Answering Common Pro-Choice Arguments
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лип 2022
- In this video, I interview Mary Carmen Zakrajsek of Students For Life. We discuss two common arguments made by pro-abortion advocates and show how the logic of these arguments is fundamentally flawed.
--
If you want to help me continue to make videos like this, consider supporting this channel at / seanhussey .
------------------------------- Theme Song -------------------------------
Song: Make a Way
Artist: Connor Flanagan
Album: Skyscrapers
LINK: open.spotify.com/track/1WJr8e... - Розваги
![Medical School Interview - Medical Ethics - Abortion [DEBATE]](/img/n.gif)
I hear the viability’s argument all the time. Viability is not a condition of our humanity for reasons she explains. It’s not even a premise as to what makes someone human. You guys are spot on.
I sent that exact quote and they still refuse to accept it. I was accused of being a mysognist.
Also, the uterus’ sole purpose is to prepare for a fertilized egg every month. In sex, it’s not that something went wrong, but everything went incredibly right.
Telling women they are made to make babies so have babies is not argument.
@@bacongritty I agree, but that's not the premise of my statement.
Woohoo really went in deep with this one 😸
This. is. absolutely. incredible. content. Thank you so much Mary Carmen and Sean!
Thank you, Elise!
Thank you so much! Great interview!
Well done!
It is amazing that the most intelligent creatures in this world decided to kill an innocent person that growing in her body knowingly that it is wrong
Under the premise that pro-life argues this:
-Science defines a new human life at fertilization
-It is this definition that all of the other posts (legal, rights, ethics, morality) should align with this as well.
-Therefore, killing an unborn human life (even at fertilization), carries equal weight to killing a newborn infant born alive based on the above and is equally immoral and heinous.
-It is then equally as unacceptable to kill an unborn human life (even as a single cell embryo) for reasons such as "convenience", "not being ready", "money", or "just not wanting it" as it would be for the same reasons to kill a newborn infant.
Suppose, I am in a business transaction with someone. They are selling a business, and I am buying it. The purposes of this are solely and only to show this deal is mutually interested, legal, civil and not criminal or malicious in nature. The deal is their business, for my 260$ million USD. The other party agrees, and we shake on it. I pull out an envelope and give it to them, in it is bank account info to the agreed upon amount. The person opens the account and sees the outline of our deal, everything looks good, they access the account and they see that it contains but a single penny in it. One cent.
The person looks confused/upset/angry. And I ask what the problem is. Clearly a single penny is NOT 260$ million USD. But I tell them that the account is a special account, you cannot cancel, terminate nor withdraw money out of it. However it gains interest, every period of time that compounds, as well as everytime they deposit money into the account, it will also gain interest based on how much they deposit (which can be done as many time and as often as one pleases). The conditions of the account will stay this way until it reaches the agreed upon amount of 260$ million USD to which then the account will be mature and all of the restrictions will be lifted.
Despite explaining that to the other party, they get even angrier and more discontent. They argue, this is not what they wanted, agreed nor intended for. To which I reply, that they HAVE to accept this as the same as full payment, because after a certain amount of time, as well as their own money it will eventually contain the agreed upon 260$ million dollars in that account that I gave them. Therefore, it is the same thing, they're equal!
They say the deal is off! They don't want to/agree to paying for their own business! They don't have the money to do that. They weren't prepared for this. Their safeguards failed to prevent this possibility from happening.
To which I respond, so what? Putting your own money and needing to wait is just an inconvenience, that's no excuse! We shook on it, you shook on it. We agreed, you agreed. We consented, you consented. You knew exactly what you were getting into when you accessed the account. You knew the risks, and if you didn't want to be in a deal like this, you should've kept your hand closed and never shook on it!
Certainly, this other person isn't going to say, "you're right, I need to be held accountable, and take responsibility for the consequences of my actions". No sane person would.
However! A person could open up an account on their own, and through their choice proceed this way reasonably.
This person has every right to be upset and want to decline the deal. Why?
-What can one do with 260$ million dollars? A LOT, never go hungry again, open another business, live comfortably, be charitable, buy practically anything you need AND desire, and help others etc. The meaning and value doesn't just lie in what you buy, but also what you possibly could in this very instant.
-What can you do with a penny? Not much. Only hope to place it somewhere, where it will grow and become a larger value. And while a penny is not worthless, and does not have ZERO value. It is not yet functional in reality by itself, requiring interest and money from another place.
-Even though everything you buy involves the penny, 260$ million dollars, isn't just 26 billion pennies. Those pennies can combine to become nickles, dimes, quarters, bills, stacks of bills that can make many different combinations to pay for anything you are buying for needs, functions and purposes.
I chose 260$ million dollars for a reason. It is indeed 26 Billion pennies.
-The penny/cent is the basic fundamental unit of physical US currency.
-If science defines new human life at fertilization that is a single human embryonic cell.
-The cell is the basic fundamental unit of life, and the new human life.
-The average newborn infant is approximately 26 billion cells.
-But that's the clump of cells argument. Both are human life, both are made of the human cell.
-Similarly a penny and 260$ million USD are both money, and they both involve the cent.
-But just as the 260$ million USD is not simply 26 billion pennies. A newborn human isn't just 26 billion human cells. Those cells combine, to form tissues, structures, organs, bones, vessels, skin, blood, nerves, a brain...etc to uniquely function for needs in life and to carry out desires as well. Just as the pennies combines to form coins, bills, amounts to pay for life's needs and desires. The newborn's meaning and value aren't just what they can do now, but also learning, cognition, sentience, consciousness and voluntary action.
