Відео

there should be a class for philosophers graduates on how to express themselves in an organized way so others can grasp what their mean more easily.... most of the times, to make sense of their expression is way harder than the philosophical concept itself

Is she the witch that killed Danaerys' baby in Game of Thrones?

what a propaganda filled load of crap

I cant believe this is a professor at a University. This is called the I just made it the fuck up moral foundation. How convenient that if you want an abortion, you can just claim that the child was never meant to exist and has no moral status. There is no doubt in my mind that this lady has lost countless debates and still refuses to concede how idiotic this position is. Its just the argument of whatever I do is morally correct because even If I do a morally incorrect thing, it was predetermined because it’s convenient for me.

Well that was a bunch of mental gymnastics. Maybe y’all should try that again with someone that can think clearly

And what's even more sick is that these 2 soy boys didn't even make a peep about this degenerate talking about murdering babies and lying to women. Grow some balls and push back.

By saying something dies, means that it was alive when you killed it. Got it. YOU ARE A FUCKING MURDERER. What a sick f*ck. How is she a professor? This is who you want brainwashing your children? You are saying it's ok to kill your baby.

So she is a liar about everything, and fetus is the Latin word for baby. Fucking i*diot. Good job, lie to women who are going to suffer after listening to you and grieving their child after taking your advice

These people try so hard to morally justify that they want to murder babies out of convenience. Just own your stance and stop with the word salad.

I wonder how much James is suppressing his IQ to try to make sense of that absurd drivel that she attempts to dehumanize the person in the fetus stage living in the womb. (which any avg rational person could reasonably understand is a human being in an early stage of development & deserves the same rights as any other person).

This shit is evil... wtf.

I fully understand what she is saying. Its very sociopathic. Our kearning institutuons are full of people like this.

Being a Mom is a Superpower that conveys not needing to have moral responsibility! Nice!!!! [hunamity silently screams and weeps]

Wow...I guess logic means nothing to Ms. Harman. Then again, I doubt she is aware (or cares) that her arguments are illogical. And she's a philosophy professor?????

James Franco, This is one definition of the beauty !.

what an insane women

As a woman, the fact that I would have the power and privilege to grant value or worthlessness to a vulnerable living being is repugnant, repulsive, and absurd.

lol

Honestly her view is not that weird, she just frames it in a weird third person way, if you have good reason to belief a fetus will become a person, then it is wrong to cause prenatal injuries to it, if you don't have good reason to believe this then you shouldn't. It's more attractive say then a view which says the moral status of the Fetus depends upon the intentions of the mother to bring the pregnancy to term, because if that were the case its moral status could fluctuate wildly if the mother was genuinely unsure whether not she was going to have an abortion

If a person punched a pregnant woman in her stomach and the baby died as a result that said person would be charged with murder even if that same woman who was punched was on her way to get a late term abortion when she was punched.

God this is nonsense

This is like saying you stole money from someone because the money was going to be stolen from them anyway so its ok. lol

That was the dumbest pro-abort argument I've ever heard in my life. Lete say why. So we're saying everyone born past 1973 has "moral status," therefore saying that anyone born past that year would be considered "wanted and needed by the Universe." If that is truly the case, would it not, then, suffice to say that all serial and mass murderers would have been "morally established" and pre-destined to carry out said crimes? Now, considering that pro-aborts throw around the argument, "Well more children will be forced into foster care programs if we ban abortion," are we not judging the moral compass of another before they're even given a chance to live viably outside of the womb? Personally, I've seen a sharp rise in mass murders and horrific atrocities being committed against other humans, since Roe v. Wade was made law throughout the nation. Once you dehumanize a human group - then make convuluted arguments as to why it's okay to terminate their existence - the argument can then be made with equally compelling arguments - as to why another human group deserves to be dehumanized, then destroyed.

This is now more relevant than ever. The scary part is, this idea is never even brought up among regular people are pro-choice. Instead, the main point argued is one of personal freedom or convenience, the separation of church and state, and not much else. Justice Alito addressed this issue in his opinion, saying opponents of Roe's overturning reveal their position of "potential life." Potential life is a terrifying doctrine, it can be used to justify any murder. If you understand philosophy, if you understand logical fallacies, now is the time to not keep quiet, we have to show these people that they're WRONG, they must understand they're wrong. We can't let them get away with making the arguments of personal freedom and separation of church and state when neither are true in this case.

A fetus has a present existence with life and also a future existence with life. Some people are just agreeing with the action of making a decision of killing that present life existence, thus killing their future life existence. This is morally wrong in the past, present and will continue to be morally wrong in the future. Sickening.

James face while taking a drink at 3:18 says it all

So, I guess no one has moral status because we all tend towards death. How does that make any sense?

These people are getting degrees?

