Genuine question here - If a vaccine does not stop the spread of a virus, but rather reduces the harm done to the person with the vaccine when they become infected, who exactly is at risk by a person's choice not to be vaccinated?
@@bruh-rt7sr No, the RNA vaccines mitigate the symptoms. So if you're vaccinated you don't experience Covid but you have it and spread it. If your not vaccinated, at least when you get sick you know it and can be cautious about spreading it. The government lied, saying if your not vaccinated you are a spreader knowing full well that vaccinated people were also spreading, in order to create fear and social pressure to get everyone to take the vaccine. My wife is a medical professional and also has a PhD in physiology. She has watched while people have turned science which should always be questioned and challenged (if we care about progress) turn into a religion with its dogma and heresies.
Whichever way you feel. The fact that we are seeing a reasonable debate without shouting the other side down is inspiring to watch. We need much more of this.
The woman calling for the man to accept "our value system" based on "consensus" - amazing how people who demand diversity also really desire others to fall in line.
You know what? If you look at these comment sections, nearly everyone recognizes the cognitive dissonance, the inconsistency, the immorality... I think the propaganda media is trying to make us think there are more of these asses than there actually are. I'm not so sure the zombie apocalypse is real... We may be the majority, but not realizing it has kept us passive by way of pessimism.
She tried to bully him into accepting her values. The left idealizes poor countries, but failes to regocnise that they are all pretty conservative. Also She said at first that there wasn't a consensus and then that there was.
@@g00ts As if consensus mattered in the slightest. Think of how broken your head has to be to think that morality is based on consensus after all the outright lunacy the masses have accepted throughout history. Right on the face of it, that position is insane.
I think that argument is a bit more nuanced to be fair, or maybe more fair than I should be. I think that argument presupposes that someone that wishes to exist in a society must understand and accept that the society is based on norms that, for all intents and purposes, are subscribed to by the majority or by a consensus of people, as one would expect in a democratic system. I think if she believed that the person espousing a different set of values were fine being ostracized from society, she wouldn't push for him to accept her (their) value system. I think that's a fairer reading of that argument. I disagree with how it is being used in this context, because I don't think the vaccine does what they think it does, namely stop or reduce the spread. So, her argument fails, not because that aspect isn't valid, but because it is prefaced on false assumptions.
She had "0" facts. Everything she said was talking points and for her to be, I assume, in a later stage of life than the three to the right of the spectrum, unable to think for herself is mind blowing! The man to the left also could not defend his point. Apples and oranges? The question was strictly about bodily autonomy and he could not wrap his brain around the context? I now have some more confidence in the youth... at least they stand up and can verbalize their beliefs in a contextual way.
I'm wondering what your own age has to do with your assessment of the participants. In other words, you started out with "I'm 72 years of age" but how does that have any bearing on whether the younger people have more sense than the older ones. It's about as irrelevant as starting out with "I like fudge ice cream, but I find that the younger people have more sense than the older ones." What am I missing?
@@garrettlees7497 I'll give my two cents. In general, older people in the US are thought to be more on the conservative side, while young people now a days are thought to be more on the Liberal side. So by saying'' I'm 72 years of age'', Libnomore is basically saying that he finds it amusing that the participants with the conservative point of views, that line up with his own, are the young people, while the older people are the ones with the more liberal views. That's it. And you are correct a persons age has nothing to do with someone else being logical or not, neither did I take it that it was implied that way.
@@Gooday2day Ohhh I see now. Thank you for your explanation! It was the omission of the "I find it amusing/interesting that" part that threw me. The way he worded it made it seem as if there was some relationship between his own age and the various responses. But I see what he's getting at now, thanks to your interpretation.
@@garrettlees I think they were also showing that their opinion about the young participants vs. the older ones had nothing to do with a "peer bias", I guess I could call it. Most of the time if you saw a comment that said "the younger participants were more reasoned than the older ones" people would assume the commenter was young.
I love how their argument is "but the community agrees so that should be chosen", yet when a community (state) agrees to not allow abortion, they get mad.
The whole argument that forced vaccination are a public good is predicated on the notion that vaccines work and are safe. FALSE. Their argument is invalid.
Hi Dankrupt, The states where abortion is criminalized are such places where a majority of people who support criminalizing abortion exist, no? I guess what was different before Roe v Wade's dissolution was the fact that federal majority's opinion oppressed the federal minority's opinion. Now the majority opinions in each state are oppressing the minority opinions in each state. Maybe this patchwork system of The Law is more fair in its doling out of arbitrary oppression? lol. I mean, all that I typed above assumes that people don't care what states besides their own do. Then again, we do have a lot of people who want federal level enforcement of laws. I, for one, don't really seek to control other states unless the issue clearly affects the state that I reside in.
