Abortion Debate: Stephanie Gray Connors Vs Abortionist Dr. Malcom Potts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Stephanie Gray Connors debates abortionist Dr. Malcom Potts on whether abortion can ever be justified.
🚨 Largest Catholic Apologetics conference ever!: www.virtualcat...
🚨SPONSORS
EL Investments: www.elinvestme...
Exodus 90: exodus90.com/m...
Hallow: hallow.app/matt...
STRIVE: www.strive21.com/
🚨 Like what we're doing at PWA? Support us on Patreon: / mattfradd
Me to my 6 yr old: So I'll be having an abortionist on my channel tonight.
Her: Well, are you going to tell him off!!
Me: Stephanie will, yeah.
STEPHANIE IS WONDERFUL!!!!! 💙💙💙
Matt: It's very difficult for me to hear the pro-infanticide side of the abortion debate. I am trying hard to be able to hear this horror and be able to keep some semblance of understanding. But unfortunately, the more serene and calm the killing contractor comes off, the colder my blood runs. I saw a documentary once about Dr. Gosnell, which literally turned my stomach and with all due respect to your guest, his demeanor during this exchange reminds me strongly of the demeanor with which Dr. Gosnell presented his own case. I was unable to finish watching this debate, and I mark that as a character flaw in myself. I'm not angry. I'm just sickened and rather chilled that there are in fact persons who reckon themselves as healers, who believe themselves to be doing some kind of good in the provision of these procedures. But if we have enough medical hit men to twice wipe out the population of Canada in a single year, where do you turn with the information? How do you change enough hearts to even make this world a tolerable place in which to live? I should have known better, but I have heard abortion debates that I could listen to, so you can't tell unless you try. But this guest is just to bone chilling for my taste. I don't know why I'm telling you all this. I love your show, and will continue to do so. I just needed to get this out. I admire you for having the courage and the strength to present this debate. Perhaps someone else who thinks themselves "pro-choice" will pick up on the cold inhumanity of the position, especially as presented by this doctor, and it will make them re-evaluate their own position. This is my prayer and hope.
@@skroehr what i don't understand is those of us who want to outlaw abortion but are not willing to be taxed specifically to take care of these children.
@@skroehr A woman should not talk with a serpent.
@@skroehr It is not a character flaw that your love motivates in you righteous indignation in the face of the greatest evil the world has ever known. When Allied forces encountered death camp commandants, they did not have coffee with them and calmly explain the root of their disagreement. I think they would have seen that kind of fraternization as a sin against justice and a scandal--Patton got into hot water for humanizing just average civilian NSDAP members. You are not weak because the blood in your body still runs warm.
Every woman I have ever encountered talks about her baby when she is pregnant never heard one say my embryo or my fetus.
I never heard a woman say “I’m pregnant with a fully alive human person with its own DNA and all the necessary parts by week 12” either…..
Most women just say “I’m pregnant”…..
Right! I've never ever heard anyone say, congratulations you are having a happy, healthy zygote!😂
@@masteryourpiece
They might call it a baby, but they still know it’s UNBORN, right…..
They know they’re rubbing their stomach and not holding the actual baby…..
@@hexl702too5 Anyone who has taken basic biology knows that a species becomes alive and a full member of said species at the moment of fertilization...
@hexl702too5 pretty sure the word baby entails that it's a person with his or her own DNA
Hey Matt, are you free tomorrow to moderate the presidential debate? Because you're really really good at this.
Forget muting the candidates, he'll accidentally turn his own mic off.
+1 for sure. Matt, you do great with these!
He couldn't handle Trump's unprofessionalism.
"Fetuses are Cancerous Cells, but also congratulations to you on your child!" - Scientist
Pleasantly surprised this comment hasn't been accosted with empty pro abortion cognitive dissonance.
Gotta know your audience. Hahaha
I did the biggest double take when he said that. I have never heard that notion in my life. I’ve heard parasite but cancerous? Cancer cells grow, yes. Human embryos grow, yes. Lots of things grow. Where’s the correlation? Lol so bizarre
@@lyssadobbins7209 after listening to it I believe the correlation is in the rapid growth and expansion of the cells. I agree at first its a very crude comparison, but after thinking about it on the cellular level it's actually a very good comparison. Cancer can grow and expand at such a rapid rate, just like a fetus grows at a rapid rate. Again, I agree the comparison is very odd hahaha but as a scientist, it is actually pretty good. In the sense of cellular growth
@@rams812 yeah I just don’t understand why anyone would make that comparison in the first place. Of course everyone knows that cancer cells can grow and everyone knows that human embryos grow if uninterrupted. What was the point of saying that? Very odd indeed. I don’t think he finished his thoughts completely in that segment.
“She’s going to get an abortion anyway, so let’s just help her get a safe abortion.” By that reasoning, we could say, “The serial killer is going to murder his victims anyway, so let’s give him a sharp knife.”
OOOOOOF so true.
That's a really bad analogy. It's more similar to municipalities handing out free needles to drug users to keep infection rates low and minimize public health hazard.
@@hottuna2006 Except in that case, nobody is killing anybody (explicitly), while the goal of an abortion is always to kill the kid
@@hottuna2006 It's the same analogy, just different circumstances. It just wasn't the circumstance that you prefer to use for the analogy.
When someone is arguing in support of something that is obviously wrong, they are forced to resort to making ridiculous arguments, just as Malcolm did in this debate!
at 23:10 he literary said people like my cousin should be killed. That is a textbook definition of genocide.
Why would Mr. Potts be reluctant to perform abortions after 12 weeks? If his premise is that abortion is a useful medical procedure, it matters little if the fetus is 12 weeks or 32 weeks? it's an illogical position.
Because in reality what makes or breaks your decision is the practice of suppressing your moral conscious. If you suppress it early enough you can tell yourself (brain) that the fetus inside you (which is translated to offspring or unborn child) is not a living human. But tell me if it’s not alive then how can it grow?
Because he knows how horrific it really is. He says he is partially responsible for inventing the vacuum method. So he helped create another way to murder children in the womb. He knows what the development of a baby is. He knows how quickly babies grow. A baby at 12 weeks is very well formed.
50:15 She got him! "Stephanie:why isnt sex selection an okay reason?.... Malcom:Im not comfortable with that" -_-
I love how professional the moderator is.
It seems he gave Malcolm less time than Stephanie
I’m a medical student, and I could NEVER perform an abortion. I swore an oath to protect human life. That includes children in the womb. I will never understand how a doctor can do this.
In some countries you can't opt out of doing them. You wouldn't be licensed if you refused to commit abortion.
+abby
As a medical student you should be aware that although a human zygote has human DNA, its not a fully developed human like you and me, its not a person yet, if you can't tell the difference you should not be a doctor ...
@@88feji a one day old child is still not fully developed, does that mean we should kill it? no. what about people who have growth or hormonal issues, meaning they never fully mature or develop even when they become adults? they shouldn't be killed either. regardless of its stage of development, a zygote is still human, even though it is small and doesn't look like you or me yet. that fact that a zygote is still at an early stage of development should not give someone the right to end its life. and if you're arguing that a zygote isn't a person yet, when does it become a person?
@@nighthawks764
Answer is simple, I think therefore I am.
Whatever the combination of human DNA organs, healthy or not, as long as it has not crossed the gates of "I think therefore I am", its not critically developed.
I'm sure you would agree that a disembodied hand, even if kept alive by science, cannot be considered a person even if it has human DNA right ?
Even a beating human heart by itself cannot be considered a person right ?
However, if we have a disembodied functional human brain capable of thoughts, there is no doubt at all what we have is a person inside that brain. If scientists are able to find a way to connect a machine to the brain to allow it to express itself, the brain would be able to communicate like a normal person even without a beating heart or a kidney or liver etc ...
The act of living is only meaningful if there is a thoughtful appreciation begun ... that is why a disembodied heart/hand/kidney etc cannot be regarded meaningfully as a person (they cannot begin to experience human thoughts) but a disembodied functional human brain IS someone, a person.... because having begun thoughts is the only meaningful distinction between having just human DNA and being a person like you and me ...
An early fetus before 20 weeks term has long been established to not have a brain developed enough to even experience basic thought processes such as pain ... that is why its not critically developed enough and therefore not a fully developed human as the difference is huge in the most meaningful way possible..
@@88feji I think this is a good argument - does anyone have good counter-arguments? I've been wavering on the topic of abortion for quite some time between pro-life and pro-choice. Does anyone take issue with the "I think, therefore I am" boundary?
This also ensures that sleeping people or those who fall comatose are still considered persons, having crossed the "I think, therefore I am" boundary. It would also seem to leave brain-dead patients with no chance of recovery out - if the brain is considered the root of personhood, and it is dead with no chance of recovery, the person is dead.
This would still leave room for banning abortions at a certain point before delivery, if it comes to be that the unborn begins to have thoughts. This would mean that they have crossed the "I think, therefore I am" threshold. Yet, simple brain activity does not imply thoughts - some activity is associated with the operation of bodily functions, which we would not associate with conscious experience.
