It surprises me how these arguments seem to ignore the mother's role in it. Ultimately, that fetus is a part of her, it's not growing in a vacuum
@IWasOnceAFetusАй бұрын
The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother. They emphasize/debate the roles that adult humans have towards prenatal humans, whether they're biologically related or not. The arguments debate the ethics of killing. No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.
@dobby22705 күн бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus “The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother.“ - no, they ignore. Because how you said “The arguments debate the ethics of killing.” and don’t include a wider range of topics, such as the socio-economic status of women in the world. Discussing the topic of abortion from only one side is called “ignoring.” That’s why in the very first comment the person wrote “a fetus doesn’t grow in a vacuum” because your propaganda channel shows arguments as if mothers don’t exist. But you are too stupid to understand it. You took this phrase literally “No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.”🤡
@yf1177Ай бұрын
If the fetus cannot exist apart from the mother, then it is part of the mother. The mother can decide what she wants to do with her body. You can call it murder if you want, but sometimes murder is justified.
@IWasOnceAFetusАй бұрын
The prenatal human isn't a body part. That's silly and unscientific.
@yf1177Ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus It's attached to the mother via the placenta. For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
@IWasOnceAFetusАй бұрын
@@yf1177 Your citation doesn't prove that the prenatal human is part of the woman's body. Your body parts are supposed to have the same DNA as you.
@yf1177Ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Half of the fetus DNA is from the mother, the other half is from the father. If both parents consent to an abortion, then that makes 100%
@IWasOnceAFetusАй бұрын
@@yf1177 A fetus has two feet. If the fetus is a body part of the pregnant woman, does the woman have four feet? If the fetus is male, does the woman have a penis?
@woodsonchem2 ай бұрын
The prudential argument seems to be, "If you are not 100% certain your action will cause no harm you should not take the action." How could anyone drive a car on prudential reasons? This feels like an argument from a hypothetical world where perfect knowledge is attainable (even if we don't currently have it) and all decisions can be delayed until we attain it.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 ай бұрын
That's an over-simplification of the argument. The argument primarily has to do with moral uncertainty and what one should/should not do when faced with such moral uncertainty. If one is not certain about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one should err on the side of caution when it comes to abortion. Driving a car doesn't necessarily put you in a situation where you're faced with such moral uncertainties.
@davec-13782 ай бұрын
Then an argument by analogy would be If no right to decide whom is allowed to sustain its existence via a particular woman’s body, it follows the state could force a person to allow any of their children to sustain their lives Kid gets in an accident at 14 years old, mom has to give up a kidney Kid drinks too much at 17, dad gives up part of his liver If a fetus is a person, what’s the logical bar that stops my hypotheticals?
@IWasOnceAFetus2 ай бұрын
Your analogies fail. (1) accident: woman did not cause her son to be in need of her kidney. In abortion, the parent knowingly caused the prenatal person to be in need of her body. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person. You definitely have no right to kill that person on-demand. Same goes for the drinking kid and his dad. (2) The debate isn't about whether you have to sustain another person's life. It's about whether you have the right to kill another person on-demand.
@justdavelewis2 ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Just so you know my position beforehand: Legally, I'm pro choice as I think a person should be able to have full bodily autonomy. Morally, I'm not sure. I think the later into the pregnancy it is, the worse it is, but I have a hard time saying it's flat out wrong. I find it really difficult to give a straightforward answer. The reason i'm legally pro choice is basically because of OP's argument. i) If A needs a specific body part (X) to survive, and B is the only person that can provide X should B be legally required to do so? I don't think so, I think that would be wrong, legally and morally. Would you be considered a murderer in this instance? No. ii) As you point out in your (1) response though, if it is the case that A needs X because of B's actions. Lets be extreme and say that B hits A with a car or something (intentionally), and as a result, A needs X from B. Legally, should B have to give up that body part? No, and that sounds like some sort of dystopian future novel. However, B in this case would be charged for attempted murder... There is more nuance in these, but I think this is the general point, no? The big question is this: Does ii) apply to pregnancy? Personally, I don't know. In specific scenarios, possibly. In the case of ii) and applying it to pregnancy, the result would seem to be that it would be legal to have an abortion, but then one would be charged with murder as a result and this seems wrong somehow, I may have to come up with a different analogy. Hitting someone with a car in this case, remember, is the act of getting pregnant and not the abortion of said pregnancy. The abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live. As a general rule, hitting someone intentionally with a car is illegal and morally wrong. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule here stands I think. Getting pregnant, isn't illegal or immoral. Going back to ii) and your 1) it feels like the issue is person A being in a state of need because of the actions of B aren't the same in these analogies and in pregnancy, as the act of getting pregnant (consensually) is not illegal or immoral. Is this an issue for the analogy? I'm not sure, I'd like to see what you have to say about the issue. I hadn't considered your objection in 1) so thank you for making me aware of that... maybe we can come up with an even better analogy and I will change my mind all the way and become pro life! The car hitting might be too extreme... but it might be just the same for any analogy, I don't know. There may be some analogy where its the negligence of B the causes A to require B to survive? Again, I'd like to see what you have to say:) What I am taking away from this though, is people need to not be precarious with their sex lives. Regardless of whether we are pro choice or life, abortions shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. Thank you for reading, if you did:) Its such a complicated question in my opinion and warrants serious thought.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 ай бұрын
@@justdavelewis My thoughts briefly: (1) "Full bodily autonomy" would entail late term abortions-on-demand. In principle, bodily rights arguments don't/can't grant exceptions or they fail. This is one of the many reasons why I find bodily rights arguments utterly unpersuasive. (2) In response to argument (i): a real-life counter-example to your argument is the relationship between a lactating woman & a newborn baby. Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive. If the only one who can help the baby stay alive at the moment is the lactating woman, the baby definitely has every right to her breasts at the moment. Denying him/her this right effectively entails infanticide by means of neglect. The only way your argument seems to succeed is if you accept the moral permissibility of such a case & that would just be absurd. (3) As I've shown above, some forms of refusal *can* be morally problematic. But I think the dis-analogy in your argument, primarily, lies in the fact that you think "abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live." We're talking about abortion-on-demand, aka. a form of killing-on-demand. Not a mere refusal to allowing someone the use of one's body. Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient.
@justdavelewis2 ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Thanks for the reply! 1) Just to reiterate: I think bodily autonomy works as an argument for purely legal reasons, not necessarily moral ones. I think it could be problematic to mandate forced pregnancy no matter the situation. The autonomy argument is actually what convinced me to accept the legality of abortion, regardless of how I may personally feel about it morally. I could be mistaken about this, there may very well be a good argument which brings me in line with your views here, I just haven't heard it yet. 2) "Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive" - I think this might be where we disagree... Babies, and children alike, have the right to be cared for, not the direct use other peoples bodies, no one has that right, not even a baby. Mothers choose to breastfeed their children with their milk, but they don't have to, there is baby formula. In fact, some mothers have trouble getting their baby to latch on properly and therefore they have no choice but to use formula to feed their child, I know one such woman personally. Though I do agree with the sentiment that neglecting your child is morally wrong, I think your 'infanticide by neglect' defence there does not apply in this situation for the reasons mentioned above. If, however, your argument is the baby will die of starvation unless it is breastfed, then I don't thing that really changes anything... If the baby is in the position where it is starving, there is already neglect in the first place. I mention above that there are alternatives to breastfeeding, but even if there was no baby formula, neglecting your child is wrong, I agree. If the baby is starving because of reasons that aren't the mother's fault then the analogy no longer applies due to your reasoning here: "If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person." This would be essentially same as the analogy where your child needs a kidney from you and only you, but it's not your fault. In fact, this is a weaker version of that argument because breastfeeding entails no personal risk to the mother. Donating a kidney is major surgery and that has a risk of complications and death, as does pregnancy in general and childbirth. Abortion will have risks too, but those risks are less great than ones that can arise in childbirth and some pregnancies. I think pregnancy dangers and childbirth complications are serious considerations in these discussions. I will say that most people would probably give up an organ for their child or a family member/friend if they could and knew it would keep them from dying, but it shouldn't be a law - and i think thats where a lot of my contentions come from to be fair. 3) "Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient." This is POTENTIALLY a more interesting analogy but i think it fails as well, because it doesn't properly reflect the nature of the pregnancy situation. Once the kidney is inside the other person, it is their kidney. In your analogy, the kidney is equivalent to the mother's whole body essentially, not just the womb. I do not agree that the child has a right to the mother's entire body. I don't think anyone has that right. Just as a separate curiosity, imagine a hypothetical scenario where for whatever reason, you can either choose between the unborn child's life or the mothers life. Would you choose the child or the mother to survive? In my opinion, i think the mother's life is more important than the unborn child's and so, If only one could be saved, I would choose the mother. I suspect you would disagree based on your comments, and that's cool, I can't tell you that's wrong. I can sort of see where you're coming from on a lot of these, but i just don't feel that the reasoning you've provided here is solid, and i think thats because we disagree on what rights an unborn child should have when compared to a human. That's ok though, I don't think there's necessarily a correct answer. This is an emotional conversation too. It's sad that people feel the need to get an abortion, no matter the circumstances.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 ай бұрын
@@justdavelewis (1) Bodily rights arguments convince you of abortion's permissibility but I've already given you two good reasons for why bodily rights arguments are unpersuasive - they lead to extremist conclusions like late term abortions-on-demand as well as infanticide. I don't see how you can avoid those absurd conclusions. Plenty of other reasons why they're not good arguments for abortion. (2) Bringing up baby formula only adds to your dis-analogy. The initial point was to make this analogous to pregnancy & abortion, which is why I mentioned that the lactating woman was the only one who could help the baby at the moment, as is the case in abortion. As you yourself admit, the rightness or wrongness of infanticide in this situation does not depend on whether there are alternatives to breastfeeding. Even if alternatives did not exist, infanticide would still be unjustified. So your argument (i) where B is the only person who can provide X to A still essentially entails the moral permissibility of infanticide. (3) Now onto the point about the relationship between the woman & the baby. Notice that my first comment to you was in response to your arguments involving a mom & her kid, a father & his kid. It was simply a response to that. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you're obligated to ameliorate the situation. Like i said, you have some minimal obligations to that someone. You definitely don't have the right to kill that someone on-demand. That's applicable even if there's no parent-child relationship, but even more so when there is. Now i think that's enough to discredit your arguments and most abortions that happen in reality. If by some chance the adults here were not responsible for the pregnancy, would they have a right to abort the prenatal human? I think not. Because you'd be arguing for killing the innocent party on demand & that's not justified. (4) Never implied that the kidney is analogous to a woman's entire body. The kidney is analogous to the woman's uterus. The analogy was simply meant to demonstrate that abortion isn't a case of mere refusal as you suggest but is more akin to active killing.