Yep. Tribalistic to the core. And they have to change the definition of words and do mental gymnastics to justify their actions. Think Jordan Peterson had something to say about "legality" and "consensus" this weekend. The Germans had "consensus" to do human experiments, murder, etc, and the public consensus said SURE.
Or when the Supreme court decides to Roe V Wade so that individual states have more freedom on it. To them, we have no right to put there most cherished abortion up for debate.
The most underrated argument made by Vlad was that if we mandate vaccines & discriminate in terms of vaccine status medical care, i.e. withdrawing medical care for the unvaccinated then the temptation would be to also to withdraw medical care for other personal choices, e.g. obesity
Or smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or even drinking soda for that matter. It's like, you knew smoking cigarettes was really bad for you and could cause cancer and all that and you still used them...so we're declining you medical care. Good luck with your cancer. But yea, you're right, it creates a slippery slope.
@@sharifsalem You can still spread "C" if you are vaccinated. But obese people are taking away resources/time/etc from the hospitals that could be used on other issues.
He was the smartest and had the best argument, individual liberty andvfreedom above all, otherwise it's a slippery slope if you give your decisions to a Democrat controlled governor and woke politicians.
I actually disagree. He is very informed about what libertarians say but has hardly any information why this ideology is faulty. It is a proven fact that 10% of the worldwide population does not have the mental capacity to function in a responsible way in our society. This is a fact that Libertarians love to ignore or proclaim to be false. My source is simple: Jordan Peterson. He is very adamant that the facts are very clear. 10% of the population is just too stupid to act responsibly. He is also VERY adamant that training and education does ot change anything.
@@sukaenacornelius9285 truth is a reflection of modern morality - there are even multiple truths in this video. To a conservative, it is true that abortion is immoral. To a progressive, it is not immoral but moral because you're saving the hosts "life" in a preservational sense. What can you say is absolutely true, in a metaphysical sense?
@@Alexanderisgreat Haha, that was awful, wasn't it? I would have extended the story to the naive natives took the vaccines and got Polio, became infertile, and now there are no American Indians left.
I'd just like to point out that when 'people' (either individually or as groups) are suspicious of something, that declaring that there is a 'consensus' and that the issue is 'settled,' so there will be no more debate allowed is *NOT* the way to convince them to be quiet and do what they're told.
the way to answer the abortion question in my opinion would be that: Yes, developed human beings are valued more morally, simply because abortions will be provided if there's even a sliver of a risk for the mothers life during pregnancy or childbirth, even if the chances are decent for the survival of both. Most reasonable people that don't have their opinions rooted in religion would also agree that abortion should be okay in the cases of incest, rape, etc. which further prooves that point".
I love how everyone keeps saying "not getting vaccinated also puts others at risk". who? the vaccinated? then why are they vaccinated in the first place?
gaatjegeenrukaan gek propaganda doesn’t have to be a bad thing. And it doesn’t rely on blindness. You think propaganda is inherently a bad thing? It’s actually a neutral term.
The woman's claim that the abortion rate has been "the same for hundreds of years" is laughably false. She clearly has never looked into it and just wanted to try to use it to bolster her position. There is certainly not an "American consensus" about the moral status of a fetus - not in general and not for particular stages of development.
Only ignorant people think of it as won or lost. The fact is the Left basically has no argument; it’s why they’ve lost every major social issue in the last 70 years.
My guess is he is a bit hesitant to answer some of these because you can't stray too much from the "approved" path of everyone elses in the room. I am still amazed that older women think that killing babies is perfectly fine. I am guessing she has had kids and knows from conception its going to be a person. Still just mind blowing that the older people were just as brain washed as some of the younger kids.
I am guess STEM student just based on his logical consistency and proportionate reasoning when asked about quantifying his confidence. But who knows. Maybe he’s just an English major who writes poetry 🤷♂️
@@amoyer1441 Because she thinks morality is culturally relative, that's why. She even indicated she thinks it's somewhat individually relative in the way that she engaged the fence rider about the fact that he DOES think they have value. Since she thinks there is no "societal consensus" on the moral value of the unborn then it must be the case that it has lower moral value and not really worth much consideration when debating the issue. In short, she's a moron.
I love his response that abortion and vaccination are not the only available options. This really opens the mind and exposes the limitations of the premise.
It's really shocking to hear people say things like "a fetus doesn't have a value". How incredibly sad and depressing that we live in a world where this is commonplace thinking.