88feji, what is your take on this interpretation? Do you agree? Also, what do you think is the strongest argument against this position?
*Abortion is wrong?*
03:55 Intro Stephanie - Abortion is wrong;
19:05 Intro Malcolm - Abortion saves lives of women;
27:10 Rebuttal Stephanie - Abortion doesn't, it's progress in healthcare;
34:23 Rebuttal Malcolm - Testimony of Malcolm about illegal abortion consequences;
37:45 Answer Stephanie - Proves that when abortion was made illegal, mortality of women didn't increase;
*Cross Examinations*
42:33 Stephanie cross examination - Why 12 weeks is your limit?
46:48 Stephanie cross examination - Would you acknowledge that embrios have already human blueprint?
49:05 Stephanie cross examination - Would you do an abortion at 12 weeks just because of misogynist reasons?
55:05 Malcolm cross examination - An embryo is not a preborn child;
56:39 Malcolm cross examination - Do you ever think you are wrong?
59:15 Malcolm cross examination - Ectopic pregnancy: isn't that immoral as an abortion?
01:02:37 Malcolm cross examination - Problems with intention and words used improperly;
01:06:00 Malcolm cross examination - Problems with use of words improperly;
*Q&A*
01:08:56 Q for Stephanie - Should we imprison mothers that have an abortion? If not, aren't you admitting that abortion is not that bad?
01:10:33 Answer of Malcolm
01:11:32 Q for Malcolm - Would you oppose the killing of a fetus if it was kept alive from an external machine?
01:12:30 Answer of Stephanie
01:14:07 Q for Stephanie - Aren't you emotionally manipulative using words in an emotional manner?
01:16:42 Answer of Malcolm
01:17:02 Q for Malcolm - Is there any argument or evidence to make abortion as an unethical ending of a human life?
01:18:15 Answer of Stephanie (What would make you change your mind?)
*Answers to an argument for abortion: "God does not exist, we are byproducts of nature. Human rights are a fiction to help us evolve. If we as society decide this is right, why not?"*
01:20:35 Answer of Malcolm
01:21:35 Answer of Stephanie
01:23:12 Answer of Malcolm - Hitler was fond of anti-abortion
01:23:56 Answer of Stephanie
*Q&A 2*
01:27:32 Q for Stephanie - Would you advocate for increase of contraception for reducing abortion?
01:29:41 Answer of Malcolm
01:31:30 Q for Malcolm - There are circumstances where abortion is wrong? If so, why?
01:32:10 Answer of Stephanie
01:33:21 Answer of Malcolm
01:33:58 Answer of Stephanie
01:35:40 Answer of Malcolm
01:36:27 Q for Stephanie - Isn't there better that we have less unwanted babies if the gain for society is positive?
01:38:15 Answer of Malcolm
*Conclusive statements*
01:40:35 Stephanie
01:43:31 Malcolm
Resources:
Stephanie's website loveunleasheslife.com/
Tomorrow 22/10/2020 there will be an other debate with Peter Singer, check on /events on website; Should also be livestreamed at Harvard Right to Life’s Facebook page.
Book of Stephanie about defending abortion on her website, later she will release another one on Assisted Suicide.
Synopsis:
Overall Stephanie has spoken more than Malcolm, but the latter has yielded his time on different occasions and has (in my personal opinion) conveyed his points and his argument well and utterly. During the first segment the professor had made compelling arguments showing that abortion saves lives of women but I allow myself to specify that contrariwise of what the professor said, most of abortions are done for personal reasons and not for health reasons (which occur in extreme reduced cases as shown by this study www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5957082/ ); on the second segment, the professor can't seem to provide a defense of why abortions is wrong for mysoginistic reasons and it is not for down syndrome preborn children.
I end saying that the Truth is Light and if you have been in the dark for so long, it can't hurt your eyes, that's why I think the professor got so annoyed when Stephanie spoke It out :)
This is wonderful!!!
Great work, thanks for spending the time.
Thank you for this index!
Thanks a lot for the time stamps and comment!
@@merrybolton2135 in places like NYC where they hand out birth control like candy, the abortion rates are significantly higher, especially for black babies. When there is a dependency on birth control, abortion becomes the backup when it fails.
Believe it or not, humans can live without sex. If you're not ready to have a child, don't be having sex.
Hitler legalized abortion in Poland when the WWII began!!! The dr doesn’t know the history! Stalin also legalized abortion!!!
(Greetings from a listener from Poland:)
The SS on Himmler's order removed abortion cases from the jurisdiction of Polish courts. Stalin recriminalised abortion in 1936 and it remained a crime in the USSR until 1955.
Hitler also got rid of the guns and legalized sex with animals and was a homosexual and only had one testical and had a micro penis. All very true!
@@absolutedefender2081 Don't forget the soaps and lamp shades, he also tortured 6 gazilion kittens
By the mid-1930s, official concerns about a declining birth rate as well as the aim to strengthen the family unit as a bulwark of social stability doomed the old law. To Stalin, giving birth was “a great and honorable duty” which was “not a private affair but one of great social importance.” Henceforth, Soviet women would carry the double burden of holding a job in the wage-labor force and working in the home raising children. The draft decree proclaimed that “only under conditions of socialism, where … woman is an equal member of society … is it possible seriously to organize the struggle against abortions by prohibitive laws as well as by other means.” It permitted abortions only in cases when the continuation of pregnancy threatened the life of the pregnant woman.
Opposition to the proposed legislation came from many quarters but was particularly prominent among young urban women. Their objections typically were not based on a woman’s right to control her body but rather on the impossible strains that bearing and raising children would impose on their pursuit of a career, on available living space, and other quotidian concerns. Except for minor changes, however, the draft was approved by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People’s Commissars and went into effect on June 27, 1936.
25:00 He is, in a sense, playing God, "fixing mistakes." He admits knowing he is killing little babies, and glosses over the language, as pro aborts always do. Say "abortion" rather than "torturing" and "slaughtering," and always eliminating the word "BABY." (both the word "baby" AND the baby himself or herself.")
He at sometimes says that the embryo is a cluster of cells, and later admits that he was once an embryo. He is very disconnected. He further states that "I wouldn't do an abortion on someone who doesn't want it." Ummm, Doctor, EVERY abortion you've done kills the "little one" (that's what the word "fetus means) who didn't want it. He uses general terms, and shifts the entire blame away from himself to the baby's mother. "Well, if she wants it, I'll do it." He's not just a bystander. Without him, that unborn baby won't be killed.
Deep down he doesn't want to or can't see that he's been a mass-murderer. That would indeed be a hard realization, especially for someone who has the word "Dr." in front of his name.
Prayers for him and all who use language generalities to cover the awful literalness of killing defenseless children. Oh Lord, convert them as you converted Dr. Bernard Nathanson and Dr. Anthony Levatino.
Almost 15 years ago my doctors put me through a series of test saying they believed my baby would have a genetic disease and wanted me to get an abortion. How easily they could disregard not only a life, but the life of my unborn child. Who are they to decide that someone else’s life isn’t worth living. Today I have a very healthy, happy, 14 year old boy. I couldn’t be prouder of him. I thank God for choosing me to be his mother.
absolutely!
Doctors and their technology are often wrong. Many women in birthing groups I'm in have said they were told their baby would have DS or something, they get told to abort, they don't have the baby is perfectly healthy. Even if there is something wrong, that life still matters to God. We crossed paths with those lives for the betterment of our souls and theirs. Nothing to help increase in virtue than to sacrifice for someone else. The help the least of us.
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Thank God you didn’t listen to this so called doctor. 🙏❤️
So he does have some type of illness or defect
I want to thank Dr. Potts. He did a wonderful job reinforcing my pro-life perspective.
Are you serious ☠️
Lol. Right
So true... Very inconsistent with his beliefs... He is struggling with what he has done
No such thing as pro life. You're pro birth... Or rather pro forced births.
Difference
@@mihaimoldo hahaha. Thats a new one. No such thing as a baby either eh? Or a woman either? Now life doesnt exist either!!!
1:31:00 “it’s more natural than not taking it…” he must have a very different understanding of what it means to be natural. Natural means “as nature intended.” The pill is unnatural. Artificial. Therefore to take something that is unnatural causes things to occur that are unnatural. If left up to her own devices, a woman’s body will do all those things without the pill, i.e., naturally. And to suggest that the world in which women live is unnatural is a form of mental gymnastics I can’t quite comprehend.
You can see after his exasperated statement that Stephanie literally bites her tongue/lip. She knows what to say, but won’t because of the deep discussion that would ensue. That’s some very good composure and self-control.
The way he speaks about embryos with chromosomal abnormalities is a liiiiittle similar to the ideas behind eugenics
It's so refreshing to actually have respectful debates. I think possibly our politicians should take note.
*vaccine existing* is to *20th booster*
AS
*running stop signs* is to *T-bone accident*
AS
*showing up around 3 every night* is to *barely showing up ever*
The biggest mistake this man could make is not repenting of his sins and excepting Jesus as his Savior. Especially repenting for aborting babies. He keeps saying he's made mistakes in his life. Maybe he's regretting aborting babies.
