The Case for Life: A Scientific and Philosophical Defense of the Unborn
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 жов 2024
- What is the best case for pro-life? Sean shares a simple and easy-to-remember case for pro-life from a recent banquet. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, you will be challenged by this message.
WATCH: Are Abortion "Right" Done? ( • Are Abortion "Rights” ... )
READ: A Rebel's Manifesto, by Sean McDowell (amzn.to/3vZqhos)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for $100 off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Sean, this was an amazing discussion. Thank you!
Btw- I had an abortion at 18 and my parents found out that same day.
Surprisingly they did not condemn me, but wrapped their arms around me and cried and mourned with me and supported me in the long journey of recovery. All praise and glory to Jesus Christ. He is truly the only one that can free you from this soul crushing burden. His forgiveness and mercy knows no bounds!
Thank you, Sean! You nailed it when you started off saying we must be willing to talk about this. The world is shouting about it and we can't let them have the only voice. We must speak the Truth in love for the ones who have no voice.
I highly recommend Scott Klusendorf's book The Case For Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture. A must have for every Christian home.
YES!
"You might be thinking 'an embryo doesn't look like a person,' the answer is yes it does! It looks exactly like a human being is supposed to look at that stage of development."
Thank you Sean! A long time ago I found a newly hatched baby bird in my driveway. Clear skin, no feathers, only very loosely resembled an adult bird. I still knew it was a bird, and I was sad it had died. Very young humans are the same way- you can tell they're a human embryo, even if they don't look all that much like an adult human. I know it's pretty common to post pictures of embryos, saying that you can't even tell the difference between a dog and a human in the first couple of months, but the wild thing is you can tell pretty early on if you actually know what to look for. Even if you couldn't tell by looking, the embryo sure knows what he or she is & will grow into the correct species 100% of the time if he or she survives long enough.
Good example, Katie!
Bro, I’m gonna memorize this, this is golden. Sean, you have been a big help in my walk with Christ! Keep up the good work!
Thank you so much for all that you do! This was meaningful and powerful. As a Christian I know where I stand, as a sinner I am guilty…and you’re words of forgiveness and grace had me in tears ...
So many of my favourite Pro Life apologists come from Biola U.
Dr Sean McDowell, Seth Gruber, Scott Klusendorf, Alan Shlemon. Greatly blessed to learn these arguments by such great scholars.
1- the unborn is alive
2-The unborn is separate from the mother
3-The unborn is human
SLED argument:
S:size
L:level of development
E: environment
D:degree of dependency
For the ones who wants to take notes.
I'm actually really curious to see what scientifically-based arguments are out there, as all arguments that I've personally heard up to this point have primarily appealed to emotion and ethics. From what I've seen of you so far, Sean, you've been impressively well-read and in-tune with a lot of the beliefs and arguments coming from all sides, which leads to a lot of fresh arguments and perspectives that, though I myself am not a Christian, still give some really great food for thought. I'm interested to see what new (well, new to me, at least) evidences and arguments you'll be bringing to the table in this one. 😊
Thanks for having an open mind!
The "science" aspect of it relies on the fact that embryologists begin their study of human life at conception. They assert this as proof that personhood begins at conception without recognizing that the study of embryos and the legal concept of personhood are distinct. Based on their reasoning, the fact that reproductive scientists begin their study of human life prior to conception and neonatologists begin their study of human life at birth could also determine personhood.
Grant: abortion is violating the Constitutional right to LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Grant: Scientific evidence is: Life begins at conception. The unscientific evidence disapproves that. Follow the source of the unborn, whether in the woomb or a testtube( invitro- fertilization). Any other new evidence that disapproves that is counterfeit, profoundly flawed, unscientific and contravenes the very basic physical definition of life.
@@ExcusezMoi123 I just watched the video and although there was less science than I expected, I still found it really interesting. You make an excellent point though about comparing embryology with reproductive science. I don't think Sean cited embryology here as his own reason for believing that life begins at conception, but I can definitely imagine that embryology argument being quite popular, and the counterargument you provided seems really effective against it.
So powerful. I love the way Dr. McDowell explains things! I’ll be sharing so much of these points with my pro-abortion family members! Thank you so much for this.
Wow, one of the best defenses I have heard for “Pro-Life.” I have two question: What is the strongest and best argument for “Pro-Choice?” How do we answer this question?
No matter what the issue is, I think we do well in identifying the opponents best argument and respond to that.
Absolutely my friend.
Based on what I've heard and observed, in my opinion, the best argument for pro-choice is the terrible state in the U.S specifically, of how hard it is to raise a child financially. In the state of California alone, if you have no insurance, the hospital bill can go way past 20000. And that's just the birth of the baby. As a pro-life, I believe this country really needs to work on child care costs. It is basically a necessity to be rich these days to have a child, let alone multiple in the states today. It's either that or debt and struggle for the rest of your life, and that extends to the child as well.
Hopefully more pro-life people speak about this major issue as well. Blessings to you.
@@n.n8991 Thank you for your response.
Hey Sean! I’m busy today and can’t see this but I will watch it when I can! Thank you so much for all you do an what an amazing person you are!
It’s actually tomorrow. Regardless, enjoy whenever you can get to it. Appreciate the encouragement!
@@SeanMcDowell Oh lol didn’t see that haha! I think I can make it then.
Leave it to Sean McDowell to hold me spellbound. I can't figure out which he is more gifted at, the long form interview on his excellent show or when the roof flies off when he preaches. What a gift this man has. Actually, how many gifts?
Exactly!❤️👏🏻. Excellent presentation. Transcripts available to help put these points to memory?
No, sorry, but it’s in the chapter in my upcoming book A Rebel’s Manifesto.
Your speech is so full of God's love... it moves me because we are all fearfully and wonderfully made, God created each one of us in His image and likeness.... and yes, Adam and Eve messed it all up big time HOWEVER, God's love for us is SO SO HUGE... we cannot fully comprehend, He gave His only Son Jesus, to die for ALL our sins... He left an empty tomb and promised to come back...
Nothing can separate us from God's love, life is from Him and in Him... so we love the unborn, that is being fearfully and wonderfully made by God.
Being a mother is beautiful and profound, we are recipients and incubators to life that only God gives. A miracle, consider yourself blessed mothers 🤗
Thank you for this conference, I have taken notes to share with my students and daughter. God bless you Sean ❤
Thank you!
Are you serious? Nothing can separate us from Christ. That's protestent Herecy
Our sins can seperate us from Christ. We can loose our salvation. Note 1 Corinthians 9:27. I pommel and subdue my body least after I have preached to others I may not be disqualified.
Jesus death on the cross was not for our sins, though it was because of them and through His sacrifice we can be saved from them, but only through the means by which he established.
Jesus came into the world to redeem the Father's image and likeness through a procedure similar to that in which He was robbed of it by the devil. And that he did however, there is more.
That which saves you now is Baptism 1 Peter 3:21.
John 3:36 unbaptised can not get into heaven.
1 Peter 4:47 Have love for love covers a multitude of sins.
If the death of Jesus covered all our sins as you falsley believe, then why are all the above necessary?