I agree completely I watch someone say a foetus is like cancer in another discussion. I feel so sorry for these people who do not see our unborn as valuable.
Because thats all it is... its sooooooo easy it happen by accident.... if you people put in 10% the effort on foster kids as you do about someone's zygotes we wouldnt have to call you walking contradictions.
@@cherryrush. Just like someone may want unchecked authority when it comes to vaccinating/educating/feeding their child, the only person who has a right to choose the outcome of an unborn embryo is the person who's uterus it's attached to. I'm open to hear pro-life folks arguments when it comes to fetuses that would otherwise survive outside of the mother's womb with minimal medical intervention that could come from another person. But, until a fetus can be brought up by people outside of the mother, in my eyes it is still part of HER body, and not it's own being. It's not a matter of seeing a fetus as a worthless item to be thrown out, it's a matter of ensuring that the would-be baby is only brought into this world with the prospect of a good life. And if we were to assign a worth to a fetus, is there a single human on earth that you would kill (seriously) in order to ensure the life of a fetus? Because I don't think that a single person would place a living person's life below that of an unborn, it's impossible to argue.
Given the argument from the chap with the beard about how sometimes the needs of the community override the rights of the individual (in the case of vaccination), I would liked to have asked him if it would be acceptable to force a woman to have an abortion if (say) she already had 6 kids, no fathers involved, no job and the kids were all petty criminals. Clearly, the community might prefer that she not have any more of the little buggers. Should they be able to insist on an abortion or her sterilisation? If not, why not?
There have already been many cases of involuntary nor plant for women who've been in that situation. But according to the supreme Court, and many states, forcing a woman to HAVE a child is just fine and dandy.
@@Supreme2k The Supreme Court doesn't make the laws -- your legislators do. Vote in someone who will reflect your beliefs and get the laws you want passed. Beyond that, I would ask if you want everyone to follow the laws you believe in, or just everyone in your community.
Yeah, he was cool. I thought the younger female participant was similarly smart. To recognise that she had been essentially given her opinion by her family, etc, but that it was still her *own* opinion because of other family beliefs she hasn't upheld is pretty sophisticated.
The least impressive was that kid on neutral. I don't think that particular kid had an original thought in his head or, in truth, gave a fart about the issue. Kind of looked like he was merely shifting over to the side with the younger folk or, to be more specific, siding with the side that might get him some poontang later on. Might be disingenuous of me to think that, but it's bugging me.
@@anonfergenson9868 It is unfair, what you're saying. Nacho was head and shoulders above the old ones on the left. Being unsure and questioning is far superior to being stuck in the rut of propagandized, binary thinking that the older ones are steeped in. Seriously, nothing the older 'contestants' said had any validity for those interested in critical thinking. Only inflexible, cult-like repetition of received opinion. Even if Nacho was in the back of his mind trying to get laid the whole time, that's still a nobler impulse!
@@FungusMossGnosis It is unfair, what you're saying. The "Old Ones" (part of the Cthulhu Mythos, apparently) were head and shoulders above Nacho on the right. Being educated, informed, and confident is far superior to being utterly ambivalent and stuck in a rut of propagandized confusion that Nacho is steeped in. Seriously, nothing Nacho said had any validity for those interested in critical thinking. Only barely veiled indifference, hormone based stuttering with a few hesitant glances at the girl's butt. Even if "The Old Ones" were certain of their choices and less flexible, that's still a nobler impulse!
There's a great misunderstanding with vaccines in this country. Vaccines are meant to protect the vaccinated. If a person chooses not to accept the vaccine, that should bear no burden on someone who did accept it. Unless the vaccines are placebos.
Wrong. The purpose of vaccinations is also to prevent the spread of the viral infection to others. It's a matter of public safety. A person has no more right to refuse a vaccine than they do to refuse to obey traffic laws. The laws are not for controlling how you drive as they are meant make our roads safer for society.
The vaccines have been widely disproven that they stop the spread and prevent you from getting Covid. With that being said why should you be forced to get one? From what I see the choice clearly should be yours to make if you want a vaccine
@@stuartwayne4978 You could not be any more incorrect. Vaccines do also serve a purpose of assisting in herd immunity, but you need to run and get a refund on who ever taught you those lies. As well I'd recommend looking at the recent definition changes of vaccine to immunization. Quite scary if you're willing to be honest with yourself.