@BertRussell47118 ай бұрын
The bear-hunting analogy is a bit ridiculous. There's little downside to refraining from shooting at an unknown in the bushes, while the upside to refraining is potentially huge. The assumption is that you will remain vigilant and are ready to shoot anything dangerous that might appear out of the bushes. (And if you're not prepared for that event, then you have no business hunting bears!) On the other hand, there's plenty of downside to forcing a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, such as the burden it will place on her body and her life, as well as on the life of her unwanted child. Of course, whether those considerations are compelling enough to counterbalance the consideration that a fetus _might_ be a person is another question. But it is worth noting that the former considerations are real and tangible, while the latter is merely theoretical.
@IWasOnceAFetus8 ай бұрын
The "downside" in the analogy is that someone's right to life can possibly be violated. That's, of course, a huge downside. Not to mention, most burdens of pregnancy don't come close to justifying killing in general. It's simply saying that if people can't agree about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one shouldn't say it's fine to abort the prenatal human. The point is simply that if there's a *non-negligible* chance where you might kill someone in an abortion, you should err on the side of caution.
@IWasOnceAFetus8 ай бұрын
One can also put out a less "theoretical" analogy if you'd like. Imagine you were hired to demolish a building. As Project Manager, you hire a team of experts to get the job done. When the time comes to press the trigger, you ask your Safety Officer if she's positive that no one isleft in the building. She replies, " I did a walk-through last night & I didn't see anyone. But I'm not a 100% sure." It's clear what ought to be done at this point. Given the small but reasonable chance that someone is still in the building, you ought to postpone the demolition. Going forth at this point would be reckless & negligent. This mirrors the other analogy & its point.
@BertRussell47118 ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Nice try, but your analogy suffers from the _exact same weakness_ as the bear analogy: it fails to incorporate the very real damage associated with forcing a pregnancy to term. Put another way, no one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building. So, _speculate_ all you want about the possible murder of a fetus, but you are still left with the very real consequences of an unwanted child. Of course, if you think the former is more compelling than the latter, then have at it, Hoss. But that is a matter of opinion, and, unfortunately for your camp, the majority disagrees with you.
@IWasOnceAFetus8 ай бұрын
@@BertRussell4711 (1) I don't see the "weakness" you speak of. If you're suggesting that simply being pregnant is reason enough to justify abortion in general, then I don't find it persuasive at all since most pregnancy complications don't even require abortions to treat. And the right to life is a serious right. If there's a small but non-negligible chance that you might end up violating it, you ought not be reckless. It's a simple principle. (2) The language of "force" you use is disingenuous at best. A law that bans infanticide is not "forced parenthood." A law that bans starving children to death is not "forced feeding." When someone tells you not to kill other persons, you're not the one who's being "forced" to do something unjust. (3) "No one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building." Yes that's the point. If you demolish the building & someone does get harmed, then that's morally wrong.
@IWasOnceAFetus8 ай бұрын
@@BertRussell4711 "the very real consequences of an unwanted child"? You find it "compelling" to kill humans based on the justification that they're "unwanted"? That doesn't seem compelling at all. I bet even your own intuitions go against what you just said about that. The fact that a born child is unwanted has nothing to do with the child. The fact that a prenatal human is unwanted also has nothing to do w/ the prenatal human. If you blame a born child for being unwanted & kill him, it would be morally wrong. This same principle applies to prenatal humans.
@louiselwood11579 ай бұрын
the difference between the consumption of alcohol and not engaging in intercourse with respect to infringing upon a person is one is an action and another is the absence of action;one is not necessarily morally obligated to help others.
@user-jr1hm3jw2i10 ай бұрын
You lost in alot of people's opinion including mine yet here you are constantly trying to prove you won some how. Give it up
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
(1) I don't really care for people's opinions when all they have to offer are just non-arguments. (2) "constantly"? I've uploaded one video about this. (3) Your response does nothing at all to demonstrate that the video above is wrong. If you have anything of substance, bring it. If not, kindly move on. 😊
@user-jr1hm3jw2i10 ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus 😂 to put things on the internet and have them open to opinions and judgment, you have probably heard the same ones over and over again. What argument is to be had that will be worthy of a conversation? Anti abortion is a joke in the world around it. The take that no one should ever abort is ridiculous and forcing people who are not mentally fit and could end up being horrible parents that can then lead to raising a monster of a person. Like you care? No you don't. It's only the beginning you argue for and that's it. 20 weeks is a good place to allow abortion up to but to say it's completely wrong is a blind way to go about it
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
@@user-jr1hm3jw2iMost people outside of the Western world are mostly anti-abortion. This is just a fact. It's funny to me that you're pretending to have some moral high ground by simply bringing up your opinion when it isn't even grounded on facts. Anyway, I have no time for low tier non-arguments. 😄
@FenLupimo10 ай бұрын
Idk who Destiny is, Idk how the KZread Algorithm got me, Idk who even are you, but this brief youtube video made me realize so much, because it is coerent with whatever you wanted to say about Destiny... welp... I guess I need to thank KZread later lol
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
Thank you for stopping by. 😄
@benson614310 ай бұрын
Conciousness is not unique at all, it is the most fundamental part of reality
@DittyWolf10 ай бұрын
The answer to this which another commenter has pointed out is that to be a person you need to satisfy the consciousness aspect AS WELL as the human aspect. I'm genuinely curious what the pro-life response to this would be since I think this covers everything, and the only thing left to criticize would be arguing that consciousness has nothing to do with personhood, which is already what the debate is about.
@xw3rty21710 ай бұрын
I’m pro life. You have to discern wether these aspects are equal or one is more important than the other. If one is more important then the other then which?
@melvinthetoad410910 ай бұрын
so when a human loses immediate consciousness they are not worthy of protection anymore?
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
If tomorrow we found that someone like superman exists, would you consider him a non-person then?
@DittyWolf10 ай бұрын
The point is that they're both equally important and necessary to be considered a "person". @@xw3rty217
@DittyWolf10 ай бұрын
@@melvinthetoad4109 You can watch the original debate where the two guys talk/argue about this. When you lose consciousness there was still consciousness beforehand that is being continued. In the case of an abortion that conscious experience never began in the first place, meaning that human was never a person.
@dog64010 ай бұрын
''oMg We goT hIM'' he has literally talked about this
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
What did he say about it?
@dog64010 ай бұрын
do not remeber excactly since it was apart of a 4hr discussion so i wont quote it. You should know his point if you are going to ''prove him wrong'' but have put no effort into understanding his side. Get with the woke@@IWasOnceAFetus
@xw3rty21710 ай бұрын
Yes he talked about it but gave nothing
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
@@dog640I'm not asking for an exact quote. I'm simply asking you to tell me what he said about it since you claimed he "literally talked about this." I assume you understood what he said about it. You can simply rephrase it for me here. I watched the entire debate and I did not hear him demonstrate why human consciousness or experiences matter in a morally relevant way.
@crazykubla972810 ай бұрын
The way out of this "flaw" is through a necessary and sufficient condition on what it means to be 'human' and 'concious' Theres no quick way to explain this, so i encourage people to look up "necessary and sufficient" conditions to understand what this means.
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
Yes the concept of necessary & sufficient conditions. How exactly does that get him out of this weakness?
@crazykubla972810 ай бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus I'll use an example, blue is a unique colour, red is another unique colour. When we mix the two together, a new emergent quality is formed and the new colour is purple. If I say that purple is my favourite colour. I'm not saying necessarily that red is my favourite, same goes for blue. It's the new emergent property of purple that is caused when blue and red are mixed that i am pointing to. Same would be true for human conciousness. It's not conciousness alone that gives person hood, neither does the humanity component, it's only when the two are mixed together when the new emergent property of "human conciousness" can be defined.
@xw3rty21710 ай бұрын
@@crazykubla9728 You run into the exact same problem tho. What if a person lacks total consciousness are they still a person they lack blue so they can’t make purple if you say no then it’s the Red or the humanity that makes a person valuable. Because consciousness as an aspect is an experience that all animals will likely experience in there time of existence. The human experience is the most valued at the adult stage of development when the brain has reached its highest capacity of thought. And In this aspect human consciousness at some stages of development would make the human less valuable than let’s say a cow, pig or dog but this comes down to if you value only consciousness. But if consciousness and humanity are equal then your pro life cause that would essentially make abortion wrong at all stages.
@crazykubla972810 ай бұрын
@@xw3rty217 just going 1 by 1 since youve asked multple questions: 1. You've played a word game by using the word 'person' then removing their conciousness, you've assumed that the person is a person before asking the question. You need more context to properly answer this question, but generally speaking, if a person (who already fulfils the conciousness + human criteria) loses said conciousness Permanantly, then yes, the value of their life is done.
@crazykubla972810 ай бұрын
@@xw3rty217 2. Human conciousness does indeed vary from person to person, but I would say that this is still unique to an animals concious experience, purely because of the species difference. You could show me a chimp that's smarter than a toddler all day, the toddler still takes the value because it fulfills the human + conciousness criteria, the chimp meanwhile only fulfills the conciousness criteria.
@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics10 ай бұрын
Great points by the commentor.
@IWasOnceAFetus10 ай бұрын
I agree. You can find the original & full video by Trent Horn linked in the description. Thanks for stopping by.
@rebelape425710 ай бұрын
Hot damn i am supprised hes prolife
@Bill-ou7zp3 ай бұрын
He went to catholic school
@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics11 ай бұрын
100th subscriber! 🎉
@AnimationWizard Жыл бұрын
Wow, the argument against “we are our minds” was great
@humesspoon3176 Жыл бұрын
With regard to the last point on deprivation and how if you're not having sex with someone, you're depriving them of their "sex-with-you" future. The issue I think Marquis would convey with this point is that abortion is impositional, whereas electing to not have sex with someone, whilst is depriving them of some type of future, is not impositional. You can still elect in the first place, whereas the fetus cannot. The other issue is that Don Marquis would most likely draw a line in the sand between total deprivation of life and the deprivation of an experience. The latter can still entail other types of experiences, the other, in the case of the fetus, cannot.
@docrob5320 Жыл бұрын
The real world does not have the luxury of philosophy. But your young.
@jonallen76194 ай бұрын
Said the imbecile
@gaseredtune5284 Жыл бұрын
No one who supports abortion is morally awake.
@donaldhunt4596 Жыл бұрын
Have you ever been bear hunting?
@Nietzsche666 Жыл бұрын
Joe 🤩❤️
@No_BS_policy Жыл бұрын
1:36 that pun was fvckin hilarious Joe🤣
@jacoblee5796 Жыл бұрын
I agree that an abortion at any stage is murder. It is a human life at a certain stage of life. That said i agree with abortions within the first trimester. The reasons I'm prochoice is because it isn't well to do stable families getting abortions. Is broke, usually very young women who can't even take care of themselves. There are huge correlations between broken single parent homes and crime and poverty.
@GodisgudAQW Жыл бұрын
Do good consequences justify murder?
@jacoblee5796 Жыл бұрын
@@GodisgudAQW In some cases, yes, you are a fool to think otherwise.