1:06:20 “pre-born child…which most of society doesn’t use.” What? Every single time I spoke of my pre-born child, I never used the word embryo or zygote. I learned about these terms in high school biology, I have many friends who are college graduates, and in common vernacular - which is increasingly less formal - almost nobody I know of uses these terms but says “pre-born child” or simply “child” because “pre-born” is assumed considering they already know we’re pregnant.
He also makes the point that depending on what words you use, it guides people in a particular direction, and it seems Dr. Potts doesn’t like terms that lead people away from abortion. That would make sense. So yes. Semantics matter, and using words that reflect the truth are truthful, right and just words.
Stephanie is as articulate as she is beautiful!!
Hi Cameron!!!
Agreed! And intelligent 😬
SUCH A SWEET COMMENT FROM THE WIFE OF MATT!!!!
BTW YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL!!!!
BLESSINGS ALL THE WAY FROM MONTERREY MÉXICO :)
Cameron please consider having your podcasts on Spotify too. It's the only way I listen to podcasts, I wonder if there are others like me. Much love your way 💛
Silly, the abortion issue isn’t a beauty contest…..
This lady isn’t THAT good, abortion is still legal and available to 70% of American people…..
Everyone, pray a Rosary for Dr.Potts to see the truth as Truth sees.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this.
God bless you. Through Jesus Christ
,Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Amen.
Yeah, that will work !
No everybody pray directly to jesus christ , rosary is not biblical , Jesus is the only way ,truth and life.
@@gracealves9585 What about the Rosary do you object to.
@@gracealves9585 the rosary is largely a contemplative prayer on the life of christ. You may not even know what that is, as I didnt when I was a Protestant either.
@@udmgraduate it's not about being protestant or no it's about to do things according the Bible that's it
27 years ago my first child was "very possible to be minimum....a down syndrome", since, all of the signs of spinal bifida were there.... I was 26. I took the chance, there was No doubt in my mind, only God could decide. I had no nerve to decide and have an abortion. Well.....I chose his life over mine (despite the kidney stones I had during the pregnancy). He is such a gift and loving young guy. Born in 1994, complete, inteligent, with no health issues. Thanks to God for the miracle I experienced.
Sincere question: what If he did have Down Syndrome and grew up very problematic?
I'm prolife btw,just thinking about what then if things don't go well...
@@ABB14-11 its the same for every pregnancy. Its all a what if. We all Hope as parents. My first pregnancy was at age 20, I never gave a thought to any defects because I didnt think anything other than a perfect child, yet she could have come out any way, and I would have been surprised and distraught. I had my son at 38. I was aware of my age and possible problems. Apart from prayer, I really had no garantee especially because for the first 3 months I starved myself hoping it wouldnt stay. He is perfect in every way I know of, thank God. But both scenarios could have been otherwise. 🤷♀️ They have misdiagnosed a lot.
I hope to have your kind of strength someday. God bless you and your child 🙏🏻
@@anything700 I'm a little confused. What do you mean " I starved myself hoping it wouldn't stay". Maybe I'm missing something, that just sounds incredibly dangerous for yourself and the child, hope everything is well, look after yourself.
For one, Dr. Potts missed Stephanie’s point. She wasn’t arguing that “Hitler was pro-abortion.” She was arguing that the opinion that society can collectively deny the human rights of some of its members if it’s expedient is what Hitler did.
For another, for all Dr. Potts’ indignation over “getting your history right,” he got his history wrong. I just looked this up because the way he cast it seemed off to me. The execution to which he referred took place under a French law that predated the Vichy regime by many years. He makes it sound like this was a Nazi law with Hitler as judge, jury, and executioner.
Last, but not least, Nazi eugenicists practiced abortion of the physically or mentally disabled (“life unworthy of life”) as a matter of policy.
By the way Hitler did allow for abortions for non-Arayans, it was only a crime for "Aryans" and maybe some people close to "Aryans" to get abortions. So his history is double wrong.
If that’s true, then denying women their human rights is an example of what Hitler did….
@@hexl702too5Good thing no women have the right to kill an innocent human life then
Holy Crap! > ""Last, but not least, Nazi eugenicists practiced abortion of the physically or mentally disabled (“life unworthy of life”) as a matter of policy."" You say that as though it's a great thing! Talk about chilling!
Malcolm Potts said “making abortions illegal has no impact on the number taking place”.
I wonder on what is that statement based?
What country had abortion available and then made it illegal and where can I verify that the number of abortions carried out on the residents did not change?
Abortion was once illegal in Ireland.
The number of abortions carried out in England and Wales on Irish residents had been declining since 2001.
In the years 2017 and 2018 the number of abortions carried out (in Ireland, England, Wales and the Netherlands) on Irish residents was 5,983.
Following a Referendum, abortion became more readily available in Ireland and, in 2019 and 2020, the number of abortions carried out in Ireland alone was 13,243.
He was also wrong on Communism and abortion. Communists were the first to legalize abortion. Although it is true that when the Russian population started to fall in the 1930's as a consequence of abortion, Stalin restricted access to abortion. But this had nothing do to with morality... It was merely about keeping up the Russian population.
@Anthony Farrish Well having an increasing population is necessary for the war effort, especially if you want to conquer the world or if you're expecting lots of casualties. Not to mention anything about economic growth. Shrinking populations tend to be bad for the economy. If the Soviet Union wanted to become a world superpower, then it needed bodies. But abortion has been part Communism almost from the beginning, with Communists then spreading it around the world.
He was also not entirely right about Hitler. He banned abortion for some populations, but legalised it for occuppied Polish people. Wikipedia even mentions forced abortions. He used abortion as a tool for eugenics (wanting to get rid of Poles).
Correct. And I worked in China where the government was all about abortion, even against the mothers will. Actually, there was "abortions" even after the birth of the child.
A great idea to combat the shrinking population would've been not imprison, torture, and/or kill more than a 3rd of your overall population but hey, who am I to judge, right? Commie ethics for the win.
This guy is the kind of human that disgusts me.
Just cause some little girls are crying does not make it okay to butcher babies.
And, by his own admission right around 25:00 he claims he had a hand in the development in the vacuum technology that is used in the butchery.
I hope he comes to the knowledge of Christ and he repents and turn from his baby butchery. If not, he going to hell.
The vaccuum technology is saving milions of female lifes those who are having abnormal pregnancies like: Hydatidiform mole (as it can get mutation and metastasis)
Ignorance is a problem..
@@YuserAlhaj
You misspelled "murder is wrong".
You are right, ignorance is a problem.
there is no debate folks…your body belongs to you and do what you like with it, but what you carry inside your body does not belong to you..it comes through you, and it belongs to something much bigger…
A woman owns her body, not strangers….
They don’t get power of attorney over her uterus….
That’s your opinion
Ask him if he supports abortion for a rich, happily married, healthy woman came to you and asked for an abortion?
If not why not?
Why do pro abortionists say it is a difficult and emotional issue if they genuinely believe it's just the removal of a bunch of cells?
I freaking love this debate format!!!!! So professional and still have each debater speak their arguments gracefully.
How can one speak their arguments for genocide "gracefully" ? What kind of moron are you?
I agree. She explains everything With simple wordso that everyone can understand.
Stephanie Gray is a legend. I guide all my pro choice friends to her because she is a genius AND at least they can’t tell her,”no uterus no opinion”😂
You don't need a uterus to know a killing.
True, just like the nine white dudes who decided Roe v Wade didn’t need a uterus to make abortion permissible on a federal level. The same activists who say men can’t have opinions on abortion would therefore invalidate Roe, which is kind of funny.
@@killianmiller6107 people who didn't thank you for saying this silently bowed in praise
To be fair, befriending people you disagree with helps towards convincing them of their error when they know you are doing it out of love rather than out of some mission to prove them wrong. You may have the truth, but if you don’t present it in a loving way, it is less likely to turn them from their ways.
People are more than their opinions. We should be friendly to everyone, no matter how vile their opinions are. It’s what Jesus would do. Besides, it’s very hard to convince someone of the truth without being charitable
Hey, Matt. I'm from Brazil and I love watching your videos. Could you please enable subtitles so I can translate this video to portuguese? It would be very useful to people who are looking for good arguments against abortion.
If the woman comes in and doesn't know what to do and wants all the information available then show her a color, 3D ultrasound of what is happening inside her body. One pregnancy crisis center found that when that happens 70-80% of women wanting an abortion changed their mind and delivered their baby.
and also were not cared for by any of the politicians the pro life movement supports.
The weakness of the good Dr's first argument is while we all agree that making things illegal doesn't mean people will stop doing the illegal thing, just because people will continue to do them doesn't mean we should make them legal.
Hey I know this is so long ago but I think you misunderstood, my perception of his argument is that more people will die when abortion is illegal vs when it is legal. The amount of abortions sadly doesn't decrease a huge amount, however the amount of death of mothers increase horribly.