They are necessary because though we are saved through the Baptism of Water and Spirit for the forgiveness of sins, we can still through actual sin loose our salvation, hence the reason God gave us his Holy Word to sustain so we can continue "being saved" through it, and the Sacraments for when we do sin, in hope that we can "be saved" on the last day, through them
Every sentence I wanted to applaud!!
Wonderful, insightful talk to be shared with everyone. Thank you Dr. Sean.
Are you serious? Don't you think people should have the freedom to decide for themselves without the government's interference?
Great perspective, Sean. Thanks for uploading this. I did find the message confusing at one point, so I am curious if there is an explanation for this: you made the philosophical point for life as a human right at any stage, but at the beginning there is the hypothetical question of if it is okay to kill a cockroach, puppy, and infant. What is the philosophically justifiable reason to kill the cockroach and not the puppy? It feels like the line drawn for the treatment of nonhuman animals is more blurred and arbitrary.
That’s a great question. I think we intuitively protect animals that are similar to us, you know, like mammals that give live birth. Of course many people care for egg-hatching animals like chicks or turtles as well. I think it’s kind of a cascade of empathy and compassion that places insects at the very bottom. Maybe it’s arbitrary. I also think these are one of the things we as humans just know. When we attempt to disrupt things that we ‘just know’ like abortion, sex, and gender, we get great cultural and societal conflict like we are seeing now.
Because you don't want a roach infestation...
Amazing message ❤
Sean is awesome.
This is such a fantastic talk Sean. I've saved it to show friends who are pro-choice. Hopefully it will make them think again.
I'm curious if you're familiar with Dr. Tremper Longman's take on abortion in the Bible?
I’m not. Is there a link or article I can check out?
My brother would say that the question of when life begins is entirely philosophical and that there are many opinions on it.
He also says that it is dogmatic to say life begins at conception, that it is a presumption and is unscientific.
I'm worried I might be in an echo chamber on this and that my brother might be right.
My brother also says abortion access is a human right.
If your brother thinks life at conception is entirely philosophical then he would need to redefine biology entirely because anything that biologically grows no matter the size like bacteria is considered life. Also, he contradicts himself to say that “abortion is a human right”…isn’t that as much of a presumption as saying life begins at conception? Anyone can say his belief is entirely philosophical as well. His statement is more “dogmatic” and non-scientific than the pro-life stance.
Many churches no longer participate in sanctity of life services …
In fact, most churches I have attended in the past 10 years are silent on this issue…
I used to facilitate an abortion recovery group for women in my church…
Churches today do not want these groups.🙏
Now many churches are progressive- and no longer think abortion is wrong- lots of excuses as to why.
Pray pray pray for people’s hearts to be softened to the truth of abortion.
Jesus please come soon!
Imho, Sean McDowell and John Lennox are the most thoughtful and balanced Christian apologists around. Great presentation.
Try “Is Genesis History”, “Answers in Genesis”, “Creation Ministries International” and watch PhD scientists expose the false science of evolution, while giving solid scientific, archaeological, and historical support for Creation, Noah’s Flood and Tower of Babel.
I have found it incredibly difficult to have this discussion, even though science points to life at conception. The pro-abortion side has redefined words (something they're really good at), effectively moving the goal post incrementally. Life, personhood, a mind, outside the womb, self-sufficient, able to have memories, consciousness, health, etc.
It's hard to have a conversation when I believe that all humans have value, dignity and worth simply because they are created in the image of God, and He saw fit to create them. It's like we're speaking two different languages.
I mean no offense here to those on the other side. That's just how I see the divide when I'm having conversations
I will accept any definition you want, I am still pro abortion.
@@xsageonexx7399 that's what I'm talking about. We are speaking different languages because we have a different worldview. In a world that is random and purposeless and unguided, the self is the greatest possible being. Whatever the self, the self gets, and your self can't tell my self what to do. This leads to total chaos.
But in a world where there is a Designer, who is personal and loving, and has a purpose for creation, all life is valuable and worthy to be protected. That is where hospitals, shelters, adoption agencies, pregnancy centers, foreign missions, and on and on come from.
We have two different views of the value of life because we have two different masters. So we aren't even coming to the table with any agreed upon presuppositions. This is why it's almost impossible to have this conversation.
@@dmeek20 I agree. Your foundation is fantasy, what you hope for, wishful thinking, etc. My position is based on reality and deals with how things really are.
@@xsageonexx7399 I really hope God changed your mind one day, my friend. The amount of history, archeology, biology, and cosmology that point to God's existence is easily accessible for you. I was once like you... probably believed some of the same things as you, but God graciously saved me at age 25. The last word on your life has not been written, and I would affirm that your life has great meaning and significance. It really would be worth you looking into the claims of Christianity
@@dmeek20 I have read the Bible and have read many books on Christianity. I know what the claims are and I find them to be absurd. This last post does not impact my position in the slightest.
Hey Sean great video, I don't know if you were just trying to put perspective on the argument of human life itself. But I think one question I have for you is innocence of Our obligation to protect the nonhuman order as well as life. I would agree with everything however I think it's important to acknowledge that life of all creation by God is sacred.
WOW!!! Thank You for the info. I hope I can remember this info if I get into a discussion with someone.
🎉 celebrating the message here! yay, we can be pro life and have a level head about it... thank you for saying abortion isn't the unforgivable sin💕 we don't need to bible bash and condemn those who are already in a hard situation
OK, I gotta say, I LOVE the argument that the fetus is NOT dead, therefore it is alive, and to abort something living is to kill it.
Does it have a right to someone else's womb though?
@@lewkor1529 That's a dehumanizing statement. the baby growing in the Mother's womb is HER CHILD, not an alien.
@@hoxiefam6731 You are completely wrong. It is not dehumanizing. It would not even mater if the fetus had won the Nobel prize in physics while in the womb. There is no law in the US granting personhood to a fetus or an embryo. Maybe you should start by passing such a law before you can talk about a person in someone’s womb. That is why the notion of viability exists. Plus, you are off topic because you have not addressed my point which is that men would NEVER have put up with such an intrusion in their rights to decide for themselves to continue or interrupt a medical procedure (i.e. pregnancy). Do you think men would have tolerated it?
@@lewkor1529 Just because there's no law granting rights doesn't mean the fetus isn't a human being!! That's like saying well before the baby is born it isn't a baby but the second it is born it is now a baby. So one second it's a clump of cells with no personhood and the next minute wow it is a person! You were once a 22 week old fetus were you not a person in your mother's womb?
@@hoxiefam6731 Sorry but there is NO law that says so. Please don’t make stuff up. Just wishing it were so or believing wholeheartedly that fetuses enjoy personhood does not make it so. Please show me the law that grants personhood to a fetus! Don’t just claim it is so. Also, why aren’t you worried about the fate of millions of embryos “legally” discarded by fertility clinics in the US and around the world weekly? Don’t those embryos have personhood too? Don’t they deserve your indignation too? The number embryos in those fertility (used by people from all walks of life, including people like you) pales in comparison to those due voluntary interruptions of pregnancy. Why don’t they get the same attention? I maintain that this cowardly push of yours was never about the embryos but rather mainly about controlling women’s ability to decide for themselves and on matter pertaining to their body, health and autonomy. Only women have to put up with this… In my initial post I described men’s domination over women’s reproductive rights as a relic of patriarchal societies. You have not addressed that. What is dehumanizing about that statement? Restrictions to women’s ability to decide for their body will be defeated some day, I am pretty confident about that. Now, let’s follow your “logic”: does being a fully formed human being give anyone the right to remain in someone else’s womb against their will? Can the government force anyone to continue a medical process (i.e. pregnancy) against their will? Honestly, it wouldn’t matter if an embryo could do poetry or logarithmic math at 4 weeks… Can they stay is someone’s womb against their will? I don’t think so
I wish I could press the like button a thousand times!