Wow, this format is very engaging. Socrates would be proud. Kudos to all involved. Takes guts to stand up and discuss your ideas with the possibility of being proven wrong. Bravo
The “strongly disagree” lady made the point that there is a consensus that post-birth human life is more valuable than pre-birth human life. I don’t know that that’s true, but let’s run with it. She concluded by that logic that causing the death of a post-birth human is worse than causing the death of a pre-birth human, and therefore personal choice should be valued less or overridden in the case of vaccines, but not abortions. If we’re going to play the proportionality game, though, it should also be noted that while not getting the vaccine MAY potentially result in the death of another person via transmission, abortion WILL 100% result in the death of another person. Therefore, the real comparison isn’t causing the death of a valuable human vs a less valuable human, but rather possibly causing the death of a valuable human vs absolutely causing the death of a less valuable human. By leaving out the inconvenient half of the equation, her argument sounds stronger than it is
Vaccination doesn't reduce the chances of spreading infections, it allegedly prevents the harm the infection can cause to the individual...so if someone avoids getting vaccinated it will only affect the individual & not others...so that old man's argument dosen't stand a chance anyway.
Good point. I would also like to add that the 2 who strongly disagree are saying that by not being vaccinated, you are putting other lives at risk. I would argue though, that everyone has equal opportunity to get the vaccine. So if someone gets infected, they had the opportunity to get the vaccine and protect themselves. Anyone who chooses to be unvaccinated and dies from the virus through transmission, they only have themselves to blame. I would also argue the effectiveness of the vaccine, because people who are vaccinated are definitely still getting covid.
@@PaulSmith-nb6md That’s an idea worth discussing, but the lady I was addressing said that a fetus had less worth than the prospective mother, not no worth, so I was making my case on what she stated in the first place.
I appreciate that this exercise was not about finding 'the right answer', but was instead about getting people to think and share their paths of reasoning.
Nice discussion, but 2 things were very frustrating: 1) The 'strongly disagree' side's argument hinged entirely on the fact that a given vaccine provides a substantial and measurable community benefit; so much so that an individual's choice in the matter can be put aside. It was incredibly bothersome that the hypothetical opposite ("what if the shot provided *no* community benefit?) was never posed. Especially considering that this is actually the case with the shot that was on everyone's mind. 2) It was not a category error because of mandates. The reason vaccines were grouped into "my body, my choice" was because of the apparent hypocrisy of utilizing the slogan for one personal medical procedure, yet supporting coercion for another. This could have been very easily explained.
I’m shocked not one person brought up the fact that the vaccines have zero community benefit. This has been known for over a year now lol. I honestly don’t think I know a single vaccinated human who has not gotten Covid. Most of them got it twice!
#2 goes even farther than that. Not only are vaccine mandates clearly an issue of "my body", but aborting a baby is NOT your body. Its moronic to even suggest it
If a woman gets an abortion, do you start bleeding from the ass? No, right? If you don't get vaccinated and get sick, can you make others sick? Yes, right? There you go. Simple.
It's always the professors that are so quick to want to give rights away to "authority". I suppose they see themselves as an "authority" so subconsciously they believe they're fighting for their own "authority" to weigh over others. Its not really a feeling as community that drives them as much as the wanting to maintain their position in life.
That's exactly it. As soon as the establishment falls their self worth goes. The day that society deems your occupation useless is the day you question your livelihood
If we lose the right to choose what we do and how we live our lives, is there really a reason to keep living? Giving the government control over what we do for one thing, opens the door for them to control how we do other things. Every year there are more regulations on what we can do and how we live our lives. If you really don't think that the government can overstep, than you haven't been paying attention to how things have changed over the years.
The lady said there is a general consensus that the fetus has less moral value yet there’s been a giant debate for 50+ years about it. And is that to suggest there Is a general consensus about the vaccine (which also has had a giant debate for the past two years). Glad to see young people thinking things through with some complexity and flexibility.
Exactly the right question to ask. She seems to be under the impression that we have a cultural consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. She also seems to be under the impression that an answer arrived at by consensus is always the correct answer.
Yeah, there definitely isn't a broad consensus, so returning the question to the individual states (of the USA) seems like a sensible move for political stability.
Putting the value of human life on a sliding scale based on arbitrary criteria is a dangerous place to go. And if you doubt that just look to just about any atrocity in history. Almost all steam from an idea that they, the other, the out group's life isn't as valuable. That they are less than, or not quite human. Call that a Slippery Slope if you like, but history has borne it out many times over
If the vaccines (covid & flu) work so well, then how does the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk? As for the covid vaccine, you can still catch covid and spread covid. Does it make a difference on how bad your symptoms are whether you catch it from an unvaccinated person versus a vaccinated person?
The vaccine was a failed experiment so MSM put out a bunch of propaganda to fear monger people into getting the jab and completely redefined vaccine. People are stupid enough to fall for that shit apparently.