-The same goes for the fertilized single cell human embryo in relation to the penny. They are in a fundamental state, and while they are both not worthless, nor have zero value, they cannot do much by themselves and can only hope to gain "interest"/grow/develop, as well as take from another source to gain more and more value until they reach that mature threshold.
-Clearly they are not equivalent, not in meaning/value that we give, nor physically. So why should the "weight" be considered the same?
Lastly, is to reconcile money and the unborn/newborn when it comes to killing/destroying it:
-It is illegal to deface, destroy, or manipulate any physical current federal legal tender. It is also illegal to steal any amount of money.
-Destroying/stealing 260$ million, 100$ million, 1$ million someone is bound to notice and one will be held criminally liable for that.
-Destroying/stealing a single penny, nickel, dime, quarter, a bill...throwing it in a wishing well, losing down a drain, tearing it...etc...no ones officially coming for you.
-There is an obvious rational concept of bias based on degree that exists higher than the fundamental level established by science's definition of a human life. While everything is equal (moreso common or empirical) fundamentally, the value/meaning and therefore weight, is irrefutably relevant somewhere above that base level of definition.
-Killing a fundamental basic unit single cell human embryo is clearly not the same as killing a newborn infant, in both value/meaning and weight. However some point in between embryo and newborn and onward, it becomes more and more debatable and controversial because of this continuum problem that simply cannot be justified from a base rate argument such a scientific definitions of fundamentals terms to establish an equality where none can be seen above that base.
-Why then, are terms that conflate the two as equal, when they are clearly not, commonly used in pro-life sloganeering arguments "killing babies", "murdering babies" that disingenuously imply the higher value/meaning/weight of a newborn infant is the one being killed in regards to abortion (if they were provably equal it wouldn't have to be argued it like that, right?)? Seems like reverse/wrong directional argumentation. And why does pro-life use science to define a new human life, but then purposely refuse to use the scientific terms embryo, zygote and fetus as the prenatal stages that abortion pertains to? Is it to ignore these obvious and irrefutable differences that would make their structure of argument evidently fallible?
Brilliant pro-life. This video clarified my misconceptions
THE SIN THAT LEADS TO DEATH:
DELIBERATE SIN LEADS TO DEATH, FOR HOW CAN WE REPENT OF AN ONGOING LIE WHERE WE REPENT JUST TO DELIBERATELY SIN AGAIN, BECOMING LIARS IN GOD’S EYES (HEBREWS 10:26). ON THE OTHER HAND, IF WE SAY WE HAVE NO SIN, WE DECEIVE OURSELVES, AND NO TRUTH IS IN US (1 JOHN 1:18). HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? WELL EVERY SINGLE PERSON SINS, BUT TRUE BELIEVERS IN GOD UNWITTINGLY SIN, WHICH DOESN’T INVOLVE REJECTION OF GOD AND HIS SALVATION. IN THIS WAY, REPENTANCE IS TRUE AND WE ARE NOT LIARS BEFORE GOD. THOSE WHO GO ON TO DELIBERATELY SIN HAVE NO FORGIVENESS, BUT THOSE WHO UNWITTINGLY SIN HE WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT (JOHN 6:37). THOSE WHO SHUN SIN, HE HONORS.
Well there's 2 arguments that easily dismiss the pro life stance . Bodily autonomy/violinist argument and moral consideration.
Bodily autonomy is simple. A man consents to having a child but unexpectedly the child needs a blood donation from the father or he dies . The father is not obligated to provide blood even if the child dies because it's his bodily resources. A woman consent to sex but unexpectedly she becomes pregnant and is forced to provide her bodily resources . This is inconsistent and results in women having less rights then men.
Now the moral consideration argument is a critique of using life as metric to extend moral consideration. We have never been given moral consideration to someone just because they are alive . We've had premature babies who lacked the faculties for consciousness but had a heart , breathing and even growing but put to rest . The doctor wouldn't say wait but they are alive. Likewise with a comatose patient who is never expected to regain consciousness. The family pulls the plug despite them being alive , having a heart ,growing and so on .
IVF are the reason infertile women can have a chance of having a baby . 1.7 million embryos have been discarded by IVF . Once again a practice in which we don't extend moral consideration at conception. Consciousness emerges the 20th to 24th weeks however the religious knows that most abortions occur within 12 weeks so they cant dictate how women behave in hopes of a Christian utopia.
The first argument- When a woman is pregnant, she is the only one who can carry the pregnancy to term, nobody else can give birth to that child. But when it comes yo donating blood, there are many people in the world who can provide it, so the child won't die even if their parents refuse to donate their blood- there is blood from someone else in the hospital. So it's not only about the autonomy. It's about what's necessary for every human life to continue
@@amask99 children have died waiting on a donor and the father is never blamed. . Don't strawman what I said and address the argument. The father is never obligated even if the child will die .
@@bacongritty
Yes, he's not obligated because his blood was made for the functioning of his body not the child's.
But when it comes to pregnancy:
1) It's not an unexpected thing - this is the whole purpose of sex, pregnancy
2) the baby wasn't forced into the woman's uterus, he/she was supposed to be there
3) the uterus of a woman is made exclusively for carrying her child
The second argument is just an argument from hypocrisy.
You do realise that Catholics doesn't support any of the things you mentioned?
Hypocrisy is not an argument against any position, it's a flaw of the person
Also, what is consciousness? And who said that consciousness begins at 20th week?
And most importantly, we don't use consciousness to justify morality. You, while sleeping, is unconscious, people in coma are unconscious, infact, millions of people go unconscious due to the body being exhausted. Guess what, you cannot kill them even though they're conscious