@GodisgudAQW Жыл бұрын
@Jacob Lee Hmm, would you say the same about slavery? Because in my view, slavery is not as bad as murder, and slavery was vastly more socially beneficial than abortion is today. Yet I would never want to hold a principle that entailed that slavery is justifiable for its social and economic benefits
@jacoblee5796 Жыл бұрын
@@GodisgudAQW I agree, slavery isn’t as bad as murder but can you enslave an embryo?
@GodisgudAQW Жыл бұрын
@Jacob Lee No, but you can murder one. And since we agree that murder is worse, if the benefits of slavery did not outweigh the moral wrongness of slavery, then the social benefits of abortion would have to be even greater than the social benefits of slavery back then in order for those benefits to be sufficient to make abortion permissible
@jimbojackson4045 Жыл бұрын
That was a good debate.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
True.
@kylelapoure8603 Жыл бұрын
The right to life doesn’t entail the right to use somebody’s organs
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
It does for younger humans as Trent Horn just demonstrated above. Simply stating a counter-assertion demonstrates nothing.
@kylelapoure8603 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus ok. So if a parent caused their kid kidney failure by being negligent one day. Does that mean the government can force them to give up their kidneys for 9 months?
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@kylelapoure8603 organ donation/refusal "analogies" are not analogous to pregnancy or abortion. This has been proven multiple times by both pro-life as well as pro-abortion philosophers. If you made your analogy actually analogous, you'd have to say that the parent also has the right to directly kill their child in addition to refusing the use of his organs. Not to mention, the parent definitely wouldn't off the hook so easily if he deliberately and knowingly caused his child to be disabled or diseased.
@kylelapoure8603 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus that’s a complete strawman fallacy. The BA argument doesn’t talk about the right to kill. It’s the right to detach somebody from their body. The method in which abortion is done I doubt makes a difference for you. There are methods tho that don’t directly kill the fetus. They just stop the fetus from stealing the mothers nutrients I believe
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@kylelapoure8603 It's not a straw man fallacy at all. The BA argument is the one that appeals to analogies that aren't relevantly analogous to the case of pregnancy & abortion. Also, generally speaking, there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die (aka. not killing). We intuitively recognize this.
@gleon1602 Жыл бұрын
I think a stronger version of the impairment argument would be if there was a pill a pregnant mother took that made it so that her unborn child never develops an upper brain (so never previously conscious) and then after the baby's born, the baby is killed and its organs are harvested. It's hard to imagine a situation like this and think no one was harmed.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
Thanks for that. And yes, I agree that that's a strong argument. Not included in this video, but Trent later goes on to make an argument from the wrongness of genetic enhancement, wherein a human embryo is genetically modified to grow into a person who desires to be a slave to other people. I think it has a similar underlying principle to your hypothetical.
@asiaaviator5353 Жыл бұрын
The ever-eminent philosopher Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person no matter how small!"
@asiaaviator5353 Жыл бұрын
I know what Yogi BEAR would say about your Bear vs Buddy story and the decision to shoot or not to shoot? He'd say, "When ya get to a fork in the road, take it!"
@asiaaviator5353 Жыл бұрын
Joe Schmid on Abortion = good. How about Joe Schmid on *Homosexuality* ? And if you dare, please cover 1) the scientific data on how turning off one's frontal lobe causes more atheistic thinking (i.e., baring getting hit in the head theism is the default wiring), and 2) the relationship of lack of HUGS by Dad causes guys to become gays per the research of Dr. Joe Nicolosi (another smart dude named Joe!) and put succinctly by Dr. Albert Dean Byrd (of NARTH) who said: "Dads hug your sons. If you don't, someday another man will." (Note: "Faith of the Fatherless" and "Fatherless America" are two similar-but-different books.) Thanks in advance for a 9:22 on you on the topic of Same-Sex Attraction (SSA)!
@asiaaviator5353 Жыл бұрын
@Joe, since you said "I'm just scratching the surface" is this why you were perhaps sending us a subconscious signal of that fact by scratching your nose 15 times during your 9:22 video? 🙂
@bailujen8052 Жыл бұрын
Abortion was rooted in racism especially planned parenthood Take a look at Margret Sanger
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
I will look into it. Thank you for the suggestion.
@bookishbrendan8875 Жыл бұрын
True. I “identify” as pro-life. I recognize that there are exceptions, and that really the main ones I think are “morally permissible” are so on DDE grounds. Aside from that, if a zygote/fetus exists, and is alive and in development, I think it’s fundamentally clear that we should view it as someone’s existence, however rudimentary it may be at such an early stage. To kill it is to rob someone of their existence, and thus the future they could have and would have lived had you let them live.
@probaskinnyman4960 Жыл бұрын
Great arguments, but I would like to hear how this man would respond to the objection “If we say a fetus or zygote or embryo is a human being, the what about our sperms and eggs? Would it be justified to masturbate? Is it not an act of killing?” I’ve asked Jimmy Akin this question before and he mentioned that it is because these aren’t organism rather their living things that aren’t organism (I think Nathan Norbis used a similar argument when debating Trent , but calls the embryo non-organism but a living thing) , but the early stages of pregnancy already have an organism therefore it is immoral to still have early trimester abortion. I agree completely with Akin, but would love your take. And for the sake of it because I just had some bonus questions in mind, what makes an organism and what makes a living things? What are the differences?
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
I'm not the guy in the video so I can't speak for him. Regarding the morally relevant difference between sperm cells and prenatal humans: if that's what Jimmy Akin said, I agree with him. However, I wouldn't say the relevant difference between sperm cells & human zygotes/embyros is a difference between "living things" & "organisms." This is because "organism" itself is sometimes defined as "a living thing." The relevant difference for me is that sperm cells are mere bodily cells whose functions are subordinate to the larger organism, whereas human zygotes/embryos _are_ organisms themselves. Comparing organisms to sperm cells is like comparing yourself to your skin cells. We intuitively recognise that skin cells cannot be right-bearers. Hope that helps.
@probaskinnyman4960 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus I think I’m close to getting it, but I still don’t, could u explain it to me like you would if I was a 15 yr old pro choice person who lack knowledge on what philosophy is?
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@probaskinnyman4960 What I mean is this is a difference between _parts_ and _wholes._ An individual organism is a "whole" by itself. A sperm/skin/egg cell is a "part" of something else. Parts of you are not morally equal to you. Another easy way to understand this is that sperm/skin/egg cells are "living things" in the _adjective_ sense of the word. Whereas prenatal human organisms (zygotes/embryos/fetuses) are "living things" in the _noun_ sense of the word. I hope that's clearer. Not sure if I can make it simpler than this.
@probaskinnyman4960 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus this is perfect thanks! I guess my 15 yr old alter ego is now gonna be pro life
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@probaskinnyman4960 I'm glad to hear that! Thanks for stopping by.
@lilyyy778 Жыл бұрын
0:10 "Sometimes we gotta give the woman more autonomy." Oh, really? And what about all the female babies who are murdered in abortions? What about the fact that Planned Parenthood is literally okay with someone getting an abortion when the only reason for it is because the baby "is a girl"? Disgusting.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
Exactly. If "abortion rights" should be given to women on request & on demand, sex selective abortions are perfectly justifiable. It _is_ disgusting. And i hate the fact that they pretend as if pro-lifers are against women's bodily autonomy. We're not. We're just against the use of bodily autonomy in unjustified ways.
@jimbojackson4045 Жыл бұрын
8:20 He says there's nothing wrong with depriving a person who might exist in the future. I'm not sure how this squares with how we look at environmentalism. The main reason we don't chop down every tree on the planet is bc we care about people who don't even exist yet. I thought of that argument recently. But if that's the case, does that mean, as some like Joe imply, that we are depriving conceptual persons of a FLO by not biologically conceiving/creating them? I feel like we can get around that by noting that you don't have a right to be bio-conceived/created. I'm not sure. What do you think??? There must be SOME way around it. How else could we hold both beliefs simultaneously?
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
I think you're onto something with the environmentalism objection. If I'm not mistaken, I've read similar objections in Patrick Lee's "Abortion and Unborn Human Life." I think that book might help you out in this regard. Also, I don't think Joe's objection can make sense of cases where a human embryo (presumably a non-person) is deliberately & genetically modified to grow into a mature person who desires all the wrong things, such as wanting to be a slave to other people, etc. I believe everyone would say that is wrong, even if the embryo were not a person. But locating the morally bad in future harm to persons in such a case seems absurd.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
In his defense of the FLO argument, Trent Horn belabours a similar point in his recent debate with Nathan Nobis, when he talks about NBC's ("Never Been Conscious").
@jimbojackson4045 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Ooo. I'm excited to view that debate. Thank you also for the book recommendation. Not much of a reader, but I'll look into him.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@jimbojackson4045 No problem! Thanks for stopping by. ✌🏻
@Yeatlova Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus With the genetic modification thing. I think a critic is going to say human beings should have these certain "proper" desires in virtue of the type of beings they are. A pro choice person is most likely going to say the type of being we are is not our organisms, or body, rather our mind. And thus, when a mind comes into existence, the person has been harmed by such impairment, and an explanation of why such impairment is immoral has been generated. However, we cannot say the same for a 10 week fetus who is aborted, because abortion prevents a being from developing such perverted desires to begin with. So impairing an organism to the nth degree brings about a sufficiently relevant good that impairing an organism to the n+1 degree doesn't. You may appeal to an imaginary case were Mary genetically modifies her fetus to desire to be a salve, but 5 days later is hit by a car and her fetus dies. Clearly, the pro lifer says, Mary's actions were still wrong even if no person came into existence. However, if one makes such a move, they are confusing subjective wrongness with objective wrongness. In this case, with Mary's limited knowledge and limited beliefs, what she did was only subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong. However, when the fetus obtains a mind in the case of an impairment (n+1), Something objectively wrong has happened. For an actual person has been made worse off.
@jimbojackson4045 Жыл бұрын
Regarding his PC response to the Impairment Argument, he notes that PCs will not initially be convinced bc of the problem of suffering, but you could easily press your point with a simple question: "So, you believe it's worse to hurt someone's future, than to take it away? Doesn't that sound reversed?" Of course, some might answer "yes." In that case, I might say what PC streamer Destiny said on Ep. 50 of the I'm Doing Great Podcast. He said that those who lose limbs, etc. seem to adjust quite well, given time, to their impairments. After a while, they report similar qualities of life to others. Thus, the problem of suffering is overstated. Yet, the problem of killing someone/a future someone remains.
@jimbojackson4045 Жыл бұрын
He takes a bit long with his version of the Prudential argument. Plus it's muddied by other things like the danger bears present (though, perhaps this is good, since it might analogize a pro-choicer's perception of the dangers pregnancy has). I prefer something concise like, "How confident should you be that there are no people in the building, before you demolish it?"