I caught COVID 4 mos ago. One of my coworkers who was vaccinated had a week before I did and he suffered worse. We talk about it sometimes acknowledging that is was weird that he was sick longer and had a cough longer. The big issues are there wasn't a lot of time to actually get a good study in before mandating the vax and the inconsistent information on the vax. This was definitely a huge failure.
@@tricktracy2254 I don't think it was a huge failure. People tried hard. However, the government mandate for the vaccinations was wrong. It clearly showed us that the people in charge for this type of issues were not leaders. Fauci should have known what to do. He could have done a lot. Instead, he was good at fighting with a politicians. I mean he should have prepared for this type of disaster. This proves there are no good, bright leaders in our government.
Neither when MOST women have an abortion. In fact, many are misled into thinking it's something that it's not and it affects them deeply for a long time. Statistically speaking, women who have had abortions commit suicide at higher rates and the trauma, guilt and shame are very difficult later so i don't believe her when she says a fetus has lower moral value. Abortion goes against your natural instinct as a woman.
So, the foetus changes in moral value depending on whether it is wanted or not. That's an interesting argument I've not heard before. I'm thinking I'll try that argument out on my puppy loving friends the next time I can't find a home for all the puppies in my dog's litter. As I say to my old dog each morning "no one way trip to the vet for you today".
this is an explanation, not a statement of my views, so don't expect a debate. This argument is a false equivalent, as having a miscarriage without knowledge of pregnancy would not evoke the same reaction, as well as there is a built-in assumption that all women who were to have a miscarriage would react exactly the same. The _wanted_ aspect refers to wanting a life with a child, wanting to start the process of becoming a mother, wanting to have the experience of being a parent. It's not wanting the fetus for exactly 270 days in her belly. I'd be willing to bet that if, hypothetically with all other aspects being 100% equal, you could tell a potential mother that she could be pregnant for a single day and have her naturally conceived child easily in 24 hours, many women would like that. It's not because they want a fetus, it's because they want a child. And again, the pro life/choice stance you may interpret from this isn't my opinion, this doesn't reflect my values. This is a statement of clarity about terms being used, twisted, and manipulated.
Main stream journalism is a business, they will continue to lie for money. What’s need is a platform where individuals can discuss to understand why we agree as well as disagree on opinions regarding a titled subject. Twitter aka X can do it, but you must look for the proper page for great discourse that’s comparable to this videos methods~
I was hoping he would pose a different hypothetical: "If we could show to your satisfaction that a fetus is a living, sentient, being, would you be willing to move?" Her answer would be telling.
@@polsksm1 I'm not sure. I think she would still say because she thinks there is a general consensus that it has LOWER moral value than its mother does that the mother should have the right to abort it despite it having perhaps SOME moral value. That lady was severely and utterly brainwashed into a political and ideological pathology.
they're such hypocrites its disgusting. you literally cannot be pro-choice with abortion and anti-choice with vaccination. Even with the "community" argument, if you want a vaccine and you have access to it. If you're vaccinated then you should be fine, why would someone else need to get it if the vaccine protects you anyway? The Columbus argument is dumb too, no one could get vaccinated. People have the ability to get it no matter their race, income, education geological location within the US. The old morons clearly watch MSNBC
I realize at some point watching this, that we are taking for granted that the "vaccine" in question, is effective. If the vaccine in question was 100% effective, i would be standing on a different line than than if it were not. The fact that this new vaccine we are dealing with is not effective at all mires the discussion even more than the topic of abortion imo.
And that it's safe. And this is when we know there's been all kinds of collusion and censorship by the medical community, the government, and the press. I would love to see a segment where he gets to the root of the rationale behind this blind trust in government and corporations.
that shouldnt matter at all. if you feel like you want to get vaccine then get vaccine. if you feel like you dont want to get vaccine then dont. understand the risks of both sides and decide what risk you are willing to take. if a vaccine is 100% effective and someone decides they dont want to get it and they die thats on them. its as though vaccinated people are scared of unvaxxed people which makes zero sense. unvaxxed people maybe should be worried about other unvaxxed people. worry about yourself and decide your own risk.
The Covid vaccine is very effective at reducing risk of hospitalisation and death though. It reduces that by about 10x so it’s at the same level of risk as the seasonal flu. How can you claim what you’re claiming?