Therefore it is more ethical to give the mothers a safe way to perform these truly sad acts in a safe manner so that people don't die trying to get an abortion.
But if it was simply the fact of it being legal or not you are correct it would not make sense.
In certain cases that does mean we shouldn’t make it illegal. For example, the prohibition of alcohol. The argument isn’t that we should keep it legal because people will do it anyway, the argument is that the ramifications for our society are MUCH worse by making it illegal because crime rose immensely when it got banned. Making abortion illegal would have similar ramifications.
@@santteria8785you can drink without killing people
@@andrewnietfeld7213 you can also have abortions without killing people. Personhood is a philosophical question, terminating a pregnancy is a biological medical procedure.
@@tuboafhow does it follow that it is ethical? I’m genuinely curious because I’ve heard this before but I’ve never been able to get a justification for that assertion. I’m guessing it’s some form of utilitarianism? I get the argument you’ve laid out, more people die when abortions are illegal than when legal. Ok, let’s grant that. Is it just raw numbers of deaths you care about or are there certain demographics you’re biased more towards prioritizing?
My question is, why should killing a child be made safe for anyone? Sure people will always do it, but if a significant portion of the extra people dying when it is illegal are the very people attempting to kill the children…those lives are subject to a completely different set of ethical judgements.
It sounds a lot to me like saying that more people die when burglary is illegal than when it is legalized…because when it is legalized, less burglars get shot. Therefore we are ethically obligated to legalize burglary. No one would ever endorse that patently absurd statement, why this one?
Consider for a moment the metaphysical reality that killing one’s child SHOULD be costly and dangerous. It is for a reason and ought remain so.
WHY is there NEVER the impregnator's actions brought into this conversation?
Generally speaking, it’s because the deed is done. It’s not that’ it’s not a fair question. But abortion or pro life position should be made independently of the action of the impregnator. Not saying their isn’t valid points on either side. I’m speaking generally for a brief response in the comments section.
@@SliPsHoTiFc Well with respect, it should be brought into the conversation. Ignoring it all this time and only focussing on the end result allows for it to continue.
I'm not sure if I misunderstood him. But it's really hard to swallow him saying congratulations to Stephanie and telling her how wonderful that is when two minutes ago he just compared the embryo to a tumor.
He said it is cancer-like in that it grows extremely fast and is a mass of human cells. So biologically speaking the act of removing a tumor and an embryo are the same.
@@lukezeman7129
It’s not cancer like AT ALL because cancer is disordered and unnatural. They are disordered cells growing crazy and malfunctioning. An embryo absolutely is NOT! Each fast growing cell corresponds to future organs, and an embryo is an intricate ordered and complex structure. Also, yes, it does “burrow” and “invade” the uterus, but the uterus accepts it in most cases and gratefully stretches blood vessel arms to embrace the embryo. Comparing a uterine tumor to an embryo is NONSENSE
I was HORRIFIED while listening to the podcast. Horrified!!
@@lukezeman7129 cancer cells are mutated cells. That's disease. An embryo's cell is a whole different person inside the mother's womb. That's natural. Albeit a natural miracle!
@@lukezeman7129 lol you can't just make unjustified comparisons and distinctions between cells based on arbitrary reasons like "they grow rapidly."
"I want to eat cake without working out and not get fat"
"I want to have sex without protection and not get pregnant"
The only people who wants abortion legal are the ones that straight up want sex without taking responsibility.
And don't bring up those "RAPE CASES", which is *less than* 1% of all abortions. The other 99% are due to "inconvenience"
But rape cases do happen and if we have a great reason like that to keep abortion then we have a moral obligation to do so.
@@hasone1848 Less than 1%. 99% are not rape cases. Here, I'll meet you half way. Are you willing to agree that the 99% should not be able to have an abortion... only the LESS THAN 1% that are rape cases?
I bet not.
@@hasone1848 Also let me argue against the less than 1% rape case.
What makes rape wrong? It is that you have a vulnerable party (woman) that is attacked by a stronger party (rapist). Agreed?
What makes abortion wrong? It is that you have a vulnerable party (the baby) that is attacked by a stronger party (the woman and surgeon)
Let's go further
If you were kidnapped and woke up in a cabin... and in the cabin was water, formula, and baby bottle, and food.
In the cabin, there is also a newborn baby.
It is not your baby.
But do you not have a moral obligation to take care of the baby when everything you need is provided for you already there in the cabin?
Would it be wrong to have those resources available for the baby there... but you decide not to take care of the baby?
Disclosure: these are Stephanie's argument, and she made a valid point.
It’s completely false to say that the only people who want legalized abortions are the ones who have unprotected sex. In actuality, birth control methods are not 100% effective so it’s still possible to get pregnant with protected sex. Now I’m assuming that you’re going to argue that women just shouldn’t have sex because consent to sex means consent to pregnancy, but the problem is that you can’t consent to possibilities. For example, if you drive, does that mean you consent to accidents? No, because you can’t consent to possibilities. You also make it seem as if 99% of abortions are due to women having unprotected sex and not wanting to be “inconvenienced” with potentially becoming a MOTHER. In reality, women have to make the difficult decision to have an abortion because they can’t consider themselves fit to be a mother, and aren’t in a position to give a child the life that it deserves.
"sometimes it is my privilege as a doctor" when speaking on doing abortions... Jesus... I feel sorry for this man and hope he can find peace.
That's exactly why he said it: to soothe himself to sleep by telling himself he's doing a service to these women who are basically cornered and don't think they have options. His paycheck does the talking: if he were to counsel these women to reconsider, his paycheck shrinks.
@@d.a.tsun5104 you do understand those options actually royally suck. Maybe not in your mind but they do.
The first option is to give the child up for adoption. So first is the woman still has to deal with the stress, fear and anxiety over carrying that child for 9 months. Then when they do have that child and give the child up there the knowledge that they have a child out there they know nothing about. Once more they will never know. This becomes an even particular dark fate when a mother situation changes and is able to have a child. To some women this could be worse then abortion it self.
The second choice is to raise the child but if they are not mentally, physically, emotionally or financially that could be bad for the child. You can make the argument well women should just suck it up take responsibility for having sex and getting pregnant. The problem is the child could pay right along with the mother and not in a good way.
Then there is the option of welfare. Which is probably the most horrible option of all. A single mother on welfare will get 35k a year. That's a decent income. But it's not just enough to have money. Holding down a job is often good for single mothers. It gives them time to be around other adults and to provide for themselves and their child. The problem with welfare is that if a mother tries to get a job welfare takes away their checks and abandons them completely. Most of the time these women are not making enough to support themselves and their child. Remember they are going to have to hire someone to watch their child while at work. Even at $15 dollars an hour a single mother won't make enough to cover it all. So it's better for the mother to live off welfare than to try to get a job. This basically essentially holds women down and prevents them from trying to improve their lives and to try and get off the systems.
Now all these options you might say are not worth aborting a child. The problem is you're not those women and not in their shoes.
As a society we have the power to fix all that and to make those options better. When you really get down to the reason why women choose abortion all the options give them no hope and nothing but despair so in their mind why not just go for the abortion. This choice is oftentimes made out of fear and anxiety and desperation. So the key is to eliminate all that. To help them understand there is no reason to feel alone and afraid, stressed out, anxiety. That there are viable and good options that will help them succeed and flourish. To give these women hope.
When you have someone abandoned by their parents, their partner even their friends hope disappears.
@@michaelrunk5930 Yep, when life is tragic or suffering, just kill. Great argument. But the most evil thing you've said is acknowledge that there is a child in the mother's womb.
@@joseph.luong.m
The most evil pro-abortion argument must be admitting the unborns are living human beings and then just stating that killing them is somehow acceptable because they're not wanted. Do mothers who didn't abort after getting pregnant by accident is a bad person ? Are children who weren't wanted or who were conceived in rape less valuable than wanted children ? Is it acceptable for a mother who gave birth to a child conceived in rape to kill them at 3 years old because she faces trauma because her child looks like her rapist ? Of course not ! Because it's a human being she's disposing of ! And it doesn't matter what age that child is, killing them is wrong.
The first option was to understand sex is a huge risk that comes with the possibility of getting pregnant. Pregnancy is itself a risk, having a child is another huge liability and risk. All those risks maybe it would have been a sound choice to abstain or use BC correctly.
Dr. Potts continued questioning Stephanie's use of certain words while at the same time conflating the words miscarriage and abortion. Miscarriage is natural abortion requires human intervention.
Like falling of a cliff and being pushed.
And neither are healing.
What about psicological damage that stays forever for killing your child?...Do you know any mother who goes to an ecography to see her fetus?, she goes to see her child, she knows its her child since she knows she is pregnant! Why its a child for a mother who wants her kid and its a fetus or a group of cells if she doesn't want it!. Poverty can change...murder no
I"m disappointed, not once did Malcom bring up anything that refuted Stephanie. I loved Stephanie's concluding remarks at 1:42:57
You would be wise to remember Matthew 13:16. The debate that I watched had Malcolm responding to most of if not all of Stephanies points. I will grant you that Stephanie was more prepared for this debate, but not that there was nothing that refuted her points.