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
I agree. I never understood why "bears" specifically, since it would have worked just as well without that specification.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
@d.a.tsun5104 Жыл бұрын
THANK YOU! I got here from your comment in Counsel of Trent/TX Bans Abortion video. I am working for a well known US health care company and ever since Covid 19 outbreak, I notice where the company's stance is. And as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned, the CEO distributed email (statement of the company) to 'keep our commitment and promise to your members and employees for health care equality' and as such, now we're offering Travel and Lodging reimbursement/coverage for abortion and/or sex change procedures. I'm probably viewed as either religious nut or over-reactive when or if I mentioned to other employees (my direct manager) that it makes me sick to my stomach to see the direction taken by this company I joined more than 20 years ago - it was not this 'progressive' until 2017 when another known retail drug company bought it. So long story short, while I never thought I would do an apologetic, in the matter of the unborn facing the slaughter of abortion, I'm trying my best in defense of the unborn. I also (lucky me) live in CA and this year, this November, we're going to decide whether or not CA will amend it's constitution with Prop 1 which will erase any boundaries and limits to abortion. If adopted, CA will be the most progressive state with its abortion: at any stage of pregnancy, for any reasons, up to the point of birth, at tax payers' funds. From the look of it, Prop 1 will happen - they raise $ millions, while the opponents only raise less than $1 million. My heart hurts. I try not to show emotion when talking about this to pro-choicers or even those who are still ambivalent, but my anger always seeps through.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@d.a.tsun5104 thank you for your comment and for your efforts. Sorry for the late reply. I only saw your comment now. I'm actually a non-american but i was especially elated when Roe was overturned. It has given pro-lifers all over the world the impetus to hope for more.
@d.a.tsun5104 Жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus I kind of suspected that you're not american from one of your comments where you spelled word the way american english wouldn't. I'm myself not from the US but I've just become US citizen last year. But you made a good point with how RvW decision impacted/expanded beyond the US. I used to be a member of an online language school where the owner is a French woman. When RvW was overturned, she made a special episode on her channel dedicated to her speech about how this decision angered and saddened her as a feminist. She also said being from Grenoble she was very proud that her city was the first city in all of France to have Planned Parenthood. All of this was said after she just celebrated her first son's birthday. I asked her how someone could claim a feminist, and a mother, and at the same time be proud pro-abortion. These are oxymorons. How can women come to the state of thinking that they are now liberated and equal socially (France's pride: Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité) when in order to 'feel' that way they have to suppress the very essence of what makes them a female, which on itself is not an impediment? How can she look at her child's eye and think: If...no, WHEN I don't want you, or your sister/brother, I have the right to kill you/them? And because her son is a male, what kind of message does she send to that future man regarding the members of his opposite sex? But of course I got crickets. By the way, I am myself a female and I grew up very tomboy, from a very large family with 6 siblings. My uncles and aunts used to talk down on my family, my father and esp. my mother for not curbing themselves (they had 2 or 4 children each). When my mom had my youngest sister, my dad sort of forced her to give her up because my mother would not abort. My dad youngest sister only had 3 children all boys and she wanted a girl, so my dad gave her my youngest sister and years later after my mother died (she died at age 56) we found in her diary how devastated she felt to see my sister everyday - my aunt's only a few houses away from ours but couldn't be her mom and what would my sister think of her to give her up like that. P.S. I sent to several coworkers and managers with whom I work directly and who work in CA an email imploring them to vote no on Prop 1, and as I anticipated, the email was not received well, but I'm still surprised at the response I received from certain individuals whom I thought were 'balanced' in other subject matters. One of them even got angry and said I was offending others with my belief because others had and entitled to their own beliefs, and they may or may not have had 'it' (am assuming it being abortion but unsure because she said may or may not, if so then what she's saying about them being offended about?).
@TheOtherCaleb Жыл бұрын
Based Joe
@TheOtherCaleb Жыл бұрын
@@Oners82 Yes
@GodisgudAQW2 жыл бұрын
At the end, Schmid appeals to the principle that "You can't deprive non-persons of goods." Let's call this the "Deprivation Requires Personhood" (DRP) principle. I don't think DRP undermines Marquis's argument. Marquis argues that depriving an *individual* of a future like ours (FLO) is wrong, and that abortion deprives individuals of FLO. Regardless of whether the fetus is a person, everyone agrees a fetus is an *individual*. Schmid said he does not want to conclude that failing to have intercourse is harming a non-person of the goods of existence. We can resist this conclusion by appealing to a different principle. Instead of relying on DRP, we can rely on DRI: "Deprivation Requires an Individual." When you fail to have intercourse, there is no already-existing individual that you are harming. This is unlike abortion, which actively and intentionally deprives an already-existing individual of FLO. Anyone who agrees with DRI also agrees with DRP, because DRI is a more general version of DRP: it applies not only to persons, but individuals in general. You can't expect to be successful in your objections if you are appealing to principles we already agree with. That's why Schmid's DRP does not affect Marquis's argument in the slightest. Philosophers also tried to object to Marquis by saying his view entailed that condoms are immoral, but this is not true. Prior to fertilization, there is no individual, and hence there is no deprivation (by DRI). I think Marquis's argument is still the strongest in the literature.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Nicely put. Thank you!
@exalted_kitharode Жыл бұрын
Well you basically defined DRI so that it will arbitrarily exclude gametes but include zygotes, how convenient. What was the ground for this distinction in the first place?
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@exalted_kitharode isn't that fairly obvious? The distinction is grounded in the fact that sex gametes aren't individuals while human organisms are.
@GodisgudAQW Жыл бұрын
@@exalted_kitharode Gametes don't develop into adult humans, but zygotes do.
@abhaysreekanth Жыл бұрын
@@GodisgudAQW gametes given the right environment with each other will develop into a human . A zygote also given the right environment will develop into a human
@Hogstrictors2 жыл бұрын
I think it's admirable is that you wear a pro-choice hat sometimes when you speak but knowing from the beginning of the video that you lean toward pro-life Id like to ask you a question and hear your honest answer. When you made the channel name "I was once a fetus", were you trying to take advantage and play on the emotions of most humans?
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
I'm not Joe Schmid. Read the description. Also, "i was once a fetus" is a philosophical argument against abortion by Alexander Pruss. It's also very accurate.
@moderncaleb39232 жыл бұрын
Philosophers Jeff McMahan, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and others, all outspoken defenders of abortion also believe infanticide is morally permissible (euthanasia). This is problematic for most people.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Yep. And Peter Singer, John Harris, Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Jonathan Glover, J. Räsänen too. Ben Watkins of RealAtheology also admits that their pro-abortion position entails infanticide of born infants.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@Oners82 1) I was mostly trying to point out that most abortion arguments entail the logical permissibility of infanticide. I think this is generally speaking true regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point (2) I don't see how your position doesn't entail infanticide. Your position entails late term abortions. These are practically infanticide. Killing inside & outside at that point seems pretty irrelevant in the moral sense if you ask me.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@Oners82 (1) I didn't make any "rebuttals." (2) You may want to demonize the prenatal human as "violator" to justify killing him/her but that's just you. Because the fact is prenatal humans aren't "violators." (3) Using arguments from consent as justifications for abortion makes sense only if you equate prenatal humans to intruders/violators/rapists & I'm glad you admitted to doing so. Doesn't seem like a reasonable move to me because prenatal humans aren't intruders/violators/rapists or even equivalent to them.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@Oners82 (4) Bodily rights arguments are, generally speaking, self-defeating. Here's one example how: If it's wrong to force a human to give up SOME of her blood/kidney/bone marrow to save another human being, then it's even more problematic to force one human (the one in utero) to give up all of her blood/kidneys/bone marrow, all her organs, & her life itself, not to save the life of another human, but to simply render another human free of pregnancy. In the case of abortion, what the donor gives up is much more substantial (life itself) & what the recipient receives is much less substantial than life itself (freedom from pregnancy). (5) "I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point." That wasn't an argument. Not even a proposition. You're arguing with yourself. (6) If killing inside & outside the womb is the only difference you have for saying that one is infanticide & the other is not, you have no justification for why your position doesn't entail infanticide. Location isn't a morally relevant difference.
@IWasOnceAFetus Жыл бұрын
@@Oners82 Alright. I don't have time for people who lack self-control and you clearly can't wait for this discussion to turn into a contest of wills. You don't even seem to know what arguments are. One advice: Stop equating prenatal humans to rapists. Now shoo.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
@GodisgudAQW2 жыл бұрын
Yo, I couldn't find a way to message you, but are you still following that abortion thread? Just needed to vent, I legit got her to go on a screed about inequality and discriminatory policies only to admit that even if we could legislate against abortion in such a way that it does not create disparate outcomes, she would still be against it. And to top it off, all I'm trying to prove is that at the heart of the matter is what is permissible to do to a fetus, and nothing else matters.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Hey man, sorry I haven't gone back to the thread after my last comments. I got no more notifications. I don't take the "excuse me but" lady seriously because she obviously argues in bad faith most of the time. Even when you demonstrate to her that she's wrong, she'll simply refuse to accept it. I remember how under one of Trinity Radio's video on abortion, she even got called out for it by Braxton Hunter in the comments, including other pro-lifers.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
She uses the same sort of arguments with everyone and when I come across them, I just feel the need to make sure that the other person discussing with her knows how intellectually dishonest she can be. 🤷♂️
@GodisgudAQW2 жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Yeah, for a moment there I felt like I got her to seriously consider the arguments I was making, so I changed my goal from coming across strong to any third-party reader to actually trying to extend an olive branch and get her to open up to the pro-life view. Then when she replied the way she did, that goal crumbled so I just went back to dismantling her arguments rather than having a conversation as equals
@GodisgudAQW2 жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Because frankly I feel that it's pretty obvious that I've processed the issue through way more than her and hope that's obvious to anyone else reading. So I reached out to some of my friends to get their impressions just to make sure that the blowout is as obvious as it seems to be to me
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@GodisgudAQW She's just doesn't have a charitable way of considering the arguments. All she does is go back to pretending that the pro-life position is anti-woman, no matter how many times someone shows her she's wrong. It's wilful ignorance. 🤷♂️ You did your job. Keep speaking up for the unborn.
@LZKS2 жыл бұрын
WRONG. It's none of Christian's business what the society does, the same way it's none of society's business what Christians do.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
The slaughter of innocent human beings is everyone's business regardless of what worldview they hold to.
@LZKS2 жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus Again, you're starting from "fetus are human beings" argument. Majority of society don't believe that, so you can cry all the way to heaven and nobody but your cult will care.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@LZKS here's some actual science for you: (1) "There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that the embryo is a *human being* from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human. Some people consider that the embryo becomes human only after birth." Source: Moore, Keith L., T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, 9th Edition, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2016, p. 339. (Chapter 6) (2) "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being... Human development begins at fertilization... to form a single cell - a zygote. _This highly specialised totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual_ ." Source: _The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology_ , Keith Moore and TVN Persaud.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@LZKS here are quotes from your own leading pro-abortion advocates: "It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species _Homo Sapiens.'_ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being." - Peter Singer ("Practical Ethics") "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." - David Boonin ("A Defense of Abortion")
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@LZKS You're the only one who has been airing his his ungrounded opinions. You can keep pretending you're making arguments. But let me remind you yet again: ad hominems are not arguments.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other important resources in description. Please check them out.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
@jasontroch48882 жыл бұрын
terrible pro-life arguments as usual
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
You can elaborate if you like.