Ya this, those collage kids know if they say anything to the contrary it could be used against them. The boomers, especially the woman. Are dip shits who grew into older dishes who think they know best for everyone. The woman was struggling way too hard to explain herself
The abortion topic is conflicting for me. When i think of abortion, i cant help but think of my mom. Her and my dad didnt know i existed until 5 months into the pregnancy, and when they found out, they had a talk about if they should keep me or not. Thankfully, she did keep me, but she could have went the other way and chosen to abort me, and if she did, i would not be here today, and to think that somebody who could have the potential to be born and have a truly fulfilling life be squandered before it began at the mothers discretion, makes me feel mournful and sorrowful, so i cant in good conscience condone abortion, except for very specific cases, such as the fetus already being dead in the womb, or with deformities of such an extent that if they were to be born, they wouldnt last two weeks, or if they do, then they would have a severe lack of brain function and body movement, to the point of being bedridden most of their life and spoonfed. Aside from those types of cases, abortion just saddens me how quickly and easily a potential human life can be taken, completely beyond their control.
Do you think your views are superior to others and that you would deprive women with differing views to the right to choose for themselves? Do you think it’s right to criminalise desperate women?
@@megazw7740 there is no point to you trying to paint someone as an egotistical asshat due to a point of view you dont agree with, that only creates enemies. No, i dont think my views are superior, im just in the more moralistic and empathetic side of it. I understand that abortion puts some women in a tight position, but i also think that i could have easily been the baby that gets aborted, and that would mean i wouldnt have the chance to exist and experience. I just want every potential baby to have a chance to live and experience the world like i have been able to.
Most abortions happen way before 5 months. Most abortions happen when the fetus hasn’t formed any features and would otherwise not be viable outside of the womb. What makes me sorrowful is to think about is all the i wanted amd abused and neglected children in this world that everyone seems to forget. People love to care about a fetus when it is inside a woman’s body and then give no fucks once the child is born. What are pro life people doing for these mothers? How are they supporting them? Are they gonna take it upon themselves to provide for or take care of the mother forced to have an unwanted child? Are they gonna provide for the baby once it is born? It makes me distressed to think about how many women will die if abortions are outlawed. Women and children. Keep abortions safe and legal and fix the fostercare system.
The students were very impressive, I was very impressed with Vlad and his ability to articulate his beliefs and also the humility to leave room for growth and learning.
Quite the opposite for me. I thought they had many fallacies that I wish Peter had pressed them on. The older guy on the left was much more rational and concise in his words so I think he had the strongest argument. I think it's clear that most of the people here have not thought about this, and that's ok, but Peter has to push back more to help them come to their own rational conclusions.
@@NotEnoughHobbies my understanding is the older two people were professors, so the fact that these students are willing to not only articulate but push back is very impressive. I also think Vlad was correct in that there are risks to the vaccine, I know (actually know not just second hand) friends who had very adverse side effects from the vaccine, they are certainly a small percentage but knowing it does happen and they didn’t give any account for it, to me, showed lack of knowledge or concern for those. St the Vlad was willing to acknowledge that he didn’t take into account certain numbers because of the complexity of the issue. Again to me it just feels more honest and open because none of these subjects are as black and white as we assume. Also the idea that community consensus dictates morality is a bad one, as community ideas are ever changing and in this matter definitely doesnt have a full consensus.
My body my choice does not apply to abortion because there are TWO bodies involved not just the ONE. I know this is a apparently a difficult concept to grasp but it isnt fkn rocket science.
@@skinnie2838 I wasn’t making an argument for or against that…I was simply speaking on the articulation of the students. I think that abortion has negative affects for the child, the woman, and society as well that we don’t speak about or aren’t educated enough.
@@NotEnoughHobbies Articulate in saying that killing a life is more acceptable than "potentially" harming someone that already took the vaccine? You have to start at "abortion" is just an innocent procedure in order to make this argument
Everyone was wrong in this video. Not a single individual specified the false equivalence. I have yet to see anyone in the comments make the connection either.
@@sarahwales6276 wellllllllllllllllll, I ain't never heard no future babies talkin' 'bout no 'bortions. Maybe they don't trust science🤔 Seriously though, that's not what I am talking about. I'm waiting for anyone to say what the actual problem with this is. Everyone is just running with it full speed. It reminds me of those videos that are like: Gf : what does *Y E S* spell Bf : _yes_ Gf : what does *E Y E S* spell? Bf : E, _E yes?_ that's not a word
One thing i have never understood is why people say that someone who doesn’t get vaccinated is “putting others at risk” but if that vaccine works than why would it put someone at risk who’s been vaccinated?
It has to do with the effort of slowing the spread so that the virus will stop mutating. You need to understand exponential growth to understand why. Everyone who doesn’t understand doesn’t understand exponential growth.