Does the dependent unborn have more right to life than that of the one who is responsible to bear the burden of the unborn?
Which saves more year to year, abortion or the gospel? Yes I mean for the question to be taken seriously.
Sean is a wicked smart dude!
Great talk👍
Satan is the great deceiver and divider in this world who casts darkness and lies. Thank you for casting God's light and truth over this issue.
What was the name of the resource center he talked about that freely helps women with counseling?
Its tricky because it's explaining the obvious. You have to detail whats already valuable. It's like describing the value of a vital organ
Sean snapped
I can imagine your wife slowly backing away into the hedges during that conversation with the polar bear girls....in all seriousness though, I wish I had the kind of confidence it takes to just go up to people and have that kind of conversation.
I did not see the fact that the mom is being forced to give birth addressed in this discussion. That was completely ignored. Is it okay for society to force the mother to save the life of the unborn by forcing her to complete the pregnancy? That is question at hand. I assume the unborn baby is human life but the baby has to live within a mother's womb. My major issue with prolife arguments is they lack empathy for the mother. If there was technology that would keep a child outside the womb alive would support a prolife argument. Some libertarians use the word eviction when a mother does not want to go the full term of pregnancy. Right now viability is at 24 weeks. I am prochoice because I don't believe that a mother should be forced to be an incubator or to save the life of the unborn. A mother should not be forced to go to the full term of pregnancy if she does not want to. And in cases of rape I find it abhorrent. My friend who was raped does not regret having an abortion. Another way to look at it is would we force a parent to give up blood to save the life of a baby. There are cases like this where Jehovah's witnesses have refused to have blood given to their child or baby. Courts have ruled they can do that even if their child risked death.
Why all of a sudden change the rules in Pregnancy?
Anyway that's my 2 cents.
Well, I'm sorry to give you more empathy-less arguments for pro-life ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
"I am prochoice because I don't believe that a mother should be forced to be an incubator or to save the life of the unborn."
What differentiates a baby inside or outside the womb? And furthermore, should men then be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want and the woman *didn't* get an abortion? Not necessarily a debunk, but a question.
"And in cases of rape I find it abhorrent. My friend who was raped does not regret having an abortion."
Sorry that it happened. But do you punish innocent children for the crimes (let's say murder) of the father? While it's emotionally trying to carry a rape pregnancy to term, there's the possibility that raising a child can be more emotionally healing than getting an abortion.
"There are cases like this where Jehovah's witnesses have refused to have blood given to their child or baby. Courts have ruled they can do that even if their child risked death.
Why all of a sudden change the rules in Pregnancy?"
This is likely due to the 1st Amendment. Because the JW's have a religious doctrine enshrined about the immorality of blood transfusions, it therefore is religion and must be respected. Silly to me, but what can you do? On the other hand, what religious doctrine can you point to that would protect abortion?
And while it sucks, remember that "facts do not care about your feelings," (a tired trope. I'm really not trying to "own" you here). But for the future wellbeing of the mother, I strongly advocate that she does not get an abortion, lest she truly regret it many years down the line. Regardless, there will be negative consequences for everyone down the road if we continue with abortion. Or perhaps we already have.
Thank you for your input.
@@Elioc-ed6wr I don't think you addressed my issues . You said facts don't care about feelings and I states the facts. For example you went into the 1st amendment. Dr. Sean McDowell was not making a legal argument against abortion. He was making what was supposed to be a Scientific or Secular argument by attacking the assumption that Prochoicers say the fetus is neither human nor a person. He failed to consider the possibility that some Prochoicers like myself consider the fetus a human being as I have explained above. You are free to feel you owned me but I am not convinced by the above counter arguments you made. My response was to Dr. Sean McDowell's video. Did you watch the video?
Dr. McDowell advertised that he was going to stated something that we Prochoicers. He invited us (including Prochoicers) to watch his video and we did and it is not convincing.
As far as I know the video did not make a legal argument against abortion in the way you did. Facts don't care about your feeling but ultimately it is up to people to accept the facts. If they don't you will have a hard time convincing anyone about your arguments and can't get anything done.
Here is my personal unsolicited advice. Be humble when making an argumentation. Unless your goal was to annoy me, saying facts don't care about your feelings will never convince anyone to change their mind on an issue. If your goal is to try and convince me to at least to strongly consider the prolife position and even change my mind you failed.
I will give credit to Dr. McDowell for being humble and polite about his views.
Keep this in mind. You can destroy people in argumentation and still fail to convince them because of your approach. I think Dr. McDowell understands that very well. I don't think from your above response you do.
Don't get pregnant.
@@hzlkelly and if one is raped? Additionally the question must be asked is the mother obligated to carry an unborn child for 9 months just because she got pregnant. I say no. I will never subscribe to forcing women to give birth or to be incubators. That's my position.
@@chindi17 For some odd reason your response isn't showing up when I hit View 4 replies so idk what's going on.
If I came across as trying to annoy you, I'm sorry it came across that way. (I suspected that would happen when I used the tired phrase) I wasn't really trying to change your position as much as attempt to provide an answer. Thank you for being cordial in your response for my rather blunt statements.
Part of the reason I brought up that facts don't care about your feelings was that "some of the pro-life arguments don't have enough empathy for the mother," which I grant. As counterpoint, hence why I used that phrase. Too aggressive in delivery? Probably.
I went into the first Amendment primarily because you asked about the JW's non-obligation to donate blood to their child even if they would die without it. From what I understood, you asked to an extent, "why is it fine for JW's to do that but it's wrong to have an abortion?" Hence, my 1st amendment response, even though I disagree heavily with the practice.
Yes, I did watch the full video before going to comment warrior mode. Did I listen as closely as I could've? No. I'll admit that much.
Thank you for your kind criticism and your time.
Wow! Well done!!!
Your a good guy Sean! I really respect you and what you preach! But I have to send you this to watch and tell me what you think. And then will go from there.
Dr. Sean, few Qs on abortion topic
1) Who's making abortion case?
A. God
B. Christian
2) What are the charges for a woman caught doing abortion?
3) This might be sensitive but you brought it up in the video. Please forgive me for asking. I mean no disrespect I'm a fellow Christian and I love you Sir.
* Will you report your daughter to the authorities after she confessed and you told her that you loved her in order to complete this righteous path?
Need more new science and biology related videos and guests. Watched and loved all of the ones you have. And the near death experience were fascinating.
Imagine someone reporting their daughter to the authorities if they used an IUD, or plan B which is now sold in drug stores. That will be the law in some red states soon - murder for using contraception that aborts a fertilized egg.
I wish you had given credit where credit was due (to Scott Klusendorf). The bulk of this talk and many of the points you are being praised for are his. You can hear them in Alisa Childers' latest podcast with him, from the Shaquille O'Neal illustration right down to the teenager joke. I'm not trying to tear anyone down, the more people who talk about this the better, but it doesn't bode well for your integrity when you use other people's material without crediting them.