@wayfaringmonk68472 жыл бұрын
A yes the "man" who slapped a Muslim round the face with a Qur’an. A violent Christian missionary to Muslims, who debates about pro-life. He pretends to be innocent, but obviously incites violence and division in subtle ways. You don't have to be a genius to know that, just a person with a functional brain.
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@wayfaringmonk6847 What the heck are you even talking about?
@wayfaringmonk68472 жыл бұрын
@@IWasOnceAFetus The man debating in this video from Speakers Corner
@IWasOnceAFetus2 жыл бұрын
@@wayfaringmonk6847 great. you dislike him. So what? Address the arguments. Even if you dislike him, you still have to address the arguments. Anything less is intellectually dishonest.
Пікірлер
It surprises me how these arguments seem to ignore the mother's role in it. Ultimately, that fetus is a part of her, it's not growing in a vacuum
The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother. They emphasize/debate the roles that adult humans have towards prenatal humans, whether they're biologically related or not. The arguments debate the ethics of killing. No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.
@@IWasOnceAFetus “The arguments don't ignore the role of the mother.“ - no, they ignore. Because how you said “The arguments debate the ethics of killing.” and don’t include a wider range of topics, such as the socio-economic status of women in the world. Discussing the topic of abortion from only one side is called “ignoring.” That’s why in the very first comment the person wrote “a fetus doesn’t grow in a vacuum” because your propaganda channel shows arguments as if mothers don’t exist. But you are too stupid to understand it. You took this phrase literally “No one here is suggesting that prenatal humans grow in a vacuum.”🤡
If the fetus cannot exist apart from the mother, then it is part of the mother. The mother can decide what she wants to do with her body. You can call it murder if you want, but sometimes murder is justified.
The prenatal human isn't a body part. That's silly and unscientific.
@@IWasOnceAFetus It's attached to the mother via the placenta. For more information: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placenta
@@yf1177 Your citation doesn't prove that the prenatal human is part of the woman's body. Your body parts are supposed to have the same DNA as you.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Half of the fetus DNA is from the mother, the other half is from the father. If both parents consent to an abortion, then that makes 100%
@@yf1177 A fetus has two feet. If the fetus is a body part of the pregnant woman, does the woman have four feet? If the fetus is male, does the woman have a penis?
The prudential argument seems to be, "If you are not 100% certain your action will cause no harm you should not take the action." How could anyone drive a car on prudential reasons? This feels like an argument from a hypothetical world where perfect knowledge is attainable (even if we don't currently have it) and all decisions can be delayed until we attain it.
That's an over-simplification of the argument. The argument primarily has to do with moral uncertainty and what one should/should not do when faced with such moral uncertainty. If one is not certain about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one should err on the side of caution when it comes to abortion. Driving a car doesn't necessarily put you in a situation where you're faced with such moral uncertainties.
Then an argument by analogy would be If no right to decide whom is allowed to sustain its existence via a particular woman’s body, it follows the state could force a person to allow any of their children to sustain their lives Kid gets in an accident at 14 years old, mom has to give up a kidney Kid drinks too much at 17, dad gives up part of his liver If a fetus is a person, what’s the logical bar that stops my hypotheticals?
Your analogies fail. (1) accident: woman did not cause her son to be in need of her kidney. In abortion, the parent knowingly caused the prenatal person to be in need of her body. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person. You definitely have no right to kill that person on-demand. Same goes for the drinking kid and his dad. (2) The debate isn't about whether you have to sustain another person's life. It's about whether you have the right to kill another person on-demand.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Just so you know my position beforehand: Legally, I'm pro choice as I think a person should be able to have full bodily autonomy. Morally, I'm not sure. I think the later into the pregnancy it is, the worse it is, but I have a hard time saying it's flat out wrong. I find it really difficult to give a straightforward answer. The reason i'm legally pro choice is basically because of OP's argument. i) If A needs a specific body part (X) to survive, and B is the only person that can provide X should B be legally required to do so? I don't think so, I think that would be wrong, legally and morally. Would you be considered a murderer in this instance? No. ii) As you point out in your (1) response though, if it is the case that A needs X because of B's actions. Lets be extreme and say that B hits A with a car or something (intentionally), and as a result, A needs X from B. Legally, should B have to give up that body part? No, and that sounds like some sort of dystopian future novel. However, B in this case would be charged for attempted murder... There is more nuance in these, but I think this is the general point, no? The big question is this: Does ii) apply to pregnancy? Personally, I don't know. In specific scenarios, possibly. In the case of ii) and applying it to pregnancy, the result would seem to be that it would be legal to have an abortion, but then one would be charged with murder as a result and this seems wrong somehow, I may have to come up with a different analogy. Hitting someone with a car in this case, remember, is the act of getting pregnant and not the abortion of said pregnancy. The abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live. As a general rule, hitting someone intentionally with a car is illegal and morally wrong. There are exceptions of course, but the general rule here stands I think. Getting pregnant, isn't illegal or immoral. Going back to ii) and your 1) it feels like the issue is person A being in a state of need because of the actions of B aren't the same in these analogies and in pregnancy, as the act of getting pregnant (consensually) is not illegal or immoral. Is this an issue for the analogy? I'm not sure, I'd like to see what you have to say about the issue. I hadn't considered your objection in 1) so thank you for making me aware of that... maybe we can come up with an even better analogy and I will change my mind all the way and become pro life! The car hitting might be too extreme... but it might be just the same for any analogy, I don't know. There may be some analogy where its the negligence of B the causes A to require B to survive? Again, I'd like to see what you have to say:) What I am taking away from this though, is people need to not be precarious with their sex lives. Regardless of whether we are pro choice or life, abortions shouldn't be used as a form of contraception. Thank you for reading, if you did:) Its such a complicated question in my opinion and warrants serious thought.
@@justdavelewis My thoughts briefly: (1) "Full bodily autonomy" would entail late term abortions-on-demand. In principle, bodily rights arguments don't/can't grant exceptions or they fail. This is one of the many reasons why I find bodily rights arguments utterly unpersuasive. (2) In response to argument (i): a real-life counter-example to your argument is the relationship between a lactating woman & a newborn baby. Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive. If the only one who can help the baby stay alive at the moment is the lactating woman, the baby definitely has every right to her breasts at the moment. Denying him/her this right effectively entails infanticide by means of neglect. The only way your argument seems to succeed is if you accept the moral permissibility of such a case & that would just be absurd. (3) As I've shown above, some forms of refusal *can* be morally problematic. But I think the dis-analogy in your argument, primarily, lies in the fact that you think "abortion is the refusal to give up body part X so that A can live." We're talking about abortion-on-demand, aka. a form of killing-on-demand. Not a mere refusal to allowing someone the use of one's body. Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Thanks for the reply! 1) Just to reiterate: I think bodily autonomy works as an argument for purely legal reasons, not necessarily moral ones. I think it could be problematic to mandate forced pregnancy no matter the situation. The autonomy argument is actually what convinced me to accept the legality of abortion, regardless of how I may personally feel about it morally. I could be mistaken about this, there may very well be a good argument which brings me in line with your views here, I just haven't heard it yet. 2) "Newborn babies have the right to use someone else's bodies to stay alive" - I think this might be where we disagree... Babies, and children alike, have the right to be cared for, not the direct use other peoples bodies, no one has that right, not even a baby. Mothers choose to breastfeed their children with their milk, but they don't have to, there is baby formula. In fact, some mothers have trouble getting their baby to latch on properly and therefore they have no choice but to use formula to feed their child, I know one such woman personally. Though I do agree with the sentiment that neglecting your child is morally wrong, I think your 'infanticide by neglect' defence there does not apply in this situation for the reasons mentioned above. If, however, your argument is the baby will die of starvation unless it is breastfed, then I don't thing that really changes anything... If the baby is in the position where it is starving, there is already neglect in the first place. I mention above that there are alternatives to breastfeeding, but even if there was no baby formula, neglecting your child is wrong, I agree. If the baby is starving because of reasons that aren't the mother's fault then the analogy no longer applies due to your reasoning here: "If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you have some obligation towards that person." This would be essentially same as the analogy where your child needs a kidney from you and only you, but it's not your fault. In fact, this is a weaker version of that argument because breastfeeding entails no personal risk to the mother. Donating a kidney is major surgery and that has a risk of complications and death, as does pregnancy in general and childbirth. Abortion will have risks too, but those risks are less great than ones that can arise in childbirth and some pregnancies. I think pregnancy dangers and childbirth complications are serious considerations in these discussions. I will say that most people would probably give up an organ for their child or a family member/friend if they could and knew it would keep them from dying, but it shouldn't be a law - and i think thats where a lot of my contentions come from to be fair. 3) "Abortion is more akin to letting someone have your kidney & then forcibly retrieving it back by killing the recipient." This is POTENTIALLY a more interesting analogy but i think it fails as well, because it doesn't properly reflect the nature of the pregnancy situation. Once the kidney is inside the other person, it is their kidney. In your analogy, the kidney is equivalent to the mother's whole body essentially, not just the womb. I do not agree that the child has a right to the mother's entire body. I don't think anyone has that right. Just as a separate curiosity, imagine a hypothetical scenario where for whatever reason, you can either choose between the unborn child's life or the mothers life. Would you choose the child or the mother to survive? In my opinion, i think the mother's life is more important than the unborn child's and so, If only one could be saved, I would choose the mother. I suspect you would disagree based on your comments, and that's cool, I can't tell you that's wrong. I can sort of see where you're coming from on a lot of these, but i just don't feel that the reasoning you've provided here is solid, and i think thats because we disagree on what rights an unborn child should have when compared to a human. That's ok though, I don't think there's necessarily a correct answer. This is an emotional conversation too. It's sad that people feel the need to get an abortion, no matter the circumstances.
@@justdavelewis (1) Bodily rights arguments convince you of abortion's permissibility but I've already given you two good reasons for why bodily rights arguments are unpersuasive - they lead to extremist conclusions like late term abortions-on-demand as well as infanticide. I don't see how you can avoid those absurd conclusions. Plenty of other reasons why they're not good arguments for abortion. (2) Bringing up baby formula only adds to your dis-analogy. The initial point was to make this analogous to pregnancy & abortion, which is why I mentioned that the lactating woman was the only one who could help the baby at the moment, as is the case in abortion. As you yourself admit, the rightness or wrongness of infanticide in this situation does not depend on whether there are alternatives to breastfeeding. Even if alternatives did not exist, infanticide would still be unjustified. So your argument (i) where B is the only person who can provide X to A still essentially entails the moral permissibility of infanticide. (3) Now onto the point about the relationship between the woman & the baby. Notice that my first comment to you was in response to your arguments involving a mom & her kid, a father & his kid. It was simply a response to that. If you cause someone to be in a state of neediness, you're obligated to ameliorate the situation. Like i said, you have some minimal obligations to that someone. You definitely don't have the right to kill that someone on-demand. That's applicable even if there's no parent-child relationship, but even more so when there is. Now i think that's enough to discredit your arguments and most abortions that happen in reality. If by some chance the adults here were not responsible for the pregnancy, would they have a right to abort the prenatal human? I think not. Because you'd be arguing for killing the innocent party on demand & that's not justified. (4) Never implied that the kidney is analogous to a woman's entire body. The kidney is analogous to the woman's uterus. The analogy was simply meant to demonstrate that abortion isn't a case of mere refusal as you suggest but is more akin to active killing.