@@BlackJacketJones ok so that’s the risk they are willing to take, giving the state power over bodily autonomy is much more dangerous. Look what has happened over the last 2 years, “experts” were wrong about everything so I stopped listening. In Canada they just mandated a shot every 9 months, do you know how Insane that is? These shots are about profit and power can’t you see that yet?
If I was involved in this experiment i would be on the strongly agree side for this simple reason: Taking a vaccine that could potentially harm me should always be a personal choice. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily against vaccines but it's odd that people can't see that both issues are very similar. The argument that i may harm others doesn't stand up as there are alternative actions I could take to avoid infecting others and there is NO actual certainty that I will infact harm someone. So those who take the moral stance that it shouldn't be my choice because of the "possibility" that I may harm others but are totally ok with the "certainty" that a woman will end a the life of her child clearly shows the idiocy of the argument. What they're ACTUALLY saying is that it's OK for a woman to have control over her body and DEFINITELY end a life if she chooses but it's WRONG for me to control my body and POSSIBLY harm someone.
I dunno the american law system (also because is different in different states)...but I highly doubt that that is true in all cases... (like for example a pregnancy only up to the 5-6 week?)
Bravo Vlad! I find it interesting that the two older people in the group were the ones that let their opinion on the specific subject matter influence how they thought about the overall policy question. They failed to see how their logic falls flat. If there were a consensus on value of a fetus as suggested by the older woman, then there would be no controversy around that subject. Similarly, if there were consensus on the value or importance of vaccines, there would be no need to mandate them. Individual liberty over ones own body should be paramount. No one should have dominion over my body except for me, regardless of the benefit to the greater society.
@@jaxsonhammerkawk7436 I re-watched it and you are correct. I miss-heard her first statement. While it is correct that there is no such consensus, somewhere around 12:00 she claims that "...most Americans believe that fetuses have much less moral value that living ... people". Not sure where she gets that. If that were true, there would likely be no Pro-Life movement. It's obvious that both of the older people are both pro-abortion and pro-vaccine mandate. But, as Vlad points out, this is a slippery slope. If we mandate actions on our bodies based on majority decisions, they may not like the next one to come down the pike.
@@joew94th Most people aren't pro abortion, they're pro choice. And most people ive talked to about abortions are ok with it up til a fetus has developed enough to be conscious. I know that's still a hotly debated topic, but everything ive read puts that time around the 24th week. Which was the original cut off date for a lot of states to have abortions. Personally i think a woman should have the ultimate choice about what grows inside her. I also think the man should have some say in it but that's a whole other topic. Personally i wouldn't want my wife to ever have an abortion, but i understand not everyone is in a steady relationship or financial situation to have a kid, or whatever their reason is. I don't think their should be government mandates about vaccines, but i do think that if you choose not to then you may not have a right to enjoy the same freedoms as people who have been vaccinated. When a person decides not to get vaccinated, that choice affects the rest of society in a negative way. No matter what you all say, a woman choosing to get an abortion does not. A woman getting an abortion can't spread that abortion to multiple other women and have that abortion mutating inside her til it grows to be a super abortion that doctors can't treat. The two subjects are not similar at all.
@@jaxsonhammerkawk7436 I agree, for the most part. While I don't personally believe that abortion is the most ethical decision, I am strongly opposed to the government restricting it. It's a personal decision that can be made only by those most impacted by it. I also agree with the decision to be vaccinated. Again, I'm strongly opposed to the government mandating any such actions. Wherever one stands on these two issues, the government should have no say in them. We enact laws to support our common values. We pretty much all believe that murder is wrong, therefore, it's against the law. When the values in question are no longer common, the law should be questioned. As for whether abortion rights and vaccination rights are of equal standing, I believe that's a matter of opinion. The woman in this video was quick to trivialize the position with which she disagreed "a little prick in the arm", yet exaggerated that with which she agreed "the terrible burden of carrying a baby". (paraphrased of course).
Vlad is awesome. very well articulated points. i love his “i don’t feel confident quantifying my confidence because i’m open to changing.” he’s the type of person i want to surround myself with.
Absolutely. The ironic thing is that I wouldn't even be standing where he is standing because there are way too many variables both for vaccines and abortion for me. I think I'd stand on "neutral", even though I'm not neutral at all I am extremely opinionated, it just depends on too many factors. I might have even stood with the old unimpressive dingbats on the other side of the room because the two things are not the same, but I agree far more with Vlad. Then again, as he points out "state" track records once they receive that sort of power, I might have then walked back across the room and joined Vlad. Or maybe I'd have walked across the room and joined Vlad because, like you said, I'd much rather be around people like him.