@@jasonwain4617 there is no being better prepared to debate the killing of the unborn. By the way I thought men had no say in abortion issues.....oh that's right they do only when they're on the killing side.
@@Magdalena287 I am sorry that you want to take this as a gender based male v female thing. I pray that god helps to remove the clouded judgement from your eyes. I also pray that moving forward you will be able to contribute meaningfully in conversations
@@jasonwain4617 that's just disingenuous. It's not a secret that pro-aborts make those kinds of arguments all the time - "don't have a uterus? Then shut up", "straight white men should mind their own business", etc. And what Valerie did is respond to that widespread pro-abortion position. There's literally no pro-life argument that uses sexism to push their narrative. It's always coming from the pro-abortion camp. And yet when men agree with their views, they have no problem with men giving their opinions. The amount of irony, hypocrisy and faulty thinking in that kind of reasoning.
@@mkmarak The quote in question: "By the way I thought men had no say in abortion issues.....oh that's right they do only when they're on the killing side."
Do you think this is "responding to the pro-abortion position" and not a "pro-life argument resorting to sexism"?
Did you want to try your response again? This time with a conhesive point?
He doesn't like Stephanie using the term "preborn child" because it's "unnecessarily emotional." And then he goes on to call the human embryo "cancer" because that's more accurate apparently.
lol dude says calling it a pre born baby unnecessarily emotional then goes on to compare a fertilized egg to cancer....
"Stephanie is focused on semantics.' Yes, because words have meaning & weight.
That was really rough to watch. Dr. Potts needs a philosophy class.
Weird to see a doctor with a seemingly solely emotionally based argument. You'd think he'd have learned not to discuss things that way in college.
That’s assuming universities teach such skills.
@Marygraphy wrong. Doctors in all fields are required to conduct research and formulate arguments to defend and fortify their arguments and findings IN ORDER TO BE A DOCTOR, whether of music, medicine or philosophy. His arguments are mostly emotions based because he knows otherwise he has no defense.
She started with emotional pleading, whaaat?
@@JenMakeupDollxo she backed her point with things she believes to be facts. He backed his point with constant subjective emotionally charged experiences and hardly data..... Neither of the people in the video are strong in debate but he is the weaker. Regardless of what you believe on the issue if it was a scored debate he'd lose.
@Marygraphy I didn’t say doctors are researchers. I said ALL DOCTORS ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT A RESEARCH BASED DISSERTATION IN ORDER TO BE AWARDED A DOCTORATE DEGREE. In order to be officially considered a doctor. Reading comprehension is critical. There is no excuse for a doctor to have emotions based arguments PERIOD.
Dr. Potts, God loves you. No matter what. NO MATTER WHAT, HE LOVES YOU.
God will also administer holy justice unless he repents and stops murdering children
1:14:01 This doctor bothers me so much!
He accuses Stephanie of using "emotional language" to influence the situation, but he has no problem stating that this IS AN EMOTIONAL DECISION and he even said "I am not comfortable with aborting a female fetus on an emotional level". If this is an emotional decision, then using emotional language is fair game sir, and using scientific terms is also a way to bias the listener's emotions (or lack thereof). (Stephanie brings this up around 1:17:00)
But his response to the listener's question 1:14:00 , and then to Stephanie's response, is just so terrible! He accuses Stephanie of making up an irrational situation, when actually she's APPLYING HIS OWN LOGIC more consistently than he is. He's the one in the strange box. It's his logic.
Did he honestly rattle off the words "abortion is a healing process"? In the predominant amount of cases where a woman goes through with an abortion procedure she will experience several physical and mental difficulties. The most common mental difficulty is of course depression. This is caused by the sudden drop in certain hormones and other natural body chemicals that are highly elevated during pregnancy. Women having had abortions are far more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, drug and alcohol dependency, manic episodes, and lastly and most uncommon suicidal or homicidal thoughts or actions. To consider something that causes these symptoms to be a "healing process" takes a fundamental flaw in logic as these symptoms are completely antithetical to the act of "healing."
I understand that I'm late to this party, so my apologies for the late responses, but I have to ask: why would he prescribe antibiotics to an individual with pneumonia when nature clearly intended that individual to die from the pneumonia? To be intellectually honest and consistent, shouldn't he rather simply kill that individual both to put him or her out of his or her misery rather than prolonging it and to follow through with what nature "clearly intended"? It would appear that this doctor should not hesitate to proactively kill any and all cancer patients upon diagnosis because, again, nature has marked these "bodies" for extermination, no?
Great point
That's a pretty good point. The issue with pro abortionist is that they sincerely believe that an embryo is not worth the same as a born human .
It's complicated to make them see why every human worths the same no matter the stage. I don't think most pro abortionist are moral monsters actually I think most of them are capable of intuitively know about good and evil but looks like pointing out the logical consequences of their arbitrary view doesn't make them change their mind.
>when Dr. Potts starts quoting scripture (the Old Testament)
YIKES edgelord alert
He also must have not read the Psalms either (139).
@@jds604
That’s something a high school atheist would do, try to “own” Christianity by citing passages of Leviticus or Exodus or something. *Siiiiiigh*
Agreed. This guy is almost as bad as Willie Parker. A “self-proclaimed Christian” abortionist. 🤦🏽♂️
@@jds604
And when he said that the pill was invented by a “good Catholic” John Rock. Like trying to school us in Catholicism and abortion and the Bible....yikes!
JDS bro...that was an epic episode of fallen state. JLP absolutely slayed him.
Congratulations on your pregnancy Stephanie!
"I would not amputate her right arm because she doesn't like it", then you do not respect women's decisions about their bodies, only the ones you agree with. Not consistent.
1:05:15 “I have built my professional career around giving women the right to do what they want with their own body.” Except he doesn’t confer that right. He doesn’t own the power to confer such right. He’s a doctor who is bound by science and the law. He will not operate outside it, and that’s correct. He shouldn’t.
What it says to me is that this discussion - and thus the answer - lies outside doctors, as they are merely technologies or tools that utilize pre-wrote methods to do sanctioned things, like a software program. It’s not to say they don’t have the right to an opinion in this societal debate, but it means we must discount their opinion somewhat, and we must solve this in society by moral and philosophical discussions to convince the hearts and minds of those considering and upholding abortion.
I know some of these arguments are for the sake of those who are more literalistic about abortion, but they themselves are not scientists, and thus even their understanding will reach its natural boundary.
We must continue to consistently uphold life and all the processes surrounding it. We must love and support all those bringing and protecting life, and we ourselves must continue to create new life.
@Wesley Hartland What is a woman's right to bodily integrity, and what does it have to do with abortion? The child inside the woman's body is not the woman's body, but a separate human with their own rights. What about their right to "bodily integrity?"
@Wesley Hartland Well, seeing as the umbilical cord is a natural connection to the woman's body that isn't naturally shunned or expelled by the woman's body, then the woman's body does not see the child inside as anything even remotely resembling a parasite (as you are implying), rather something it must naturally help. It seems the "host" is quite willing, such that it incubates and actually feeds the child's growth for 9 months, and the umbilical cord actually has to be manually cut in order to sever the life-giving connection between the woman and the child. So no. Your explanation doesn't help.
@Wesley Hartland so the fetus "acts," but is not actually a parasite is what I hear you saying. And I would agree with that. It's not a parasite and is thus not rejected from the woman's body. And it doesn't divert those things at the woman's expense, else the woman's health would decline, and it doesn't in normal instances...at least is hasn't declined to the point of death in trillions of women over thousands of years... So it would seem it's a proper and natural part of life.
And so the placenta actually employs this ingenious method (NKB) to ensure the baby remains in the mother and is fed and nourished accordingly? That's amazing! Thanks for sharing. The female body and new human bodies are simply amazing.
@Wesley Hartland
So which is it? It “acts like” - which is metaphorical - or it IS a parasite? It’s obviously and scientifically not a parasite, as we already have distinct scientific definitions for such things, and scientifically, no naturally conceived human zygot, fetus or child was EVER diagnosed as a parasite, else when my wife and I first went to the doctor after she missed her period, the doctor would’ve suggested immediate removal, and she didn’t.
At this point, I’m not convinced to ever use such a word when describing a pregnancy, even if it has a singular similarity with one or many other organisms, because there’s no need. Pregnancy is already fully descriptive and requires no further explanations.
What I’m getting at is that the argument you’ve given is a weak one because you’re using a metaphor to describe something that doesn’t require a metaphor. Natural conception leads to a natural unique zygote which leads to a natural unique fetus which leads to a natural unique child. This is undisputed science, backed by centuries of examples and requires no metaphor.
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “health hazard.” I have yet to see a surgeon general warning for becoming pregnant solely on the basis of procreating because that would be ludicrous. In truth, pregnancy is not a “health hazard.” It is a natural part of human history, evolution and biology, and has been since humans became. You and I wouldn’t be here unless such processes were natural and fully formed or proper.