The bear-hunting analogy is a bit ridiculous. There's little downside to refraining from shooting at an unknown in the bushes, while the upside to refraining is potentially huge. The assumption is that you will remain vigilant and are ready to shoot anything dangerous that might appear out of the bushes. (And if you're not prepared for that event, then you have no business hunting bears!) On the other hand, there's plenty of downside to forcing a woman to proceed with an unwanted pregnancy, such as the burden it will place on her body and her life, as well as on the life of her unwanted child. Of course, whether those considerations are compelling enough to counterbalance the consideration that a fetus _might_ be a person is another question. But it is worth noting that the former considerations are real and tangible, while the latter is merely theoretical.
The "downside" in the analogy is that someone's right to life can possibly be violated. That's, of course, a huge downside. Not to mention, most burdens of pregnancy don't come close to justifying killing in general. It's simply saying that if people can't agree about the moral status of a prenatal human, then one shouldn't say it's fine to abort the prenatal human. The point is simply that if there's a *non-negligible* chance where you might kill someone in an abortion, you should err on the side of caution.
One can also put out a less "theoretical" analogy if you'd like. Imagine you were hired to demolish a building. As Project Manager, you hire a team of experts to get the job done. When the time comes to press the trigger, you ask your Safety Officer if she's positive that no one isleft in the building. She replies, " I did a walk-through last night & I didn't see anyone. But I'm not a 100% sure." It's clear what ought to be done at this point. Given the small but reasonable chance that someone is still in the building, you ought to postpone the demolition. Going forth at this point would be reckless & negligent. This mirrors the other analogy & its point.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Nice try, but your analogy suffers from the _exact same weakness_ as the bear analogy: it fails to incorporate the very real damage associated with forcing a pregnancy to term. Put another way, no one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building. So, _speculate_ all you want about the possible murder of a fetus, but you are still left with the very real consequences of an unwanted child. Of course, if you think the former is more compelling than the latter, then have at it, Hoss. But that is a matter of opinion, and, unfortunately for your camp, the majority disagrees with you.
@@BertRussell4711 (1) I don't see the "weakness" you speak of. If you're suggesting that simply being pregnant is reason enough to justify abortion in general, then I don't find it persuasive at all since most pregnancy complications don't even require abortions to treat. And the right to life is a serious right. If there's a small but non-negligible chance that you might end up violating it, you ought not be reckless. It's a simple principle. (2) The language of "force" you use is disingenuous at best. A law that bans infanticide is not "forced parenthood." A law that bans starving children to death is not "forced feeding." When someone tells you not to kill other persons, you're not the one who's being "forced" to do something unjust. (3) "No one gets hurt by refraining from demolishing a building." Yes that's the point. If you demolish the building & someone does get harmed, then that's morally wrong.
@@BertRussell4711 "the very real consequences of an unwanted child"? You find it "compelling" to kill humans based on the justification that they're "unwanted"? That doesn't seem compelling at all. I bet even your own intuitions go against what you just said about that. The fact that a born child is unwanted has nothing to do with the child. The fact that a prenatal human is unwanted also has nothing to do w/ the prenatal human. If you blame a born child for being unwanted & kill him, it would be morally wrong. This same principle applies to prenatal humans.
the difference between the consumption of alcohol and not engaging in intercourse with respect to infringing upon a person is one is an action and another is the absence of action;one is not necessarily morally obligated to help others.
You lost in alot of people's opinion including mine yet here you are constantly trying to prove you won some how. Give it up
(1) I don't really care for people's opinions when all they have to offer are just non-arguments. (2) "constantly"? I've uploaded one video about this. (3) Your response does nothing at all to demonstrate that the video above is wrong. If you have anything of substance, bring it. If not, kindly move on. 😊
@@IWasOnceAFetus 😂 to put things on the internet and have them open to opinions and judgment, you have probably heard the same ones over and over again. What argument is to be had that will be worthy of a conversation? Anti abortion is a joke in the world around it. The take that no one should ever abort is ridiculous and forcing people who are not mentally fit and could end up being horrible parents that can then lead to raising a monster of a person. Like you care? No you don't. It's only the beginning you argue for and that's it. 20 weeks is a good place to allow abortion up to but to say it's completely wrong is a blind way to go about it
@@user-jr1hm3jw2iMost people outside of the Western world are mostly anti-abortion. This is just a fact. It's funny to me that you're pretending to have some moral high ground by simply bringing up your opinion when it isn't even grounded on facts. Anyway, I have no time for low tier non-arguments. 😄
Idk who Destiny is, Idk how the KZread Algorithm got me, Idk who even are you, but this brief youtube video made me realize so much, because it is coerent with whatever you wanted to say about Destiny... welp... I guess I need to thank KZread later lol
Thank you for stopping by. 😄
Conciousness is not unique at all, it is the most fundamental part of reality
The answer to this which another commenter has pointed out is that to be a person you need to satisfy the consciousness aspect AS WELL as the human aspect. I'm genuinely curious what the pro-life response to this would be since I think this covers everything, and the only thing left to criticize would be arguing that consciousness has nothing to do with personhood, which is already what the debate is about.
I’m pro life. You have to discern wether these aspects are equal or one is more important than the other. If one is more important then the other then which?
so when a human loses immediate consciousness they are not worthy of protection anymore?
If tomorrow we found that someone like superman exists, would you consider him a non-person then?
The point is that they're both equally important and necessary to be considered a "person". @@xw3rty217
@@melvinthetoad4109 You can watch the original debate where the two guys talk/argue about this. When you lose consciousness there was still consciousness beforehand that is being continued. In the case of an abortion that conscious experience never began in the first place, meaning that human was never a person.
''oMg We goT hIM'' he has literally talked about this
What did he say about it?
do not remeber excactly since it was apart of a 4hr discussion so i wont quote it. You should know his point if you are going to ''prove him wrong'' but have put no effort into understanding his side. Get with the woke@@IWasOnceAFetus
Yes he talked about it but gave nothing
@@dog640I'm not asking for an exact quote. I'm simply asking you to tell me what he said about it since you claimed he "literally talked about this." I assume you understood what he said about it. You can simply rephrase it for me here. I watched the entire debate and I did not hear him demonstrate why human consciousness or experiences matter in a morally relevant way.
The way out of this "flaw" is through a necessary and sufficient condition on what it means to be 'human' and 'concious' Theres no quick way to explain this, so i encourage people to look up "necessary and sufficient" conditions to understand what this means.
Yes the concept of necessary & sufficient conditions. How exactly does that get him out of this weakness?
@@IWasOnceAFetus I'll use an example, blue is a unique colour, red is another unique colour. When we mix the two together, a new emergent quality is formed and the new colour is purple. If I say that purple is my favourite colour. I'm not saying necessarily that red is my favourite, same goes for blue. It's the new emergent property of purple that is caused when blue and red are mixed that i am pointing to. Same would be true for human conciousness. It's not conciousness alone that gives person hood, neither does the humanity component, it's only when the two are mixed together when the new emergent property of "human conciousness" can be defined.
@@crazykubla9728 You run into the exact same problem tho. What if a person lacks total consciousness are they still a person they lack blue so they can’t make purple if you say no then it’s the Red or the humanity that makes a person valuable. Because consciousness as an aspect is an experience that all animals will likely experience in there time of existence. The human experience is the most valued at the adult stage of development when the brain has reached its highest capacity of thought. And In this aspect human consciousness at some stages of development would make the human less valuable than let’s say a cow, pig or dog but this comes down to if you value only consciousness. But if consciousness and humanity are equal then your pro life cause that would essentially make abortion wrong at all stages.
@@xw3rty217 just going 1 by 1 since youve asked multple questions: 1. You've played a word game by using the word 'person' then removing their conciousness, you've assumed that the person is a person before asking the question. You need more context to properly answer this question, but generally speaking, if a person (who already fulfils the conciousness + human criteria) loses said conciousness Permanantly, then yes, the value of their life is done.
@@xw3rty217 2. Human conciousness does indeed vary from person to person, but I would say that this is still unique to an animals concious experience, purely because of the species difference. You could show me a chimp that's smarter than a toddler all day, the toddler still takes the value because it fulfills the human + conciousness criteria, the chimp meanwhile only fulfills the conciousness criteria.
Great points by the commentor.
I agree. You can find the original & full video by Trent Horn linked in the description. Thanks for stopping by.
Hot damn i am supprised hes prolife
He went to catholic school
100th subscriber! 🎉
Wow, the argument against “we are our minds” was great
With regard to the last point on deprivation and how if you're not having sex with someone, you're depriving them of their "sex-with-you" future. The issue I think Marquis would convey with this point is that abortion is impositional, whereas electing to not have sex with someone, whilst is depriving them of some type of future, is not impositional. You can still elect in the first place, whereas the fetus cannot. The other issue is that Don Marquis would most likely draw a line in the sand between total deprivation of life and the deprivation of an experience. The latter can still entail other types of experiences, the other, in the case of the fetus, cannot.
The real world does not have the luxury of philosophy. But your young.
Said the imbecile
No one who supports abortion is morally awake.
Have you ever been bear hunting?
Joe 🤩❤️
1:36 that pun was fvckin hilarious Joe🤣
I agree that an abortion at any stage is murder. It is a human life at a certain stage of life. That said i agree with abortions within the first trimester. The reasons I'm prochoice is because it isn't well to do stable families getting abortions. Is broke, usually very young women who can't even take care of themselves. There are huge correlations between broken single parent homes and crime and poverty.
Do good consequences justify murder?
@@GodisgudAQW In some cases, yes, you are a fool to think otherwise.
@Jacob Lee Hmm, would you say the same about slavery? Because in my view, slavery is not as bad as murder, and slavery was vastly more socially beneficial than abortion is today. Yet I would never want to hold a principle that entailed that slavery is justifiable for its social and economic benefits
@@GodisgudAQW I agree, slavery isn’t as bad as murder but can you enslave an embryo?
@Jacob Lee No, but you can murder one. And since we agree that murder is worse, if the benefits of slavery did not outweigh the moral wrongness of slavery, then the social benefits of abortion would have to be even greater than the social benefits of slavery back then in order for those benefits to be sufficient to make abortion permissible
That was a good debate.
True.
