Hitchens v Rutherford ( Abortion )
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- A debate between Peter Hitchens and Adam Rutherford on abortion which was broadcasted on Premier Christian Radio and hosted by Justin Brierley.
Peter Hitchens later corrected the assertion he made in the debate that an abortion has never been broadcast on television - An abortion was shown on a Channel Four programme called 'My Foetus' in April 2004.
--
"They look like them, but they are not human beings". Then what exactly is a premature baby? I'm sorry to be disgustingly honest, but during an abortion at 24 weeks, the doctor has to rip off the legs, the arms, and then pull out internal organs of a fetus, rip out its spinal cord, then crush the skull. Then you get to see them in your lab in a jar. If you preform an ultrasound during such an abortion, you can watch the fetus struggle to get away as it is slowly ripped apart. I too, sir, worked in such a lab, and where you see pieces of fetal tissue, I see a holocaust.
FANTASTIC!!
Its horrendous but a doctor doesnt do that, labours induced. And i believe now the umbilical cord is injected to stop the heart. If you share incorrect info or dated info then you lose the room.
Except you should using foetus as it's used to dehumanise the unborn child.
I don't know how anyone could perform an abortion. The sheer horror of what they are doing. Nothing in the history of the world has been more evil.
abortion is something that I’ve always been casually against but I didn’t understand how wicked a practice it is and how urgently we must dispense with it until I heard Adam Rutherford say this. It’s so plainly obvious now, this isn’t just about a difference in opinion and vision for the country. One side is completely morally bankrupt
The title of the video should be changed to:
“Rutherford gets intellectually gutter stomped for 15 minutes straight”
"What limits would you put on it?"
"I support sex education."
That's not an answer.
The argument that it's okay to abort imperfect/disabled babies is grossly sinister.
There's something so insane about the inversion wherein the one person who is supposed to love you the most, care for you when you're helpless, put your life above her own --- when that person murders you before you have a chance to open your eyes
Deep
The mechanisms behind it seem similar to suicide.
It’s the ultimate toxic femininity- as the womens domain is internal. It’s also satanic as it’s the inversion of life itself.. and to the most innocent
These pro-abortion folks (and yes, it's pro-abortion, not pro-choice) totally go nuts at 10 minutes. And Hitchens rightfully calls them out, equating this type of talk to concentration camp rhetoric.
No. This is a complete misreading of history. Christianity did more to help women 'self-actualize' than anything else that came before it. Christianity also gave us the notion of human rights; it was thanks to Christianity that slavery came to an end. I could go on and on about the contributions of Christianity. You have only to look at the world around you to see that the most successful societies are Christian ones.
Rutherford gives the impression that he has no real idea why he believes what he believes.
He believes whatever gets him laid.
he has the distinct reasoning style of someone with absolutely no principles, based on the rationalisation and justification of his practice, with no underlying grounds or any coherence in the reasons given
for instance, the simultaneous defence that abortion should not be used as substitute for contraception, and at the same time the unborn is not human at all - if it's not a human, then why not? simple sophistry and appeal to a completely bogus middle ground
@@ergwer45624 I agree, I'm surprised Hitchens didn't pounce on that one! Rutherford obviously knows full well he's on dodgy ground!
He’s a male feminist/activist masquerading as a scientist. A marxist Trojan horse in a lab coat. Nothing more
U might say hes possessed by an evil spirit. he has no idea what hes saying
This exchange was so wonderful. Truly one of Hitchens best moments.
Hitchens mops the floor with this guy. He doesn't let his opponent bog the debate down with technicalities such as "well at x weeks y is not happening and therefore its not alive" and instead stands his ground on the fact that abortion is immoral and makes Adam Rutherford fight on his [Hitchen's] turf instead of being spun around.
I am frankly terrified that "scientists" like Rutherford can take such a casual view of the death of unborn humans.
Amen
As an avowed atheist and devout women's rights supporter I simply want to say on behalf of those on the secular anti abortion divide, well said Peter. That took moral courage and intellectual gusto! Major kudos sir, I believe your brother would (or perhaps is) very,very proud of you!
He doesn't need his brother to be proud of him, he's his own person and they disagreed on practically everything except perhaps abortion. Peter Hitchens was the wiser of two siblings.
@@SagaciousFrank indeed. Peter grew out of his childhood atheism. Christopher never did.