Evolution may not care, but it seems we certainly do. So it seems you’re saying that we already have taken and made great strides to decrease the mortality of women in child birth. Why would we embark upon this societal endeavor if we didn’t see the intrinsic value in both the life of the mother and child?
Proper, from the Latin proprius, “particular to itself” as part of the natural order of things. It is real, such that that in order for me to be here, thousands of women before have given birth to those who gave birth to me.
Thousands of years is not just a little while. And we have enhanced our quality of life through continued natural procreation + economic and scientific means. What a wonderful combo!
Thanks for keeping me honest. You’ve helped me once again fully reinforce the truth to which I’ve clung for many years and will continue to build upon into the future. Best of luck to you.
@Wesley Hartland you have very different definitions for the word “clarity.” Again, best of luck to you.
Statement to the number of abortions is the same whether it’s legal or illegal is utterly laughable
Many miscarriages are caused from chromosomal "errors." Down syndrome (and tri-13, tri-18, and others) are chromosomal conditions not necessarily incompatible with life. There are many healthy individuals born with Down syndrome or healthy with medical intervention. Just because they have additional chromosomes doesn't mean they should be miscarried or should be aborted. Just because they may have different abilities does not mean they do not have value.
True, but other fetal abnormalities actually are incompatible with life, and it's understandable why, if the parents are told their child will suffer before their imminent death if they are born, the parents would choose abortion, the path with less suffering.
@@karikling6751 by that logic we should just euthanize people diagnosed with any painful disease. Cancer, autoimmune diseases, MS... If they're just going to suffer, why not go with the less painful option? This argument falls flat in 2 seconds
The doc is arguing that Stephanie is using language to play a game of words to inject emotion. But in reality what shes doing is pointing out to him quite brilliantly I might say that the only way that the doc and the people who gets abortions justifies what they are doing is by dehumanizing the baby into just some cells. Because if they accept that its equally human then what they are doing is immoral and horrible.
Ps. She needs more recognition and need to appear to bigger audiences and be scalable in spreading her views
Malcolm's entire argument is appeal to emotion and pure consequentialism...
And he's the "doctor".
This!
Stephanie’s entire argument is appeal to emotion, I think you got that backwards.
Patently racist too
@@blackestjake
Well then, can you state any actual scientific data that Dr Malcom stated??
Perhaps you should.consider yourself first before others.
'Abortion' is a euphemism; the word should be, at the very least, 'feticide'.
Malcom Potts has a disturbingly impoverished view of humankind and human worth. He's also persistently hypocritical. He acknowledges his own moral relativism, then turns around and calls the Holocaust "evil." Evil by what standard, since he just admitted there is no standard?
Pray for Dr Malcom instead of bashing him 😀👍🏼
Dr. Malcolm is probably glad his mother didn't think he was an aggressive cancerous parasite in her womb. Had she decided to heal herself instead of proceeding with the dangerous abnormality that is pregnancy, we may not even be having this debate as the technology used for abortion may not have been invented. It's an interesting set of hoops one has to jump through to logically devalue life, but value the contributions that spring from it.
We need an African pro-lifer expert on the show to speak specifically about abortion in Africa and the so called pragmaticism regarding it. Also someone to speak about the so-called inevitability of women seeking abortions no matter the cost
Obianuju Ekeocha comes to mind.
*Obianuju Ekeocha enters the chat*
It's colonialism and deeply racist to come in and do abortions and force birth control on Africans.
How does Potts see a winning argument to calling an unborn human child essentially a cancer? That's just disgusting and wrong.
The fact this is even a conversation is kind of sad.
When you learn about sex, you learn that sex makes babies….sex doesn’t make babies…sex makes people/humans - who start out as babies.
The process of being a human being doesn’t begin when you’re born anymore than it begins when you start to walk or learn how to do a tax return, it begins when that sperm breaches the egg , conception is achieved and the process begins. How does that start? Well…. you have sex.
No sex, no sperm reaches the egg, no pregnancy, no birth etc etc
“Oh but you can artificially inseminate” that doesn’t delete what I just said. It confirms it.
Because conception, is not sex.
At any point you achieve conception- you just started a new LIFE. If you choose to terminate that process - you terminate that life.
All this scientific thinking doesn’t get rid of what humans have known for thousands of years…. Did you have sex? Did you conceive? Are you pregnant? Did you ‘lose the baby’? Did you give birth to a child?
Are you going to keep *it*? Are you going to have this baby?
Those are the questions. Nobody is asking “so are you going to effectively maintain the process until full term or will you terminate” women are free to make choices absolutely but they are not robots.
Ask any woman how she really truly feels about any abortion …. if she can bring herself to tell you… we all know what the answer is.
We have all messed up. But this is all about refusing to accept accountability and responsibility. It’s that simple.
I wonder if Dr. Potts really believes that Stephanie's the one using semantics, not him. Whereas Stephanie using precise, inarguably accurate terms (right down to the latin roots), Dr. Potts seems to have built walls of euphemistic and self-deceiving semantics around his real position which he *admits* is based on emotion and what he feels "comfortable" and "uncomfortable" with.
As other commenters have mentioned, I actually do feel sorry for him and wondered at a certain point whether you could even see him realize, onscreen, that he's in the wrong -- but carry on because of the format of the debate. I can only imagine the life history and experiences that have shaped him into this place of thinking it's okay to talk about the killing of innocent children so coldly and with such distancing, dehumanizing language. It's like listening to a slave owner talk unemotionally about their 'property'. Praise God that young people are increasingly pro-life. :) And seriously, may we all pray for this man's heart. God loves him, and he seems tragically confused.
WONDERFUL JOB STEPHANIE!!!!
LIFE IS SACRED FROM CONCEPTION TO ITS NATURAL END... BLESSINGS ALL THE WAY FROM MÉXICO 💙💙💙💙💙💙
Girl shut up
Jesus bless Stephanie.
I have to be honest, i had a hard time following Dr. Malcoms arguments...
@Tercio Novohispano i know right? As a psych major, every professor, taught that the prefrontal cortex does not fully develop till 25-30 yrs
@Tercio Novohispano love the reference to Aristotle and the reductio ad absurdum argument you make and i could not agree more that we draw arbitrary lines! But quick question, what, then, is the essential properties of human? Don’t get me wrong I totally agree with your argument but just curious.. because when I think of essential property of humans its consciousness or self-awareness or rationality, however some may argue that fetuses do not possess these features. I guess my real question is is there, do you think, an essential property of humans that extends even to fetuses?
The doctor contradicted himself throughout this. He is really trying to dehumanize the “cells” but he can’t. His argument is weak.
1:30:30 “you’re very focused on words.” Yes Doctor. Because words matter. And to those who seek truth, using truthful and right words matters most; not euphemisms, with which the abortion debate is wrought, especially by those in favor of it.
He was totally wrong on Nazis and abortion. The Nazi's opposed abortion only for Aryan women, because they wanted to increase their numbers. But they supported abortion for non-Aryans. Here is a direct quote from Hitler himself:
"In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."
what is the source of this?, I would like to use it.
@@saetainlatin It was from Hitler’s 1942 Policy Statement on the Application of Abortion to Slavic People. You can read about it here: www.lifesitenews.com/news/israeli-doctor-exposes-nazi-abortion-program
It bothers me that this abortionist was allowed to get away with such an obviously untrue statement in this debate.
@@saetainlatin From a quick glance online, it seems that the quote is cited often from "Poliakov, L. (1979). Harvest of Hate: The Nazi Program for the Destruction of the Jews of Europe. Schocken Books."
Hitler was a racist eugenicist...so was Margaret Sanger.
And they practiced eugenics towards everyone else too.
The fact people have to debate killing children shows humanity has no future.
He said he's not killing embryos 🤣🤣🤣 What's he doing then???? He thinks he's saving a life, but murdering a baby is ok.
Right 😂
Feel sorry for his soul
Stephanie wins, hands down.
Dr. Pott’s main reason for supporting abortion has to do with women in Third World countries where they don’t have access to an adequate health, economic, and familial environment. But what never gets (conveniently) addressed, is abortions in wealthy, developed countries like the US, where the majority of abortions are performed purely because a pregnancy would inconvenience the woman!
My question to Dr. Pott would be if he’d have an issue aborting a pre-born child, because of inconvenience.
He answered that and he says he respects "women's choose". And yeah I know... These people can't see the issue with poverty it's not the poor but the poverty itself. Killing the poor doesn't end the problem.
The doctor keeps saying "I use my words differently". But this isn't about words. It's about lives. Your words don't change that.
That was when he was losing the certain points. She supported her usage of words well. He didn't like it and I think he just got cranky.
It seems that this video is already uploaded 9 months ago. I find it so very interesting. Excellent for knowing the facts of what is meant for it.