I am pro-life but I have some trouble with making abortion illegal for women, especially the early weeks. If the embryo is the same with a full grown adult, then the punishment of abortion should be same as the murder of an adult. But that’s not going to happen right? What is a just and fair punishment for abortion if abortion is illegal, for the doctor or for the woman? I do hope it would deter abortions too.
If Sean's daughter came to him and said, not that she got an abortion, but that she shot another girl to death, I doubt Sean would react the same way to these two situations.
@@Venaloid yes. Some countries (el Salvador) put women in jail for years for any abortion, with no exception! I think a line should be draw somewhere. It’d be unjust to say abortion is homicide and Carry the same crime as murder of an adult, and throw a woman and her doctor in jail for the crime. I’d love for methods to deter abortion as much as possible too, counselling, post natal resources centre, better education, more contraceptives made available.
36 yo Christian woman here. Now as a Christian I see life starts at conception and I take responsibility for that and never got pregnant or used bc. Now under those circumstances yes Im pro life. But as a woman I know the real issue is not about the baby it’s about women’s health and the control of it by the government and men. I also understand the same people who fight for the right of the unborn could care less about the woman or the baby once they are born and struggling. Whether it’s postpartum related, paid leave rights, childcare assistance, breastfeeding in public, believing sexual abuse or assault, or financial assistance for the child to survive. Therefore yes I stand with my pro choice sisters in their choice cause they see right through this façade of an agenda to convince us that this issue is truly about saving a life of a unborn child.Because it’s not. God Bless you.
Then you are admitting it's okay to murder if you think the child could be born under poverty. Thats immoral and should be punishable by law.
@@hoxiefam6731 I said I don’t believe in abortions.
The very men who are against it and want to change the laws and bills are having their mistress have one is what I’m saying.
It's easy to defend the unborn when you ignore the personhood of the people carrying them and consider them slaves.
i don't think anyone considers anyone "slaves" lol. i'm pro-choice too, and i have trouble understanding the mindset of pro-lifers too. but hyperbolic arguments don't do pro-choice any practical good. Sean is actually legit imo, i don't always agree with him either but he's sincere and usually well thought out.
@@m76353 It's not hyperbole. It's an accurate literal description of pro-life ideology. I couldn't care less about whether someone is sincere in their slavery apologetic.
@@ExcusezMoi123 can you name one pro-lifer that has claimed women should be "literal slaves"??? lol. idk where you got that from but i highly doubt sean mcdowell has said anything like that.
@@m76353 Of course they don't claim this overtly. They deny it vehemently. In a similar manner, racists rarely admit to being racist. It's in their interest to ensure that the public never recognize pro-life as movement grounded in slavery. If you require the pro-life advocate to admit that they are pro-slavery in order to determine that the movement is in fact pro-slavery, you'll never recognize the true nature of the movement. Don't be naive.
I know zero pro lifers wanting anyone to be slaves. There is access to FREE birth control vs pre meditated MURDER. You kill an innocent and it is murder.
I really hope there will be no argument from the Bible in this debate. Because there is no biblical case to be made for "forced pregnancy".
&@mn it lol, i worked so hard on getting my pro-choice biblical arguments solid and now pro-lifers are switching up to scientific arguments?? lol.. oh well this is cool tho. don't always agree with Sean on everything but always enjoy listening to him! he's by far the most interesting and sincere christian on the conservative side imo!
The "science" aspect of it relies on the fact that embryologists begin their study of human life at conception. They assert this as proof that personhood begins at conception without recognizing that the study of embryos and the legal concept of personhood are distinct. BAsed on their reasoning, the fact that reproductive scientists begin their study of human life prior to conception and neonatologists begin their study of human life at birth could also determine personhood.
@@ExcusezMoi123 thanks for the heads up! and yeah i don't personally know the exact science on this but have a feeling there are no specific scientific definitions of it? which is where i'm assuming the "philosophy" part comes in? lol. philosophically tho, the "autonomous capacity to survive outside the body of another human" seems like it should be a major determining factor for defining what constitutes the dividing line separating one individual human life from another. i guess they could still argue that the embryo could be removed and grown in a test tube or some shit lol
@@m76353 The pro-life movement has been very strategic to hide their religious motivations by making so-called "secular" arguments for abortion based on science and philosophy for the purpose of skirting accusations of 1st amendment violations.They ally with a so-called secular pro-life movement to bolster this facade without acknowledging that any secular argument must first address existing rights afforded to women for over 50 years. No pro-life argument has ever done that and so fails to earn the secular status that would be afforded in a democratic society. Thus, regardless of whether their arguments overtly refer to religious principles or not, their ideology remains firmly entrenched in religious motivations and seeks to instantiate a defacto theocracy which not only violates the 1st amendment but ensures that the beginning of personhood definitional criteria is completely arbitrary as set by religious authorities who cannot even agree amongst themselves.
@@m76353 Is the embryo / fetus *meant to* develop outside the uterus for those specific stages of development?
@@Derek-le4er no. the "test tube" line was a joke. i really really hope no pro-lifers would actually take that serious as some sorta compromise.
best defence ever
Abortion is simply the termination of a pregnancy. If another party wants to care for that life until they are independent that is fine. But to say a mother must care for that unwanted life because we don’t have the means to care for it in their stead, is just wrong. If you want to stop abortions from resulting in the death of the unborn, develop the technology and methods to safely deliver and support a human life at any stage of development. Do not just resort to taking away another person’s rights instead.
You say that abortion is simply the termination of pregnancy. What is the woman pregnant with? You said that she has life inside her. Why should that helpless human life be less valuable than the human life who made the conscious decision to engage in the only activity that creates human life? Aren't you insisting that one person takes away the rights of another?
@@lionheartapologetics4914 what right am I suggesting we take away? The aborted human still has the right to a chance at a full life like all of us. The thing hindering them from achieving a full life currently is our societies inability to care for its needs depending on the stage of development they are at. What I want to point out is, our efforts should be focused on developing better technology and methods to protect humans at all stages of development. It would be amazing if we could culture a new life from fertilization to infancy from outside the womb.
Absolutely you make a a great point about abortion being the termination of pregnancy and I don't think mothers should be forced to have to be incubators or carry the unborn baby for 9 months if they don't want to. They should not be forced to save the life of the unborn child. Saving someone's life is voluntary even if they are your child especially in the case of pregnancy when it requires a lot of health risk and sacrifice by the mother.
bringing a person into the world without their consent.. having them born ‘cursed’ with a sinful nature into a fallen world full of pain and than the risk/ possibility of never ending suffering after the die from not making the right choices or having the correct beliefs in life..
If Christianity was true in the interest of the unborn baby I personally find an abortion to be the much more loving and logical choice..
As someone who is pro-choice, I found this talk deeply unpersuasive. Two things are fatal: 1) it starts from premises I do not share and 2) fails to "steelman" the bodily autonomy argument--rather, the speaker offers what is essentially a parody of the argument and then knocks that down.
If it was a separate organism complications would not happen.
If you're not sure what you believe about abortion, this may help you.
No death penalty, as per Catholicism?