The right to life doesn’t entail the right to use somebody’s organs
It does for younger humans as Trent Horn just demonstrated above. Simply stating a counter-assertion demonstrates nothing.
@@IWasOnceAFetus ok. So if a parent caused their kid kidney failure by being negligent one day. Does that mean the government can force them to give up their kidneys for 9 months?
@@kylelapoure8603 organ donation/refusal "analogies" are not analogous to pregnancy or abortion. This has been proven multiple times by both pro-life as well as pro-abortion philosophers. If you made your analogy actually analogous, you'd have to say that the parent also has the right to directly kill their child in addition to refusing the use of his organs. Not to mention, the parent definitely wouldn't off the hook so easily if he deliberately and knowingly caused his child to be disabled or diseased.
@@IWasOnceAFetus that’s a complete strawman fallacy. The BA argument doesn’t talk about the right to kill. It’s the right to detach somebody from their body. The method in which abortion is done I doubt makes a difference for you. There are methods tho that don’t directly kill the fetus. They just stop the fetus from stealing the mothers nutrients I believe
@@kylelapoure8603 It's not a straw man fallacy at all. The BA argument is the one that appeals to analogies that aren't relevantly analogous to the case of pregnancy & abortion. Also, generally speaking, there is a morally relevant difference between killing and letting die (aka. not killing). We intuitively recognize this.
I think a stronger version of the impairment argument would be if there was a pill a pregnant mother took that made it so that her unborn child never develops an upper brain (so never previously conscious) and then after the baby's born, the baby is killed and its organs are harvested. It's hard to imagine a situation like this and think no one was harmed.
Thanks for that. And yes, I agree that that's a strong argument. Not included in this video, but Trent later goes on to make an argument from the wrongness of genetic enhancement, wherein a human embryo is genetically modified to grow into a person who desires to be a slave to other people. I think it has a similar underlying principle to your hypothetical.
The ever-eminent philosopher Dr. Seuss said, "A person's a person no matter how small!"
I know what Yogi BEAR would say about your Bear vs Buddy story and the decision to shoot or not to shoot? He'd say, "When ya get to a fork in the road, take it!"
Joe Schmid on Abortion = good. How about Joe Schmid on *Homosexuality* ? And if you dare, please cover 1) the scientific data on how turning off one's frontal lobe causes more atheistic thinking (i.e., baring getting hit in the head theism is the default wiring), and 2) the relationship of lack of HUGS by Dad causes guys to become gays per the research of Dr. Joe Nicolosi (another smart dude named Joe!) and put succinctly by Dr. Albert Dean Byrd (of NARTH) who said: "Dads hug your sons. If you don't, someday another man will." (Note: "Faith of the Fatherless" and "Fatherless America" are two similar-but-different books.) Thanks in advance for a 9:22 on you on the topic of Same-Sex Attraction (SSA)!
@Joe, since you said "I'm just scratching the surface" is this why you were perhaps sending us a subconscious signal of that fact by scratching your nose 15 times during your 9:22 video? 🙂
Abortion was rooted in racism especially planned parenthood Take a look at Margret Sanger
I will look into it. Thank you for the suggestion.
True. I “identify” as pro-life. I recognize that there are exceptions, and that really the main ones I think are “morally permissible” are so on DDE grounds. Aside from that, if a zygote/fetus exists, and is alive and in development, I think it’s fundamentally clear that we should view it as someone’s existence, however rudimentary it may be at such an early stage. To kill it is to rob someone of their existence, and thus the future they could have and would have lived had you let them live.
Great arguments, but I would like to hear how this man would respond to the objection “If we say a fetus or zygote or embryo is a human being, the what about our sperms and eggs? Would it be justified to masturbate? Is it not an act of killing?” I’ve asked Jimmy Akin this question before and he mentioned that it is because these aren’t organism rather their living things that aren’t organism (I think Nathan Norbis used a similar argument when debating Trent , but calls the embryo non-organism but a living thing) , but the early stages of pregnancy already have an organism therefore it is immoral to still have early trimester abortion. I agree completely with Akin, but would love your take. And for the sake of it because I just had some bonus questions in mind, what makes an organism and what makes a living things? What are the differences?
I'm not the guy in the video so I can't speak for him. Regarding the morally relevant difference between sperm cells and prenatal humans: if that's what Jimmy Akin said, I agree with him. However, I wouldn't say the relevant difference between sperm cells & human zygotes/embyros is a difference between "living things" & "organisms." This is because "organism" itself is sometimes defined as "a living thing." The relevant difference for me is that sperm cells are mere bodily cells whose functions are subordinate to the larger organism, whereas human zygotes/embryos _are_ organisms themselves. Comparing organisms to sperm cells is like comparing yourself to your skin cells. We intuitively recognise that skin cells cannot be right-bearers. Hope that helps.
@@IWasOnceAFetus I think I’m close to getting it, but I still don’t, could u explain it to me like you would if I was a 15 yr old pro choice person who lack knowledge on what philosophy is?
@@probaskinnyman4960 What I mean is this is a difference between _parts_ and _wholes._ An individual organism is a "whole" by itself. A sperm/skin/egg cell is a "part" of something else. Parts of you are not morally equal to you. Another easy way to understand this is that sperm/skin/egg cells are "living things" in the _adjective_ sense of the word. Whereas prenatal human organisms (zygotes/embryos/fetuses) are "living things" in the _noun_ sense of the word. I hope that's clearer. Not sure if I can make it simpler than this.
@@IWasOnceAFetus this is perfect thanks! I guess my 15 yr old alter ego is now gonna be pro life
@@probaskinnyman4960 I'm glad to hear that! Thanks for stopping by.
0:10 "Sometimes we gotta give the woman more autonomy." Oh, really? And what about all the female babies who are murdered in abortions? What about the fact that Planned Parenthood is literally okay with someone getting an abortion when the only reason for it is because the baby "is a girl"? Disgusting.
Exactly. If "abortion rights" should be given to women on request & on demand, sex selective abortions are perfectly justifiable. It _is_ disgusting. And i hate the fact that they pretend as if pro-lifers are against women's bodily autonomy. We're not. We're just against the use of bodily autonomy in unjustified ways.
8:20 He says there's nothing wrong with depriving a person who might exist in the future. I'm not sure how this squares with how we look at environmentalism. The main reason we don't chop down every tree on the planet is bc we care about people who don't even exist yet. I thought of that argument recently. But if that's the case, does that mean, as some like Joe imply, that we are depriving conceptual persons of a FLO by not biologically conceiving/creating them? I feel like we can get around that by noting that you don't have a right to be bio-conceived/created. I'm not sure. What do you think??? There must be SOME way around it. How else could we hold both beliefs simultaneously?
I think you're onto something with the environmentalism objection. If I'm not mistaken, I've read similar objections in Patrick Lee's "Abortion and Unborn Human Life." I think that book might help you out in this regard. Also, I don't think Joe's objection can make sense of cases where a human embryo (presumably a non-person) is deliberately & genetically modified to grow into a mature person who desires all the wrong things, such as wanting to be a slave to other people, etc. I believe everyone would say that is wrong, even if the embryo were not a person. But locating the morally bad in future harm to persons in such a case seems absurd.
In his defense of the FLO argument, Trent Horn belabours a similar point in his recent debate with Nathan Nobis, when he talks about NBC's ("Never Been Conscious").
@@IWasOnceAFetus Ooo. I'm excited to view that debate. Thank you also for the book recommendation. Not much of a reader, but I'll look into him.
@@jimbojackson4045 No problem! Thanks for stopping by. ✌🏻
@@IWasOnceAFetus With the genetic modification thing. I think a critic is going to say human beings should have these certain "proper" desires in virtue of the type of beings they are. A pro choice person is most likely going to say the type of being we are is not our organisms, or body, rather our mind. And thus, when a mind comes into existence, the person has been harmed by such impairment, and an explanation of why such impairment is immoral has been generated. However, we cannot say the same for a 10 week fetus who is aborted, because abortion prevents a being from developing such perverted desires to begin with. So impairing an organism to the nth degree brings about a sufficiently relevant good that impairing an organism to the n+1 degree doesn't. You may appeal to an imaginary case were Mary genetically modifies her fetus to desire to be a salve, but 5 days later is hit by a car and her fetus dies. Clearly, the pro lifer says, Mary's actions were still wrong even if no person came into existence. However, if one makes such a move, they are confusing subjective wrongness with objective wrongness. In this case, with Mary's limited knowledge and limited beliefs, what she did was only subjectively wrong, not objectively wrong. However, when the fetus obtains a mind in the case of an impairment (n+1), Something objectively wrong has happened. For an actual person has been made worse off.
Regarding his PC response to the Impairment Argument, he notes that PCs will not initially be convinced bc of the problem of suffering, but you could easily press your point with a simple question: "So, you believe it's worse to hurt someone's future, than to take it away? Doesn't that sound reversed?" Of course, some might answer "yes." In that case, I might say what PC streamer Destiny said on Ep. 50 of the I'm Doing Great Podcast. He said that those who lose limbs, etc. seem to adjust quite well, given time, to their impairments. After a while, they report similar qualities of life to others. Thus, the problem of suffering is overstated. Yet, the problem of killing someone/a future someone remains.
He takes a bit long with his version of the Prudential argument. Plus it's muddied by other things like the danger bears present (though, perhaps this is good, since it might analogize a pro-choicer's perception of the dangers pregnancy has). I prefer something concise like, "How confident should you be that there are no people in the building, before you demolish it?"
I agree. I never understood why "bears" specifically, since it would have worked just as well without that specification.
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
THANK YOU! I got here from your comment in Counsel of Trent/TX Bans Abortion video. I am working for a well known US health care company and ever since Covid 19 outbreak, I notice where the company's stance is. And as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned, the CEO distributed email (statement of the company) to 'keep our commitment and promise to your members and employees for health care equality' and as such, now we're offering Travel and Lodging reimbursement/coverage for abortion and/or sex change procedures. I'm probably viewed as either religious nut or over-reactive when or if I mentioned to other employees (my direct manager) that it makes me sick to my stomach to see the direction taken by this company I joined more than 20 years ago - it was not this 'progressive' until 2017 when another known retail drug company bought it. So long story short, while I never thought I would do an apologetic, in the matter of the unborn facing the slaughter of abortion, I'm trying my best in defense of the unborn. I also (lucky me) live in CA and this year, this November, we're going to decide whether or not CA will amend it's constitution with Prop 1 which will erase any boundaries and limits to abortion. If adopted, CA will be the most progressive state with its abortion: at any stage of pregnancy, for any reasons, up to the point of birth, at tax payers' funds. From the look of it, Prop 1 will happen - they raise $ millions, while the opponents only raise less than $1 million. My heart hurts. I try not to show emotion when talking about this to pro-choicers or even those who are still ambivalent, but my anger always seeps through.
@@d.a.tsun5104 thank you for your comment and for your efforts. Sorry for the late reply. I only saw your comment now. I'm actually a non-american but i was especially elated when Roe was overturned. It has given pro-lifers all over the world the impetus to hope for more.