How can you be a womens rights supporter?
@TheJohnCooperShow
Women are not responsible for what happens to their own bodies?
I’ve never understood why abortion is a religious issue. The issue isn’t that god says life begins at conception, the issue it seems that any other way to define when life begins is utterly arbitrary. One should be very weary of living in a society that defines such things arbitrarily.
Hitchens is a masterful orator
Thank God for Hitchens, a voice in the wilderness for truth and exposing the moral and spiritual decline of the great British nation
Legally and ethically speaking, the death penalty is not murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being. Unlike an unborn baby, a death row inmate is not an innocent human being.
the only transgression an unborn baby could have possibly committed is existing
"There is no circumstance in which abortion is preferable to adoption".
The womb should be a place of love and nurturing but instead it becomes a place of violence and death.
Rutherford absolutely on the ropes here. No reasoning behind his beliefs other then he wants to believe them.
Yes, I agree with the whole "dehumanizing" argument which HItchens points out. Regarding the question of "when a fetus becomes a human", I'm also on Hitchens' side. I just don't see how the opposing view can have any sort of logical coherence:
Male Human DNA (sperm) + Female Human DNA (egg) = the beginnings of a Human life
NOT
Male Human DNA + Female Human DNA = blastocyst, then fetus, then eventually (somewhere down the line) "human", and then later, when it becomes social, a "person".
I don't know what to think of abortion in some respects, and I can think of situations which can point to a justification in a particular instance (like incestuous rape, let alone rape) and situations that point to a complete lack of justification.(such as someone who wants an abortion - man or woman - merely for convenience's sake). Be that as it may, how anyone can pretend that abortion is not the extinguishing of life is unbelievable. This cannot be considered an honest debate if certain people act like this is the same as clipping an ingrown toenail. Quite aside from that, the point where Mr. Hitchens' opponent says "they look like human beings, they resemble them, but they are not human beings" should, as Mr. Hitchens says, rightly remind any historically literate person of the rationale used by the Nazis for forced euthanasia, sterilization, etcetera. If there is any case for abortion, this horrible idea definitely does not constitute any part of it. He has seriously damaged the whole case for abortion, including any morally defensible arguments that could be made.
Rape doesn't justify it.
A big Hitchslap from Peter at 8:37
"[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up. I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be."-Christopher Hitchens
i have to agree...
5:50 Adam Rutherford appears to claim babies are not human. Either that, or his dense scatter gun approach to debate, doesn't make allowance for an obvious corollary to his argument.
But you contradict yourself. You must consider it inferior if you believe that the mother has the right to abort it. What's more, the unborn child has an intact nervous system after 20 weeks of gestation. It can therefore feel pain. But even if it didn't, it wouldn't change the fact that it is a person, albeit not a fully developed one. Science tells us so. And since when is sentience a sufficient condition for personhood? By that logic, a sleeping adult or comatose patient is not a person.
Right Hitchens!
In this case vary and objective means the same.
If a group of people have a different sense of right and wrong then it is completlely fair to say it varies.
And why I don't want people to use abortion?
Half the same reason you consider it wrong. While I do not consider a baby inside the womb a human being yet because they "haven't experienced life" I do still consider it murder.
When one uses abortion they are ultimatly stoping one life from being lived. But I do not want to force the pain.
Furthermore, the nervous system is not developed yet when you have the possibility of abortion. As such, it's not a human being yet. I do not consider it inferior, but I belive it's a right to use abortion. It's not only uncessesary pain for the mother, but it's better to spare a life that you didn't mean to create rather than murdering it after it is out.
If you don't consider the unborn child inferior, then on what grounds do you claim that the mother has the right to abort it? If life doesn't start in the womb, then are you saying it starts as soon as the surgeon cuts the umbilical cord? Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the fetus isn't a person and we don't know that it isn't a person. This is analogous to fumigating a building when there is nobody inside. Even this is morally reprehensible; it is tantamount to criminal negligence.
It does. There are more than two definitions of right and wrong when you think of one problem. For instance, a leftist would commonly believe public healthcare was right.
A centralist would commonly believe a mix between common and private healthcare is right. A rightwinger would believe private healthcare is right while some take several factors from all sides into their political picture. That screams variation.
And yes, that is correct.