The justification is that if the life of one is dependant on an other, then the life sustainer should not be forced to continues to sustain the life of the dependant.
Exactly
So, by your justification we should not be forced to sustain a 2 month old. Or a 6 month old. Or a 9 month old. Or a 12 year old that’s been in a car accident & cannot feed herself until she rehabs completely. What if she can’t… should we not be “forced” to care for anyone that is dependent on us? What about your grandfather that has had a stroke? I have 2 Scripture passages for you:
“What sorrow for those who say that evil is good and good is evil, that dark is light and light is dark, that bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter.”
Isaiah 5:20 NLT
and
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those being crushed. Yes, speak up for the poor and helpless, and see that they get justice.”
Proverbs 31:8-9 NLT
Just because someone is dependent doesn’t mean they should be killed.
@@cindymartina2608 no that is what you said. I never said that. If you can't sustain a two month old baby you can put that baby up for adoption. What you stated is known as strawmanning. I get it when people try to win the argument rather than engage in an honest conversation. Can a fetus or unborn baby be put for adoption at say 12 weeks pregnancy? You can't. But a two month baby can be given to another parent or the government. Many states even have abandonment laws for this purpose where mothers can leave a child at a hospital or government building and not face sanctions.
A better equivalence is should we force a mother to have to take care of a child if she does not want to? Obviously the answer is no. A child can be put in foster care or adoption. An unborn baby cannot be put in foster care or adoption. That is a huge difference.
Here is better equivalence if there was a way to hand over a pregnancy to another woman who wanted to continue to save the life of the unborn child that would be great
Sean, appreciate the subjects you cover in videos!!
Hey, i encourage you to not call the baby in the womb "it" as you did a few times in this video. The precious little one in the womb is a person, not an "it."
Scientific and philosophical arguments? If Sean can manage to not just give up halfway through and cite his interpretation of the Bible as a defense, I'll be surprised.
Looks like you’re gonna be surprised 👊
@@SeanMcDowell - Alrighty then, fair enough.
@@SeanMcDowell If I may take a guess, I'd guess the argument is going to be that biological humans always have a right to life, and that fetuses are biological humans, therefore fetuses have a right to life. The argument is going to hinge on the idea that biological humanity is what gives us a right to life, which is also why we don't kill people who are asleep or under anesthesia. Is that about it?
@@Venaloid There's a substantive difference between ending the life of an existing person and preventing the life of a not yet existing person. Abortion is the latter and is not murder.
@@ExcusezMoi123 - Well therein lies the debate: is a fetus a "person"? That is, a thing with a right to not be killed arbitrarily? A right to life, as we say? My guess is that Sean is going to argue that a person (a thing with a right to life) is a biological human. Haven't watched it yet.
It might help to let women know that their babie are in heaven and that:
They love their moms,
They firgive their moms,
They want to see them in heaven and tell them, "I love you mommy",
"I love you daddy".
At what point in pregnancy does the product of conception become human, surely it is inaccurate to say that a zygote is human yet?
It is fully human from conception because those are human cells 🤷🏾♀️
EXCELLENT. NOW, THE DEFINITION OF a LEGAL PERSON is one having rights and DUTIES (a corporation may be a legal PERSON, called a legal fiction BTW). The mother is definitely a PERSON with rights AND DUTIES, and this should be the next big issue. Does the government have a DUTY to serve and protect? And the mother is a trustee under the government required to protect her child or may be prosecuted,and the conception and pregnancy are the time the trustee status begins. CITIZENS are entitled to rights which may not be violated without due process. The mother might file for an injunction to order an abortion, and emergency injunctions may be heard in about 3 days, I think. THE POINT BEING, the mother may have a right to an abortion in some cases, but is a trustee her DUTY until such injunction is ordered, THIS PROTECTS all parties, including the fetus in the controversy of EQUITY.
Now the argument against the above would be a flood of filing for such injunctions however except in extreme cases such filings would be FRIVOLOUS and could be sanctions imposed on the mother or her attorney.
NOW, if you review the history of SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS which was applied in ROE, you see the discussion of HISTORY AND TRADITION in determining a substantive right, and the history and tradition CLEARLY show a fertilized egg is a legal PERSON under the rights of fetal inheritance which carries in it all other rights of life liberty and property and DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION.
This is disappointing. Sean is resting his entire case on the idea that a fetus is biological human life, and then asserting that biological humanity is how we identify rights. Sean has clearly not thought to ask himself if biological humanity really is the basis by which we identify rights.
I ask you, Sean: would Star Wars aliens *not* have rights because they are *not* human? Would a sentient cockroach with goals, desires, hobbies, and feelings, be just as okay to kill as a regular one? How about Stuart Little? Could we kill him because of what he is (a mouse)? And would a human fetus that developed into a uniform lump of fatty tissue be identified as a “human being” by any doctor or biology textbook or ethicist? And if an adult human being had his body and his DNA altered into a sequence unrecognizable as human, but he still had all of his personality, desires, and self-awareness, would you suddenly say that it’s okay to kill him because he’s no longer “human”?
you must have a lot of time on your hands, have you tried asking God to come into your life, Jesus said if you build your life on his word you will be wise, but a fool will deny God and proclaim himself to be wise
@@stephenkaake7016 -lol! Nothing more cringe than being patronizing and then calling a non believer stupid. That’ll really convince him to change his mind. Don’t actually debate the substance of the comment; just make ad hominem attacks and a vague reference to scripture.
And Christians wonder why atheists just roll their eyes at most of their comments.
Hi Sean, I have some issues with the way that you frame a lot of the points you bring up over the course of this video. I’m going to try and show you where I’m coming from. For context, I’m not particularly religious.
Ok, so let’s immediately interrogate this framing from the college girl anecdote at the beginning of the video. You frame “protecting unborn babies” as a similar issue to “protecting polar bears” which is, I think, an incomplete and misleading framing, because the growth of a polar bear is not directly tied to a human body. In protecting the rights of a polar bear, nobody is forced to make a personal medical decision. If every human baby ever were grown in a lab without any risk to the mother’s physical health, your framing that “abortion is wrong because it is the end of life” could hold up.
This is not the case. A much better, if somewhat morbid framing, is this. Imagine if you were kidnapped and hooked up to a sick polar bear. This polar bear has a problem with its kidneys, and you’ve been kidnapped by some amoral psychopath who has hooked you up to the polar bear like a dialysis machine, so that your kidneys can filter and clean its blood. Your body is now responsible for both keeping you alive, and also the polar bear. You probably will not die, statistically, but you will need to remain attached to the polar bear for 9 months. During this time you’ll need to eat differently, move throughout the world differently, and prepare to financially support the polar bear’s rehabitation program after it is disconnected from you in 9 months time.
We have already acknowledged that the kidnapper has acted immorally. This feels pretty obvious. The police come in, knock down the door, and drag the kidnapper away.
Should the police, when they arrive, unhook you from the polar bear? If they do, the polar bear will die. You’re responsible for this bear’s loss of life if you walk away and try to keep your bodily autonomy. However, you didn’t choose to be put into this situation. The kidnapper has placed you into this situation and he’s already dealt with, but should the police force you to remain hooked up to the polar bear? If you unhook your body from the polar bear, should you be held responsible for killing it?