Precisely, I agree with that... I commented here because of our requirement to hear what is being debated about the baby's life. Yes, Dr. Malcom uses different words, so in another hand, he knew it already but then, denying the fact that pre-born babies exist from the moment of fertilization. Stephanie, answers it: "it is a difficult position to argue not because of good argument but because of the presence of profound emotion." Therefore, she response beautifully and the preciseness of her argument.
But she is using word incorrectly for maximum emotional effect..
That is why all these stages were differentiated.. Sperm, Egg, Embryo, zygot, different Fetus stages and then a fully formed baby..
But the prolife woman was just being dishonest with her word usages.. Dishonest on purpose for maximum emotional effect towards a certain group..
@@theaviationist.5719 The organism in question never stops being human at any point after fertilization, so splitting up developmental timelines doesn't change the fact it is what it is - a human. If the term "baby" is uncomfortable, but "fetus" makes you feel more like abortion is okay - then you have proven why she uses the word baby. If baby makes you uncomfortable, just use the word "human" - as it's accurate at any point in human development. But saying "I think a woman can kill the human in her womb" doesn't sound nearly as nice, does it? Hence why ppl on the pro-abortion side are so specific in using any term that can sound clinical and deny the human being in question.
@@Mrs_Homemaker
Again. Can I go to a fertility clinic and get you a fertilised egg (embryo) stored in a test tube and lets compare it to a new born baby.. Let's do a survey put an fertilised embryo and a new born baby side by side, then we ask random members of the public to identify the baby.. If they all point to both the embryo and new born baby then I would take your ridiculous emotional comparison seriously..
You can use all the emotional terms /tactics to try to get an emotional response to the wholething, but the fact remains.An embryo is not a baby. It's a potential baby but not a baby yet.. May be I should also be more emotional and careful whenever I have a little wank by myself. Me nutting (ejaculating my sperm) should be immoral, my nut is a baby in the making.. Isn't it?
What about any plant seed? With your Right Wing logic is it safe to say that an apple seed is the same as a fully grown Apple tree? May be I should be more careful everytime I throw away orange seeds after I have eaten my oranges. Those orange seeds are orange trees according to botanists or a nature reservists. No difference between a seed, a germinating seed and a fully formed tree.. With your amazing Right Wing logic they are all trees..
isn't it?
22:05 Stephanie's face when Malcolm calls the fertilized egg "a cancerous like object"...priceless and I commend her for her professionalism and restraint in the face of intrinsic evil!
You might want to change the time stamp to 24:05 😊
And his evidence is that when he put the embryo in a place where it would never be, infection occurred. I am gobsmacked by this argument. Pure Mengelian lunacy.
@@michaelcoy311 RIGHT?! A TESTES? The male gonad? How would an embryo naturally implant in a Teste? What tiny percentage of humanity would that ever happen in?
22:00
@@gabz0gagz Thank you
"I want to destroy that embryo" - over and over again...so dark! Stephanie is a true warrior, remaining as calm and graceful as ever even while newly pregnant herself! I'd be a mess! May God open Dr. Potts' eyes and heart and lead him to repent.
You’re 100% taking this out of context. This was referring to if it was nearly certain that the woman would die if the embryo was not in fact “destroyed”
@@christopheristhebest3292 Yeah okay. But in real life that never happens, according to ex abortionist who did thousnads, it's a case of abortion lobby "lying for a cause" or using an extreme example to justify killing for the sake of personal taste, emotional overwhelm or personal beliefs.
IMO best policies would be:
(1) Women can only kill their child if it is done with full awareness of what an abortion looks like at that stage up close & personal; and are also given other options (maternal support; OPEN Adoption or Closed Adoption).
(2) Only allowed to kill your offspring if an objective team determine it is actually necessary to avoid death of mother, or that child cannot possibly have a decent life if Abortionist doesn't kill them.
@@pebblepod30 this was obviously 10 months ago so I don’t remember exactly what he said, but the line in which he said that pertained to if the mother’s life was in danger, then he’d “destroy it”. Now obviously stuff like that is the extreme minority of abortions and I think that pro choice individuals should defend abortion with the much more salient cases. As far as your criteria for committing abortion, I by and large think that’s fine, though I’m not quite sure How you’d go about that doing that.
Allowing a woman to die for a 2% chance of embryo survival is far darker
@@acfkelly6291 Are you aware that with modern medicine, a woman never ever has to choose between her own life & killing her biological son or daughter in her womb?
That is "lying for a good cause" by the very profitable abortion industry.
That just does not happen. Death by un checked internal bleeding during aborting the child does happen today though, even if not very common.
What else would Malcolm do because he doesn't have the courage to do what's right and say no?....because he 'gets emotional' and can't bear the suffering of the women that come to him? He gives them what they want even though he knows they're wrong and then puts the responsibility solely on the woman as if he is innocent by "letting the woman decide". He has no compassion on her feelings, only on his own.
He obviously knows abortion is wrong or he would do it at every stage of pregnancy. He knows it's an unborn child, and yet finds fault with Stephanie for using 'semantics' to tug on his heart strings, because we know he can't bear that. Its the epitome of cowardice. Lord have mercy on us and convict us in Truth.
Hell get emotional when he goes to the gates of hell
Potts was pretty respectful which is more than I can say for most on his side of the fence. But logically he got absolutely bodied, led w emotional arguments pretty much the whole time.
She beat him when she got him to admit that if someone before 12 weeks wanted to abort their child for sex selection he wouldn’t do it. Because he repeatedly said he didn’t think abortion was morally wrong afterwards which just didn’t make any sense
Something can be morally wrong or right under different circumstances. Abortion for sex change isn’t enough justification and can encourage things like eugenics, whereas abortion for a 14 year old who was raped can easily justify an abortion. Similarly, physically assaulting a person is morally wrong, but physically assaulting someone as self defence can be justified. It’s called critical thinking. Not everything is black and white, especially not abortion.
@@Alexsiaamanda in principal that is inconsistent if ending a babies life for sex change is wrong than ending a babies life because the father committed a crime is wrong. I will admit it’s a terrible scenario. If you add up all those scenarios and all the scenarios were the mothers life is at an extreme risk we are talking about less than 2% of the cases though. So while I don’t grant you that rape is it justifiable reason to kill a child I would put this question to you: if we made exceptions for the life of the mother and rape and incest are you OK with us outlawing the other 98% of elective abortions?
@@gavinfortin1584 I didn’t say personally aborting a baby for sex change is wrong, I said I think it isn’t a great justification. Personally I think that anyone should be able to have an abortion if they so choose as that is their right. The morality of it is up to the individual and something like abortion is almost never done willingly. It’s something that takes a huge mental and physical toll and usually is something people want to avoid. If a person is getting an abortion despite all this then they are choosing what is best for both them and the child. Why would you want to force someone to have a child they don’t want? So it can be abused, in poverty, unloved, potentially in a dangerous situation or put the mother in a dangerous situation. What you’re all missing here is whether abortion is legal or not, people will still have them. They will just be unsafe and much more dangerous.
@@Alexsiaamanda and when you say 1.) any woman should have that choice,
You’re really saying that baby in the womb which all biological textbooks will affirm is human life, is only as valuable as the mother deems. But then you arbitrarily draw a line where that precondition ends as soon as that baby passes through the birthing canal. There’s no real way to explain how that’s consistent. It’s a difference in location and environment. That’s never justification for ending innocent human life in any other scenario.
2.) she’s doing what’s best for the child because if she can’t take care of it the kid will end up in foster care, or abused or neglected.
Right there you’ve made a wild assumption that all of those bad things are worse then death…
You’ve also assumed that scenario somehow gives one the choice over life/death of another person
Why wouldn’t that kid be better off adopted to one of the million families that are waiting at the end of each year to adopt infants but can’t because there aren’t enough infants (because we slaughter 800k-1.2m a year)
Can you truly say w a straight face it’s better for the woman to terminate the child’s life to avoid the trauma of childbearing, rather than deal w 9 difficult months that end w her child in a home that wants it. Especially when 98% of those cases the woman consented to the position she’s in? I don’t make exceptions for rape, but if we could at least agree that those 95-98% are morally indefensible I would rest my case.
But if we are going to continue arguing on the value of a child in the womb it’s pretty pointless. It’s a human life, and it inherently has value and constitutionally a right to live. That’s much easier defended in the constitution then bodily autonomy which is never mentioned
@@gavinfortin1584 it’s not a child yet. It’s a fetus. A fetus that hasn’t experienced life and will never know any difference if it is aborted. Your argument is like looking at a bunch of grapes and saying it’s a bottle of wine. Just because it has the potential to be doesn’t mean it is. The foster care system is completely overwhelmed already, and many children end up in abusive families, taken advantage of, or never leave the system.
Malcom Potts should not carry the name Doctor because doctors exist with the oath to save lives and not kill. Malcom Potts is a murderer whether he likes it or not. He seems to put forwards lots of emotions towards the mother with such hatred for her unborn child and he has to hate much the unborn child to perform such a heinous act of a helpless being.
The poor soul, Mr Potts, will have much to answer for on his deathbed. It will be the most horrifying thing to witness a damned soul.