I consider abortion as well as not allowing it cruel.
I strongly agree with Peter but I don't think this was his best day. Is laughter every the right response? It's certainly not nice to be on the receiving end of it.
I wish you all well.
When the topic at hand involves a "view" such as Adam's and the extinguishing of life ( even at 24 weeks! ) of a HUMAN, then...yeah, some laughter and mockery at grotesque concentration camp thinking is fairly tame.
Don't miss the forest for the trees, mate.
Christian Taliban doctrine succinctly expressed.
People do not have a different sense of right or wrong. That is to say, right and wrong are common to all times, people, and places. Just because they are applied differently doesn't make these things subjective in themselves.
If murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being, how can you possibly consider it murder if the fetus is not a human being? Do you not see the obvious contradiction in what you are saying?
"Abortions for all!" Boooooooo
"Abortions for none!" Boooooo
"All right, abortions for some, small miniature american flags for others!" Yayyyyyy!!!
- The Simpsons
Your first statement does not logically follow. As to your second, am I correct in assuming that while you consider abortion wrong, you are not personally against it?
Brilliant from Hitchens
If that was true then we would have no religions, forms of politics or racism. We would only have one single solidary entity when it comes to mankind.
And furthermore, I never said it was justified. And I never considered it good. I said that personaly I do not consider it a good thing either, but I do not think it's one or more people's devine right to dictate that a person has to go through such pain.
Especialy in cases of for instance rape.
Actually no. His secular beliefs are delusional too.
“It looks human but it isn’t” Good god.
When we stop believing in God, we believe any kind of evil.
No one watching this better speak on real topics.
June 24th rejoice
I LOVE Hitchen's little laugh at 11:37
Its a shame Adam Rutherford wasnt aborted.
"people will try to define something as murder if it suits them" (thats a quote from me, btw).
quite correct I am, for there are people (me) who actually realise that the definition of murder is a little bit more specific than 'terminating a growth of cells that has no self-awareness nor any feelings at all at this stage'
"There's no possible way that you could argue that a foetus is a baby" ... I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and ASSUME he didn't mean to say that. Because I cannot think that anybody actually thinks that, of course you can argue it if anything because definitions as they stand mean that a foetus remains a foetus until the instant it is born, and you're on very shaky ground I feel if you think that because a baby is inside a woman uterus it is therefore not a baby.
"People will always justify murder when it suits them."
Yes quite correct, Peter. Just like how you support the death penalty.
You are engaging in casuistry. Though they may be applied differently, morals do not vary; they are objective. And why don't you want people to use abortion?
Morals varies my friend. What seems unjust to some is just to others.
Having a child is sadly something I cannot describe as only women knows how it feels... But I know that it is a horrific event to go through.
Some people doesn't even get through it alive, especialy people who bears a child while their body isn't fully developed yet. I consider it a choice.
I do not want people to use abortion, but I do not see how it is in my place to dictate whether or not women should go through it.
It's honestly not in your place to decide what I consider inferior. And in my eyes? Nothing is inferior. I would however like to apologize for my flawed answer regarding the nervous system, regardless, I still think it's right to use abortion before it's developed. The real question however is "when does human life start?" It doesn't start in the womb, that much we all know. None of us can remember what happened there, like we never lived there.
Wrong Hitchens
LiberalElitistMedia Best Hitchens, by a lot.
@Riiye Peter is as good of speaker as his brother .. only his Christian beliefs are delusional :)
"my brother is a idiot"-Christopher Hitchens
i have to agree...
"Are you opposed to abortion"............................. "yes is my answer"- Christopher Hitchens
ua-cam.com/video/UcYv9hAkenI/v-deo.html
The fact that you can't see his side just shows the terror in "Moral relativism" from the opposing side.
It is what Adolf Hitler did and what Stalin has done too.
You first dehumanize the thing you're about to kill then later do it.
Once you read enough books in history on certain ideologies, you become aware in things like that.
@@TheCRB1234totally. If I can remember correctly Christopher Hitchens,much to the dismay of his fellow anti- theists and atheist friends believed in the concept of the unborn child.
If only Hitchens could live forever (on earth I mean)
But Hitchens, the commandment is thou shalt not murder, not thou shalt not kill. I think it's at least arguable as to whether the actions of bomber command fell under the former or the latter.