I think that the answer is no. (And yes the original form of this thought experiment does not deal with a polar bear, it deals with a concert musician I think) I don’t believe that you can justify forcing the victim to surrender their bodily autonomy just for the sake of preserving life.
Edit 1: “a sperm is alive and an egg is alive, so therefore an embryo is alive”
I don’t think this is a valid way to answer the question of when a *human* life begins. I definitely acknowledge that these cells are in fact living, human cells, but there are a huge number of living, human cells that we don’t consider to be worthy of legal protection in the same way as a fully grown human.
It’s not illegal, for example, to get a hair removal treatment to kill hair follicles. Hair follicles are alive and they are human cells, they reproduce and create more human cells, but they do not deserve the same level of legal protection that a human does.
So now, we move the goalposts a bit. “Ok” we can say, “human cells in general that don’t have the capacity to create genetically different human life don’t count as human, and aren’t worthy of protection in the same way.” Well then, we’ve extended our blind spot much too far now haven’t we? We’ve accidentally stripped away human rights from any person who can’t reproduce for any reason, because NONE of their cells are able to create human life. So we can’t use that definition anymore.
I’m basically just unconvinced that the idea of a cell being alive is enough justification for saying that a cell is a human. We have plenty of examples where that is clearly not the case, nor should it be.
Edit 2: the “body on the floor” analogy
Again, for me this falls flat. I would say that the argument Reagan is making here only works with some specific caveats. Caveat 1: in order for the analogy to work, the body on the floor that may or may not be alive *must* be attached to another, definitely living body. Caveat 2: the body must be in a catatonic, non-responsive state, where it would be impossible to tell whether it is alive or dead, even given the tools that medical professionals have at their disposal. Caveat 3: the second body, the one that is definitely alive, must have a specific and active desire to not be attached to the possibly-alive body anymore. Then Reagan’s framing works.
Edit 3: deceptive framing of vaccination/masks as a similar conversation
Pregnancy is not contagious and does not spread through the air. This one is honestly baffling to me.
“The reasoning is your body might harm mine” is, I think, oversimplifying. You take assumed as true that life begins at conception. Anyone who disagrees on this point does not think that abortion causes harm to a human, so unless you have convinced them this is an obvious false equivalence.
Also, abortions are not, let’s restate, a compulsory medical procedure to prevent an infectious epidemic of pregnancies. The “bodily autonomy means I shouldn’t wear a mask” argument is a complete non-sequitur and it makes me very confused about what point you’re trying to communicate.
Edit 4: “the unborn is human”
I would say that the unborn is human cellular material. This is the same distinction I was trying to make with the hair follicle example earlier. A human, a fully fledged person with rights that need to be protected, is a different thing than a group of human cells. If it was not, then laser hair removal would be immoral, which I think we can all agree it is not.
We need a better definition than “the cells are human cells” before we can say “it is human.” For example, we can say “the unborn has the capability to become human, so it should be considered human” but then what about egg cells? Do we consider it a tragedy that a human egg cell could have become a human, but didn’t? Is it a tragic loss of life every time a person has a period? I don’t think so. I think choosing conception as the moment that a group of cells becomes “fully human” is arbitrary.
And on top of that, there is still another person there, who is definitely and undeniably human, which is the point of the polar bear example from before. Regardless as to whether or not the embryo is human, there is another human who has their body attached to this potentially-human thing. That person should get to decide whether or not they want their body attached to another creature’s body for 9 months.
Edit 5: kidney machines
This is pretty funny, it’s the specific example I brought up with the polar bear. A kidney machine is different from a kidney *person.* If the kidney machine was sentient and did not want to be connected to the patient, the kidney machine would have a point.
Final edit: I just want to sort of summarize my thoughts on the video. I think that it’s a bit questionable to frame these issues as though everyone completely agrees that a human life worthy of protection begins at conception, because that’s literally what the entire debate is about.
The arguments that pro choice advocates make to try to defend their positions generally follow two broad groups. In the first group, people will try to argue that human life worthy of protection does not begin at conception. I personally do buy this argument but I understand why someone might not if they believe in souls or something. However, the second group of arguments goes like this: “we don’t know whether or not life begins at conception, but we definitely do know that the life of the carrier is worthy of protection. We should NOT in any way prioritize a maybe-life over a full, unquestionable life.” This is the bodily autonomy argument. It’s saying essentially “even if I KNEW that I was physically connected to a sentient human being as a means of keeping them alive, I would still deserve the right to say *I do not want to be here* .”This second argument is one I find very convincing, and is basically the point of the polar bear argument.
P.S. Ok, this follow-up is coming about three hours after my initial comment. I’m sorry, I would have left this comment alone, but I feel there’s one more point I need to make. There was another comment on this video that really got to me. It was from a woman who was emotionally thanking you, Sean, for the forgiveness that you offered during your argument.
You occupy a unique space within your community, because as a voice of authority within a religious circle, your arguments carry a different type of weight than most arguments, even from other authority figures. Your arguments are often viewed as being the position of an infallible wisdom that all believers must follow. You don’t make this point explicitly, and I think that’s fantastic. It would be irresponsible to abuse your position of authority in order to lend a credibility to your arguments that you don’t have. This is not a criticism of your arguments, it’s just a fact. Even if the Bible is the infallible word of god, the Bible does not make the specific pro-life arguments that you make.
However, by offering up god’s forgiveness, you implicitly say that god agrees with you that abortion is morally wrong, and a sin. You say that anyone who has had this medical procedure has sinned, but it’s ok… as long as you come back to the church because god will love you even if you sin. This normal, routine, sometimes life-saving and medically necessary procedure is being used to guilt people who have just gone through an extremely emotionally charged medical procedure. A medical procedure that I (and many, many others) believe is completely within their rights and fundamentally moral. A medical procedure that Sean, and people like him within the church, believe is immoral.
If any religious people are reading this comment, I appreciate you sticking with my points thus far, and I want to offer a counterpoint to Sean.
If you have had an abortion, or may need to have an abortion, I won’t offer you forgiveness. I don’t *need* to forgive you. There was nothing to forgive in the first place because I do not believe and will NEVER believe that you have done anything morally wrong. You have done *nothing* that requires forgiveness from anyone, or for that matter, from any god. You made a decision, and that decision may have been difficult emotionally, it may have felt hard, but you don’t need forgiveness. You need support, and no matter what Sean’s god supports, I personally completely and unequivocally support your right to do whatever you feel is best for your body.
I’m sorry if the end of this comment is too pointed, I don’t mean to demonize Sean specifically. He treated the subject with respect, and made a lot of arguments that at least approach the idea of abortion with a degree of respect and nuance that I don’t often see from political opponents, and I appreciate that. But I still feel there is something sinister about him offering forgiveness for an action that I cannot, in any way, accept as a sin. Sean believes that god forgives you, because god is full of love and forgiveness, even to sinners. I believe that you never were a sinner to begin with.
Better analysis than I did. I also did not like the way the questions were framed.
you can defend life - unless it is the life of a pregnant person
If you believe in Hell… Heaven versus Hell… hard to understand why you have strong opinions on abortion. Abortion isn’t good but Hell.. seems way way way way worse
It’s like before birth and after death you don’t care and people are on their own
I think you should watch more of his videos because that’s not what he believes.