We should be praying for his conversion. And the Rosary is the best weapon for his Eternal Salvation. But clearly he is unrepentant on anothers lives.
This doctor seems to not realise the rights of the unborn. If Potts has done mistakes means he has suffered in his life. Why then does he not give those the right to enter this life in order to obtain Eternity of heaven with making mistakes and correcting them to a better life. He seems to prefer the death culture than Life.
Thank you Stephanie, I'll be looking up your information. Love Life.
Peace ✌️ out 👍
Most dics dont nees to take the hippocratic oath they can taje the modern oath to uphold human rights, as defined by the un one of which is infantacide.
@TheCollector this so called doctor is just conflicted really. A real scandal to the world. He won't be able to face God on his particular judgement. Poor soul...
While I agree with you for the most part, you should not judge someone’s eternal standing because only God fully knows their heart.
The Hippocratic Oath began to be replaced in medical schools in the 1960s and some new oaths, if any are taken at all, include considering cost of treatment and taking life. When I need a doctor, I specifically look for a pro-life physician. It is sad that this distinction now has to be made, but I am grateful that there is an organization of pro- life physicians in the US.
I have heard a convincing arguement that you are actually granting special rights to the unborn vs the individual rights that the pregnant individual has over her body.in effect NO individual has the right to live off anothers life seem to be the issue. And any individual God needs to be demonstrated if it is gonna have a say about any kind of soul...
How can he say he may have made mistakes with some of the abortions he has done? Doesn't consistency suggest that they all be either ethical or unethical? Also, why does he bring that phrase up several times unprompted? Is something bothering him? Pray for him.
Women who are pregnant ALWAYS refer to the "fetus" as their baby and even use the male or female pronouns to talk about it. "She's kicking alot today" "my baby girl is moving right now". I've never heard someone refer to their baby as a zygote, embryo, or fetus.
His continual complaints about how Stephanie uses words, language, etc. are ludicrous. He used words as he wished to use words. If he hadn’t used words, none of us would have had any idea what he wanted to say. We all choose our words - some of us, trying to be accurate and truthful and draw attention to some pertinent fact; others, to distract, mislead, and obfuscate. I would say that Stephanie’s word choices were much more accurate than Malcom’s words.
If Malcom wanted to be accurate, he should have referred to the natural loss of a pre-born child as “miscarriage.” That is what most of us call it. Just because miscarriages happen, that doesn’t mean that intentional abortions (homicide is a perfectly appropriate term for intentionally ending the life of another person, no matter how small) are justified.
The people I know of or have heard of that have had miscarriages, mourn the loss of their children. It is a sad event. Likening that to the act of ripping a child apart is an offensive insult.
Are puppies puppies before they are born? Are kittens kittens before they are born? Are calves calves before they are born? Why do people have such a difficult time calling babies babies or “pre-born children” before they are born? There is only one reason: it’s harder to kill a pre-born child than it is to dismember a fetus.
I had a difficult time listening to that man talk. He doesn’t see how inconsistent his positions are. 85 years old and still clinging to his justification of all the homicides he has committed. It would be devastating for him to admit he is a murderer, many times over.
Malcom claimed the children would have a terrible life if they were born. Adoption was not mentioned once in the whole debate. What if those children were adopted instead of being aborted? No. Abortion or growing up in poverty are the only options he can see. Has he never heard of adoption? (Rhetorical/facetious question)
And yet he seems very proud of his moral relativism. He seems to feel a bit guilty when he says that he may have committed mistakes by performing some abortions but he justifies himself by saying that he as a human commits mistakes. What kind of morality is that ?
As long as there is life that life has the right to LIVE and NO human being has the right to take that Life. Doctor if you are not Catholic you still need to CONFESS all that you aborted direct to God while you are still alive because there will be no way to ask for forgiveness after life on earth for taking many babies lives into your hands God is Merciful and still forgive those who plead for his forgiveness because God is the only one to have the right to take Life from his creation for every breath of a child is a blessing from God. I myself had my pregnancy with a fetus that has Patau Syndrome or trisomy 13 that is rare case because it is one in a million case but i carried her until 8 months just sad to say that at 8 months i had the Eclamsia and my doctor is force to deliver my baby after coming out of this world they tried to survive here but for 8 hours she did not make it because of weak heartbeat and weak lungs and not fully develop but my obygyne still wants to save her life unfortunately did not make it to the end. My best friend got pregnant and the fetus is only 6 months 3 weeks and the mother is dying of cancer her doctors tried to save the child in an incubator and now she is with her father this now a lady so thats how to let life preserve as a doctor
Alert dr.Malcom, Jeremiah 1:5 says i knew you before i formed you in the womb, before you born i consecrated you.
Vote Trump 2020
Even if you are led by conscience to vote for Harris... I mean Biden (whatever your reason): for your own sake, do it in spite of their pro-choice stance on abortion. The genocide of or most vulnerable must come to an end.
It's hypocritical how some pro-abortion advocates accuse pro-lifers of using semantics when their whole side is riddled with euphemisms and semantics - "pro-choice", "clumps of cells", "pre-embryo", "just a fetus", "products of conception", "terminating a pregnancy", "ending a pregnancy", "therapeutic cloning", and on and on and on.
That is typically used when someone knows they have a lost an argument. What they are saying is that have technically been refuted, but still feel morally right.
Even so pro life semantics are based on pro abortion semantics
@@joelt2002
Humans can be defeated in a debate or argument. Really?😅
That’s rich coming from people who use the euphemism “murder” for abortion…..
Yet when you ask them should women be punished like murderers, with the death penalty or life in prison…..
They clam up tighter than a bra on Dolly Parton!….
So you you’re admitting that you stood by and watched while actual babies were murdered, not fetuses or zygotes?….
I have a problem with stories like the one she told about her friend who was raped at 12. This type of argument assumes everyone responds the same to a trauma and has the same emotional landscape. Some rape victims like her friend may be better off for keeping the pregnancy and that's fine. Other people may be ruined and need to make the best choice for them.
Its fascinating that all pro-abortion arguments are appeals to emotion, every one comes to an anecdote of perceived suffering or injustice that has to be and must be rectified solely by man. There is no argument against the pain fact that abortion is homocide, often state and medically sanctioned murder.
Stephanie is just built different. Potts never stood a chance, poor fella
This wasn’t even a debate. Stephanie made legit points and Malcolm just said random thoughts. It wasn’t persuasive one bit. He needs to work on stronger points. I was expecting much more logic from a Dr.
I should’ve added this as well but I’m really frustrated with his lack of argument. I was hoping for a really strong argument and his was just emotional and subjective. Does anyone know of a debate that was actually strong from the abortion standpoint? I’d love to hear a truly strong argument for abortion...something logical, not emotional.
@@toddgruber5729 agree! And isn't it funny he kept complaining about Stephanie's choice of words being "emotional" yet he doesn't even realize he's the one being emotional.
Stephanie admitted that her position was emotional in her opening statement. Pull the Bible out of your ears.
@@toddgruber5729 how can deliberately killing people's children be argued logically?
@@bseaingu yeah, good point. Many people must think it can be though otherwise it wouldn’t be legal. I’d just like to hear the best argument against the best argument.
The guy is so incoherente, he causes suffering and pain to avoid suffering and pain, it makes no sense.
One can only go so far with people who do not recognize the humanity of a baby in the womb. Slam dunk for Stephanie on all levels. Blessings for you and your baby.
Yea, I don’t recognise the humanity of a bit of cum or skin cells. Are you surprised that I don’t recognise the humanity of a zygote?
Oh, the doctor understands the humanity. He would prefer, however, for you and him to ignore it.
You could just assume that when a sperm and egg meet that the person is 40 years of age and has a college degree. It's not murder to refuse to act as a life support device to someone else. If you let government force the issue, then you concede the argument that taking organs from you and giving them to someone else is warranted because if you don't give your organs then you're murdering the person who needs it.
Children, puppys, and cute things dilute peoples ability to make rational judgements.
@@kylewatson5133 That's a false analogy. If I refuse to give an organ to another who needs the organ to live is not the same as me taking an organ out of a person to kill them. With abortion, you are like the person who takes the vital organ away.
But I do agree with you: Emotions rule our decisions a bit too much these days. And, unfortunately, that's all the doctor had in defense.
@@richardgreene6810 If someone is living inside of you, you are acting as their life support system. To coerce someone be a life support system to someone else is immoral. It needs to be a voluntary decision.
Don't say pro choice it's pro murder
Matt that is a dope sweater. Where is it from
I noted that Malcolm said that there was nothing in the Bible on the unborn child....well in fact there is plenty....
Is 44:2; Jer 20:17; Ps 139:13; Eccl 11:5; Job 10:19; Ex 21:22; Ps 51:5, and more...
I cringed when he started cited the Bible
I agree Malcolm is a murderer, but God still loves him very much. Pray for abortionists to change their ways :(
God is a murderer lol.
The doctor is so wrong. Please forgive him God.
I feel so sorry for this man it’s saddens me that he is in this place I will pray for him