According to her argument, abortion is ok, but a failed abortion should be considered attempted homicide. However, if the abortionist then broke out of jail and "finished the job," successfully terminated the fetus before it's born, then he should immediately be cleared of any wrongdoing and have the attempted murder charge scrubbed from his record. Pretty weird but these are the kind of absurd scenarios that follow from her "argument" Also, why exactly should this logic only apply to babies/fetuses? Why can't someone kill a 20yr old adult, then declare that person had no future, and therefore no "moral status" past the age of 20, because they died at the age of 20?? Sounds completely insane but that's exactly what she's arguing

Lol this is a really terrible argument... That a fetus' value is retroactively determined by its future? So killing a fetus is ok because... You killed it? Makes no sense lol What if a woman has a miscarriage? Apparently it's no big deal and she has no reason to be upset What if a man beats his pregnant wife and causes a miscarriage, should he be charged with homicide? I'm sure she'd say yes but according to her argument he shouldn't She'd be better off just arguing that fetuses don't have any value in general and only fully born humans do. I'm not for that argument either but it's about 1000x better than whatever gobbledegook she was trying to say LOL

She perfectly addresses her entire argument in the form "Abortion is permissible because you had the abortion", literally what she was saying in the first three minutes and then realizes what she is saying makes no sense so she tries to give two justifications and says the SAME THING again for both of her justifications. The future endows the moral status but the future is decided by the intention and the consequent action of the mother so it goes back to saying abortion is permissible because you had the abortion. This woman is a professor of philosophy at Princeton University's center for human values. Let that sink in.

I wonder if she thinks cats have moral status

This is the second most Jewish thing I've ever seen

I saw someone call this "Schrodinger's Fetus" and I lost it 😆

It's moral to bang your students AFTER you've banged them, but before you bang them they're vulnerable adults in an unequal power relationship so you shouldn't bang them. Whether it's an abuse of power is contingent on whether you've banged those students or not.

Her logic - Its okay to steal your soul because your soul doesn't matter in the womb! Hail the dark lord!

So, the baby has "moral status" because it's destined to become a human like us, unless mommy decides she wants to kill the baby, then because it's future, or lack thereof is decided, the baby is no longer deserving of "moral status". This is your brain on leftist Materialism and precisely how every genocidal maniac in history has justified their evil acts.

Her opinion is retarded

so because you steal the opportunity of life from a fetus it cannot have moral justification to live and therefore is ok to abort? that is actually retarded.

what could she possibly have even studied? how is she a professor? the real conundrum.

This "professor" explaining that killing a pre-born baby is morally correct by arguing that an aborted baby had no future anyway, is exactly like listening to a serial killer explain that nothing truly immoral happened when they murdered their victims because their lives were eventually going to end anyway.

This is a Princeton University professor. Allow humanities degree student loan debt to be forgiven but have the University pay for it, allow student loan debt for bankruptcy, and eliminate all Federal and State funding to all Universities. This is what is needed to end the absolute rot, corruption, and discrimination against non-leftists within Universities.

I mean… what the fuck do you even say to somebody like that?

🤔🤔🤔🤡🤡🤡

pyschos.

Wow... just wow. The logic is solid until you realize that the decision point for it coming into being was before conception of the fetus. She is allowing retroactive components of morality status to be applied at the wrong decision. By this logic a person who kills a fetus without the mother's permission has done no wrong. That's the logical extension of this argument.

so according to this bimbo, in middle eastern countries where abortion is illegal and not available to women, abortion is wrong because like she says at 2:30 we have good reason to think that virtually all pregnant women will give birth rather than have abortions, and thus should not be allowed or made legal. Wow, what a great pro-life advocate she is! If this woman lived in the early 20th century and used the same argument she'd be forced to claim that abortion is wrong because abortion is nearly completely unavailable and so almost no-one is able to get an abortion and so nearly all of those fetuses will be birthed and so are those fetuses that matter. Her reasoning forces her to admit that if you take away the ability for a woman to get an abortion then abortion becomes bad, thus justifying you keeping abortion illegal.

1:15 onwards Absolutely chilling. """Professor""" What a repulsive individual

she says at 1:30 that early fetuses have moral value in virtue of their future as sentient beings. But then all early fetuses have moral value in virtue of their future as sentient beings, since all early fetuses have a future as sentient beings until the mother decides to have her fetus killed in abortion, so the act of abortion destroys that moral value and so is morally wrong. The only early fetuses that would not have moral value would be the ones that due to a developmental disorder have no possibility of a future as sentient beings e.g. if they have a mutation that causes them to never develop a brain. This fool just made a case for why abortion is wrong.

Imagine paying 30k a year to be "educated" by this creature. Employing a labrador to be professor would be better, because at least the students wouldn't end up stupider than they were before.