@@ourtexasjourney1850 maybe... though don't most Christian sects believe in Hell As an eternal damnation? Does Sean Or his channel have a different view of Hell?
As a midwife ,and every other of you , most newborns are the same size as they were at birth 😍.
I’m curious of what you think about the argument from bodily autonomy in regards to nonconsensual pregnancy. So someone who doesn’t consent to their physics body being depended on and doesn’t consent to anyone being inside of their body.
I don’t think this is a right for the doctor to kill anyone, but I’m curious about if it can be successfully argued that it is a right to choose to remove the child at any point during pregnancy.
Most pro abortion arguments in this particular area have to do with the fact that pro choicers believe it is easier on a mothers physical and mental well being to cut the pregnancy short via abortion than it is to carry a baby to term and deliver. This is actually wrong. Giving birth and pregnancy are natural to the womans body. Having an abortion cuts short so many hormonal processes that (too late) have already started from the moment of fertilization. The abortion not only harms the mother physically in many ways but mentally as well. Those who actually stand outside of PP to pray very often report ambulances coming in and rushing women off due to a mishap with the abortion. The chemical abortions are even worse than surgical but in both cases MANY things can go wrong, even up to sepsis and death, although the industry isnt reporting that for obvious reasons. We get this info from ex abortion workers like Abby Johnson and those working with Students for Life, etc (you can see plenty of their work on here). Even if everything goes "right," the woman is at a much higher risk of cancer later in life, and can cause infertility among other things. Post abortive women are also at a much higher suicide risk because the chemicals that pregnancy brings to a womans psyche being cut off unnaturally can result in sometimes a few or sometimes extreme mental health disorders. Abortion is never a good choice for a woman, no matter how far along she is.
It is a moral question not a consent question. A man could say I didn't consent to you having a baby therefore I don't have to pay child support. We understand it isn't a consent question. It's our responsibility to care for our young.
@@hoxiefam6731 I appreciate your response. I agree it’s a responsibility to take care of our children. But right now that is only for born children. The unborn have not yet been granted any rights therefore I’m curious about an argument from consent. I don’t think it’ll get us to abortion, but it may get us to early inductions and other medical procedures to remove the child in the womb at the pregnant person’s request.
@@hoxiefam6731 I think the argument from parental responsibility is a good one. But it doesn’t help all cases, like rape or failed contraception. When someone tried to take the measures of not getting pregnant but still did or if the pregnancy was forced due to violence, it’s a nonconsensual pregnancy and so shouldn’t someone have the right end their body being used without their consent?
A fair and real question is what choice would you make if your daughter was pregnant and went to the hospital for a check up the. You get a call and the dr says your daughter is unresponsive so you have to make the call there’s about a 90% chance the baby isn’t going to make it and even if he does because of the lack of oxygen he’s probably gonna have some kind of brain damage but because your daughter is handling this well if we don’t take the baby out there’s a really high chance she’s not gonna make it and there both gonna die thousands of people go through that each year I would like to know what you would do though
Not all abortions are because women don’t want baby’s just like women take birth control pills for more reasons then just to not get pregnant
The Bible is the most sold book of all time and the most unread book of all time if your Muslim life starts at 150 days kinda will cover that at the end if you are Christian or Jewish sometimes it 40 days sometimes it’s not until the baby is born and takes its first breath and sometimes it’s not until 30 days after the baby is born or when the baby is born and god breaths the breath of life in to it so if a baby is still born it wasn’t alive not me saying that it was god however because your all starting with the same book the change some of the characters around nobody noticed that your all talking about the same god the one god at the beginning of the Bible is still the one god at the end no matter what you call your religion because you all started from the same book
What verses state those days?
It would have been nice to show a brown babies feet in the picture
One word, for the religious or otherwise that trumps all your moral trumpeting and bad jokes: 'antinatalism'. Problem solved. God, no god... Matters not. Don't breed and there's no dilemma.
This is a poor argument that doesnt adequately address the objections. You'll not convince any pro-choice advocates or even those in the middle.
The biggest flaw is that you conflate something being genetically human with being a human person. I realized you tried to address this, but your arguments don't really make sense and straw man the opposition. Honestly, many people would argue (with very persuasive arguments) that a 20-year old is worth more morally than an infant. You kind of just skipped over that and assumed your audience would agree with you.
Are we not going to allow people to have plastic surgery? If a woman preferred her breasts to be smaller, why should she not be able to cut out the excess flesh? The early embryo has no more ability to be a person.
Now, I see two objections most commonly to this. The first is the embryo has its own genetic code. This is ridiculous. First of all, there are people with multiple different genetic codes in them. Google chimerism. Secondly, many cells have subtly different codes due to natural variation. Where do you draw the line and why?
The next objections is usually potentially, that the fetus, though not a person at conception, will become one. The problem with this logic is that it is used ad hoc, and pro-life advocates do not apply it elsewhere in their lives. For example, a baby is also going to die at some point, so why not kill it? Why do you get to choose the endpoint?
If I steal $20, I cannot be prosecuted for stealing more. You cannot claim that I should be prosecuted for stealing $40 because you would have doubled your profits. Now, there are cases where people can sue for future damages, such as if they are maimed. However, this is different. We are not treating the defendant as the future person. We are merely addressing that the current person has suffered grievous damage. It is very much a present consideration.
So why treat the fetus as a future person for things done to it while it is not a person? If I break someone's wood that they were going to turn into a table, they cannot sue me for the value of the table, even if they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what the table would be worth and that it would have been made otherwise. Why? Because the table doesn't exist yet, pure and simple. In the same way, the fetus may be real, but the person does not yet exist.
You seem to be making the Performance (functionalist) argument:
Humans come to be at one point, but only become valuable later on in virtue of some acquired characteristic such as self-awareness or self-consciousness they can immediately exercise.
That is, humans are not valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are, only some function they can perform.
For example, Mary Anne Warren distinguishes between human beings and human persons, with only the latter having a right to life.
She asserts that “persons” are self-aware, able to interact with their environment, able to solve complex problems, have a self-concept, and are able to see themselves existing over time.
*Endowment (essentialist) view*
Humans are valuable in virtue of the kind of thing they are, not some function they perform.
True, humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, but they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature, that of their parents.
Why is an immediate capacity for self-awareness or consciousness (or seeing one’s self existing over time, having immediately exercisable desires, exercising reflective choice, etc.) value-giving in the first place?
Philosophically and theologically, it’s far more reasonable to argue that although humans differ immensely with respect to talents, accomplishments, and degrees of development, they are nonetheless equal because they share a common human nature made in the image of their biological parents.
Humans have value simply because they are human, not because of some acquired property they may gain or lose in their lifetime.
Do you know of any human beings that weren't persons?
Can you explain the distinction?
If you want to hear a more in depth lecture watch Biola U Ethics At The Edge of Life series with Scott Klusendorf
Your plastic surgery analogy fails as you are comparing parts, breast tissue, with a whole living human being.
Women having a mastectomy do not die, abortion involves murdering the foetus, which is a whole living and distinct human being.
The word foetus means, offspring, do you know of any human offspring that weren't human beings?
You didn't come from a Zygote/ Embryo/ Foetus, you were once one.
@@hwd7 Again, you're simply asserting the embryo is a living, human being. Many would disagree and have legitimate arguments for it.