@@IWasOnceAFetus I kind of suspected that you're not american from one of your comments where you spelled word the way american english wouldn't. I'm myself not from the US but I've just become US citizen last year. But you made a good point with how RvW decision impacted/expanded beyond the US. I used to be a member of an online language school where the owner is a French woman. When RvW was overturned, she made a special episode on her channel dedicated to her speech about how this decision angered and saddened her as a feminist. She also said being from Grenoble she was very proud that her city was the first city in all of France to have Planned Parenthood. All of this was said after she just celebrated her first son's birthday. I asked her how someone could claim a feminist, and a mother, and at the same time be proud pro-abortion. These are oxymorons. How can women come to the state of thinking that they are now liberated and equal socially (France's pride: Liberté, Egalité, et Fraternité) when in order to 'feel' that way they have to suppress the very essence of what makes them a female, which on itself is not an impediment? How can she look at her child's eye and think: If...no, WHEN I don't want you, or your sister/brother, I have the right to kill you/them? And because her son is a male, what kind of message does she send to that future man regarding the members of his opposite sex? But of course I got crickets. By the way, I am myself a female and I grew up very tomboy, from a very large family with 6 siblings. My uncles and aunts used to talk down on my family, my father and esp. my mother for not curbing themselves (they had 2 or 4 children each). When my mom had my youngest sister, my dad sort of forced her to give her up because my mother would not abort. My dad youngest sister only had 3 children all boys and she wanted a girl, so my dad gave her my youngest sister and years later after my mother died (she died at age 56) we found in her diary how devastated she felt to see my sister everyday - my aunt's only a few houses away from ours but couldn't be her mom and what would my sister think of her to give her up like that. P.S. I sent to several coworkers and managers with whom I work directly and who work in CA an email imploring them to vote no on Prop 1, and as I anticipated, the email was not received well, but I'm still surprised at the response I received from certain individuals whom I thought were 'balanced' in other subject matters. One of them even got angry and said I was offending others with my belief because others had and entitled to their own beliefs, and they may or may not have had 'it' (am assuming it being abortion but unsure because she said may or may not, if so then what she's saying about them being offended about?).
Based Joe
@@Oners82 Yes
At the end, Schmid appeals to the principle that "You can't deprive non-persons of goods." Let's call this the "Deprivation Requires Personhood" (DRP) principle. I don't think DRP undermines Marquis's argument. Marquis argues that depriving an *individual* of a future like ours (FLO) is wrong, and that abortion deprives individuals of FLO. Regardless of whether the fetus is a person, everyone agrees a fetus is an *individual*. Schmid said he does not want to conclude that failing to have intercourse is harming a non-person of the goods of existence. We can resist this conclusion by appealing to a different principle. Instead of relying on DRP, we can rely on DRI: "Deprivation Requires an Individual." When you fail to have intercourse, there is no already-existing individual that you are harming. This is unlike abortion, which actively and intentionally deprives an already-existing individual of FLO. Anyone who agrees with DRI also agrees with DRP, because DRI is a more general version of DRP: it applies not only to persons, but individuals in general. You can't expect to be successful in your objections if you are appealing to principles we already agree with. That's why Schmid's DRP does not affect Marquis's argument in the slightest. Philosophers also tried to object to Marquis by saying his view entailed that condoms are immoral, but this is not true. Prior to fertilization, there is no individual, and hence there is no deprivation (by DRI). I think Marquis's argument is still the strongest in the literature.
Nicely put. Thank you!
Well you basically defined DRI so that it will arbitrarily exclude gametes but include zygotes, how convenient. What was the ground for this distinction in the first place?
@@exalted_kitharode isn't that fairly obvious? The distinction is grounded in the fact that sex gametes aren't individuals while human organisms are.
@@exalted_kitharode Gametes don't develop into adult humans, but zygotes do.
@@GodisgudAQW gametes given the right environment with each other will develop into a human . A zygote also given the right environment will develop into a human
I think it's admirable is that you wear a pro-choice hat sometimes when you speak but knowing from the beginning of the video that you lean toward pro-life Id like to ask you a question and hear your honest answer. When you made the channel name "I was once a fetus", were you trying to take advantage and play on the emotions of most humans?
I'm not Joe Schmid. Read the description. Also, "i was once a fetus" is a philosophical argument against abortion by Alexander Pruss. It's also very accurate.
Philosophers Jeff McMahan, Peter Singer, Michael Tooley and others, all outspoken defenders of abortion also believe infanticide is morally permissible (euthanasia). This is problematic for most people.
Yep. And Peter Singer, John Harris, Alberto Giubilini, Francesca Minerva, Jonathan Glover, J. Räsänen too. Ben Watkins of RealAtheology also admits that their pro-abortion position entails infanticide of born infants.
@@Oners82 1) I was mostly trying to point out that most abortion arguments entail the logical permissibility of infanticide. I think this is generally speaking true regardless of whether you want to accept it or not. I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point (2) I don't see how your position doesn't entail infanticide. Your position entails late term abortions. These are practically infanticide. Killing inside & outside at that point seems pretty irrelevant in the moral sense if you ask me.
@@Oners82 (1) I didn't make any "rebuttals." (2) You may want to demonize the prenatal human as "violator" to justify killing him/her but that's just you. Because the fact is prenatal humans aren't "violators." (3) Using arguments from consent as justifications for abortion makes sense only if you equate prenatal humans to intruders/violators/rapists & I'm glad you admitted to doing so. Doesn't seem like a reasonable move to me because prenatal humans aren't intruders/violators/rapists or even equivalent to them.
@@Oners82 (4) Bodily rights arguments are, generally speaking, self-defeating. Here's one example how: If it's wrong to force a human to give up SOME of her blood/kidney/bone marrow to save another human being, then it's even more problematic to force one human (the one in utero) to give up all of her blood/kidneys/bone marrow, all her organs, & her life itself, not to save the life of another human, but to simply render another human free of pregnancy. In the case of abortion, what the donor gives up is much more substantial (life itself) & what the recipient receives is much less substantial than life itself (freedom from pregnancy). (5) "I was just stating that many leading abortion defenders (philosophers & bioethicists) agree with that point." That wasn't an argument. Not even a proposition. You're arguing with yourself. (6) If killing inside & outside the womb is the only difference you have for saying that one is infanticide & the other is not, you have no justification for why your position doesn't entail infanticide. Location isn't a morally relevant difference.
@@Oners82 Alright. I don't have time for people who lack self-control and you clearly can't wait for this discussion to turn into a contest of wills. You don't even seem to know what arguments are. One advice: Stop equating prenatal humans to rapists. Now shoo.
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
Yo, I couldn't find a way to message you, but are you still following that abortion thread? Just needed to vent, I legit got her to go on a screed about inequality and discriminatory policies only to admit that even if we could legislate against abortion in such a way that it does not create disparate outcomes, she would still be against it. And to top it off, all I'm trying to prove is that at the heart of the matter is what is permissible to do to a fetus, and nothing else matters.
Hey man, sorry I haven't gone back to the thread after my last comments. I got no more notifications. I don't take the "excuse me but" lady seriously because she obviously argues in bad faith most of the time. Even when you demonstrate to her that she's wrong, she'll simply refuse to accept it. I remember how under one of Trinity Radio's video on abortion, she even got called out for it by Braxton Hunter in the comments, including other pro-lifers.
She uses the same sort of arguments with everyone and when I come across them, I just feel the need to make sure that the other person discussing with her knows how intellectually dishonest she can be. 🤷♂️
@@IWasOnceAFetus Yeah, for a moment there I felt like I got her to seriously consider the arguments I was making, so I changed my goal from coming across strong to any third-party reader to actually trying to extend an olive branch and get her to open up to the pro-life view. Then when she replied the way she did, that goal crumbled so I just went back to dismantling her arguments rather than having a conversation as equals
@@IWasOnceAFetus Because frankly I feel that it's pretty obvious that I've processed the issue through way more than her and hope that's obvious to anyone else reading. So I reached out to some of my friends to get their impressions just to make sure that the blowout is as obvious as it seems to be to me
@@GodisgudAQW She's just doesn't have a charitable way of considering the arguments. All she does is go back to pretending that the pro-life position is anti-woman, no matter how many times someone shows her she's wrong. It's wilful ignorance. 🤷♂️ You did your job. Keep speaking up for the unborn.
WRONG. It's none of Christian's business what the society does, the same way it's none of society's business what Christians do.
The slaughter of innocent human beings is everyone's business regardless of what worldview they hold to.
@@IWasOnceAFetus Again, you're starting from "fetus are human beings" argument. Majority of society don't believe that, so you can cry all the way to heaven and nobody but your cult will care.
@@LZKS here's some actual science for you: (1) "There are different opinions of when an embryo becomes a human being because opinions are often affected by religious and personal views. The scientific answer is that the embryo is a *human being* from the time of fertilization because of its human chromosomal constitution. The zygote is the beginning of a developing human. Some people consider that the embryo becomes human only after birth." Source: Moore, Keith L., T. V. N. Persaud, and Mark G. Torchia. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects, 9th Edition, Elsevier Health Sciences, 2016, p. 339. (Chapter 6) (2) "A zygote is the beginning of a new human being... Human development begins at fertilization... to form a single cell - a zygote. _This highly specialised totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual_ ." Source: _The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology_ , Keith Moore and TVN Persaud.
@@LZKS here are quotes from your own leading pro-abortion advocates: "It is possible to give 'human being' a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to 'member of the species _Homo Sapiens.'_ Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense, there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and egg is a human being." - Peter Singer ("Practical Ethics") "Perhaps the most straightforward relation between you and me on the one hand and every human fetus on the other is this: All are living members of the same species, homo sapiens. A human fetus after all is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development." - David Boonin ("A Defense of Abortion")
@@LZKS You're the only one who has been airing his his ungrounded opinions. You can keep pretending you're making arguments. But let me remind you yet again: ad hominems are not arguments.
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other important resources in description. Please check them out.
Must watch - "Hush: A Liberating Conversation About Abortion and Women's Health" directed by Punam Kumar Gill. You can find it at: kzread.info/dash/bejne/eZ6O1MWNYbmTgdo.html And here's the science informing the film: hushfilm.com/science/ Other helpful resources in description. Feel free to check those out as well.
terrible pro-life arguments as usual
You can elaborate if you like.
A yes the "man" who slapped a Muslim round the face with a Qur’an. A violent Christian missionary to Muslims, who debates about pro-life. He pretends to be innocent, but obviously incites violence and division in subtle ways. You don't have to be a genius to know that, just a person with a functional brain.
@@wayfaringmonk6847 What the heck are you even talking about?
@@IWasOnceAFetus The man debating in this video from Speakers Corner
@@wayfaringmonk6847 great. you dislike him. So what? Address the arguments. Even if you dislike him, you still have to address the arguments. Anything less is intellectually dishonest.
Thanks for the insomnia medicine 👍