brandtgill2601 Good Girl! 👌 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

@eg4848

Жыл бұрын

This is actually the best and most consistent position ESPECIALLY for Christians... imagine having kids if you think that an eternal hell exists. Abominable

Too much metaphysics, not enough ethics 😂

I think the question of the ethics of abortion boils down to-> is it moral to create sentient beings? Antinatalism is the best argument for the ethics of abortion, because it is clear that it is not moral to create sentient beings. Abortion is an act of mercy, and I say this as a woman that had an abortion. There was no way I was going to bring another child into this world where children are not safe, their mother's are not safe, and all of us will die. You may say, well there's heaven. I say there is also Hell. The theist claims we are born sinners. Is the unborn child a sinner? Should we not actively try to prevent sin? Maybe Trent can explain why giving birth feels, to me, like the immoral thing I did, and the abortion feels like mercy. Yes, I gave my son lots of love. It's the world, the other humans, that ostracize him and cause him so much pain it is almost unbearable to watch as his mom. One more thing, not enough was said about the other "person" involved- the woman with that zygote. It's like she was not even there, and that's why women think men are not the best "people" to have this conversation. Trent, just be thankful to your mother for not aborting you. You were wanted, and probably needed to give her a sense of accomplishment and self value. Not all women are that way. It does not make us bad people. Again, i cannot stress this enough- abortion is an act of mercy. Mercy is ethical. Therefore, abortion is ethical.

I get physically ill every time I so much as I lay eyes on “Trent”

@bookishbrendan8875

Жыл бұрын

You must be lovely company 🙄