I don't know what this "substance" is that you are referring to. This seems to be a sort of metaphysical thing. You can think that way, but there is no actual proof that sucha thing exists, that there is something "special" about humans. That is, unless you want to posit something like a soul, in which case I would like to see some compelling evidence that such a thing exists.
The issue is not "is there a human being who is not a person". It's that people disagree on when something becomes a human being. For example, many people would say a zygote does not constitute a human being anymore than a cancer cell does. Why should we treat them differently?
@@WaterCat5 Life Begins at Fertilization
The following references illustrate the fact that a new human embryo, the starting point for a human life, comes into existence with the formation of the one-celled zygote:
"...The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology.
Prior to advocating abortion, former Planned Parenthood President Dr. Alan Guttmacher was perplexed that anyone would question these basic scientific facts.
“This all seems so simple and evident that it is difficult to picture a time when it wasn’t part of the common knowledge,”
he wrote in his book Life in the Making.
"Embryo: The developing individual between the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism.... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.... The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life."
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition .
"Development of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte and together they form a zygote."
[England, Marjorie A. Life Before Birth.
*We’ve known these truths since the mid 19th century:*
In its 1859 Report on Criminal Abortion, the American Medical Association (AMA) understood that “the independent and actual existence of the child before birth as a living being” was a scientific truth.
The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner
From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms. “Embryos are not merely collections of human cells,” writes Condic, “but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.”
In short, embryos are not clumps of cells. Nor are they fertilized eggs.
Sperm and egg die in the act of fertilization. That is, each surrenders its constituents into the make up of a new living organism, the human embryo.
Sperm and egg, like somatic cells, are parts of larger human beings while the embryo is a whole (albeit immature) member of the human family
To review, the following objections do not refute the pro-life advocate’s case from science:
People disagree on when life begins-The absence of consensus does not mean an absence of truth.
Sperm and egg are alive-Yes, but this confuses parts with wholes. Sperm and egg are parts of larger human beings. Embryos are whole human beings who, like all living organisms, function in a coordinated manner.
@@WaterCat5 Objection #2- “Any Ol’ Cancer Cell Will Do.”
Ronald Bailey of Reason magazine insists that we gain no real knowledge from the science of embryology. Bailey argues that embryonic human beings are biologically human only in the sense that every cell in the body carries the full genetic code, meaning that each of our somatic (bodily) cells has as much potential for development as any human embryo.
Put simply, Bailey would have us believe that there is no difference in kind between a human embryo and each of our individual cells.
This is bad biology. Bailey is making the rather elementary mistake of confusing parts with wholes. The difference in kind between each of our cells and a human embryo is clear:
An individual cell’s functions are subordinated to the survival of the larger organism of which it is merely a part. The human embryo, however, is already a whole human entity. Robert George and Patrick Lee say it well. It makes no sense to say that you were once a sperm or somatic cell. However, the facts of science make clear that you were once a human embryo.
“Somatic cells are not, and embryonic human beings are, distinct, self-integrating organisms capable of directing their own maturation as members of the human species.”
Dr. Maureen Condic points out that embryos are living human beings
“precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells.”
Condic, Assistant Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, explains the important distinction between individual parts and whole human embryos overlooked by Bailey:
“The critical difference between a collection of cells and a living organism is the ability of an organism to act in a coordinated manner for the continued health and maintenance of the body as a whole. It is precisely this ability that breaks down at the moment of death, however death might occur. Dead bodies may have plenty of live cells, but their cells no longer function together in a coordinated manner.”
From conception forward, human embryos clearly function as whole organisms.
“Embryos are not merely collections of human cells,” writes Condic, “but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury.
Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.”
In short, embryos are not clumps of cells. Nor are they fertilized eggs. Sperm and egg die in the act of fertilization. That is, each surrenders its constituents into the make up of a new living organism, the human embryo.
Sperm and egg, like somatic cells, are parts of larger human beings while the embryo is a whole (albeit immature) member of the human family.
@@hwd7 I think many people would disagree that what makes something "human" is that its cells work together as an organism. Sure, you can argue that makes an embryo an organism, but there are many multi-cellular organism that humans kill. So why is this one special? Is it the DNA?
Your other comment seems to suggest it's an issue of development, that an embryo will become a human at some point if nothing interrupts it. Sure, that's true, but this goes back to my initial objection. In no other area in life do we treat an object as if it were a future object.
For example, we don't give babies alcohol (or at least we shouldnt) just because as an adult they will be able to. We recognize that a baby will potentially in the future be able to drink alcohol but that it's not safe to do so.
Similarly, with an embryo/fetus, we should not give it the rights of a full human until it possesses the qualities that are requisite to make a full human. Now, we could discuss what that is. Your previous comments suggest some "substance", which to me seems ill-defined. I would argue something like consciousness is one good indicator, which is thought to emerge around 23 weeks. Seems like that should be a minimum.
This corresponds to how we treat vegetative patients. People who have lost the ability to be conscious but are still alive in the sense that their cells are keeping them from heart failure and so forth,are allowed to be killed. So it seems your example of an embryo being such a collection of cells is incomplete.
The difference appears to be that an embryo will gain consciousness, but a vegetative person won't. Again, we should not treat things as their potential future selves for numerous reasons that I hope are obvious.
Yahweh/Jesus is Love. Yahweh/Jesus loves all the babies except the ones he drowned in the flood, the Amalekites babies, the Canaanite babies, the Midianites boy babies, the Egyptian firstborn babies and the babies in Sodom and Gomorrah. But, he changed. He is all Love now.
LOLZ
Love isn't defined as 'you can sin without consequences'. There are real horrifying consequences to sin.
@@hoxiefam6731 Your god: KILL those damn degenerate SINNING INFANTS.
1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
@@hoxiefam6731 Your god: KILL the men and boys but KEEP THE VIRGIN BOOTY.
Numbers 31:17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Sean, you are cool. I think I see a way out of this mess. Shift it from girls to the guys' responsibility!. Girls don't care that much about SEX!!! ( SORRY, GUYS, BUT IT'S TRUE. WE ARE JUST TRYING TO KEEP YOU HAPPY, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT OTHERWISE, YOU WILL LEAVE US!!! ( AND PROBABLY YOU WILL LEAVE US, NO MATTER WHAT.... ANYWAY, IF A GUYS HAS SEX WITH A GIRL OUT OF WEDLOCK, HE GOES TO JAIL FOR A WHILE, PLUS PAYS AN ENORMOUS BIG FINE.! 😀
BUT, IF HE GETS HER PREGNANT???? HE GOES TO JAIL FOR A LONG WHILE!!! AND THEN, HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING HER AND THAT CHILD IN STYLE (!!!) FOR THE REST OF HIS PITIFUL LIFE! AND NONE OF THIS PATHETIC, "HERE'S 50 CENTS IN CHILD SUPPORT! DON'T SPEND IT ALL IN ONE PLACE!!!" NO. WE'RE BACK TO OLD- FASHIONED ALIMONY!
I PREDICT THAT JEAN MANUFACTURERS WILL START MAKING JEANS WITH LOCKS ON THE ZIPPERS.
If it was a separate organism complications would not happen.
If it was a separate organism complications would not happen.
If it was a separate organism complications would not happen.