He was too polite about the extreme left's side. Placating them by saying they had a "great argument for getting vaccinated" (cf. the old guy's absurd Christopher Columbus analogy) was either sly, dry sarcasm that went over my head, or mushy, over-indulgence to the oldster's illogical, anti-scientific propaganda.
The more I watch these. We need to split populations by opinions. I dont wanna live with people who think its ok to be violent for any reason. I also dont wanna live with people who think forcing me to take something I dont want is ok.
These are the same ppl who have the highest STD rates because they aren’t scared of viruses. Make no mistake, they know what they are part of and think they will rise to the top of it.
and the vaccine does not prevent infection....so, people are just putting themselves at risk by trying an experiment, and there is no benefit whatsoever.
Children. Those with health problems that can not get the vaccine or have immunity problems. We also don’t want those who refuse the vaccine to get sick. It’s an awful thing to go through so why risk it? Nobody wants someone sick and contagious walking around. Whether it’s deadly for us vaccinated or not, it’s nasty.
There's a huge assumption taking place here, by those on the "strongly disagree" side the debate, and that is that vaccines are 100% safe and effective.
yea there wasnt any mention about how this vaccine was rolled out faster than any of its kind in all of medical history and because of decades of a drop in faith in our government, them telling us to go to china town and everythings fine and then telling us to stay indoors and triple mask and quadruple vaccine ASAP before being able to shop or work was where things went wrong.
There's also a misconception that vaccines stop the spread or limit it. With those additional pieces to the puzzle, their premise for their position falls apart. The question is: if you provided them with this data, would they believe it or would their bias prevent them from incorporating the new data in order to formulate an updated opinion?
Their whole definition of a vaccine is already corrupted by the new narrative. If these "vaccines" were as effective as they claim, they wouldn't need to worry about the unvaccinated. I remember when the hard scientific consensus was 30 to 35% is herd immunity. Now the popular opinion of that is suddenly 100%. This is how much it has shifted in only 2 years. And that's shocking, to put it mildly.
That's because being forced to have a procedure is actually a violation of bodily autonomy, while not having one available is not. Someone else has to perform a procedure, and you don't have a right to someone else's labor, so there's no violation of a right when it's not performed. Now, there *is* a violation when someone is told they cannot perform a procedure, or cannot participate in a procedure that another is freely willing to perform. Just tightening up the nuances for whoever reads these comments.
Most pro abortion folks won't agree to that because then why not 6 months or 5 months, or 4 months. So they hold the line and say up to delivery it's just a clump of cells. It's sad really.
@@iandrake4683 well can you point to where it says, definitively? who is the authority? (don't say god ffs, when does god come and let us in on anything?) cos i went to the NHS website to look up "when does life start" but i forgot about it when i read "abortion is between the patient and the doctor" and that's really all anyone needs to know, unless you're directly involved.
Of course. And there is no such thing as "abortion" of an 8 month fetus. In such a case there would be a delivery with efforts to save the life of the child. What you are proposing is an absolute MYTH.
One dimension not well explicated here is the efficacy of the vaccine. There's a big difference between a vaccine with horrendous and frequent side effects and minimal protective effect, and one that has virtually no side effects and is essentially perfectly protective. This needs to be balanced with the morbidity of the disease - that is, something like a cold versus rabies.
Assuming by vaccine they mean covid specificly. Wow that older lady said unborn children don't have value. That is mind blowing to me. She also said the individual consequence to getting jabbed is not comperable. Many would disagree
Yes! He was the only one with common sense, and could see past his nose where allowing others and the Government to control your body, leads to a dangerous slippy slope!
Would love to see this done with the question "if a mother can choose to have an abortion, the father should be able to choose whether to be apart of the childs life (physically and financially)"
Do you believe that same argument could be made to a woman who wants to abort a child she willingly conceived? "Didn't want a kid? should've used protection"
What an interesting dichotomy. Vlado articulated his reasoning very well, but remained open to listening to other points of view. On the other hand, the lady on the opposite side seemed preoccupied with assumed consensus of opinion. It is encouraging that young people value freedom of choice, rather than the coercive group think that is prevalent in a lot of social discourse at the moment.
It seems that Leftalitarians often manufacture or coerce consensus by either appealing to the state to mandate things they like or to make people think they will be ostracized if they speak their mind. They are masters of it. Luckily about 10% of people are naturally contrarian and that switch is a psychological antibody to such social pressure.
@LonerlRelnol they DID understand, they just willfully feigned being oblivious because it didnt align with their line of thinking. personal freedom/liberty is a very basic concept and an innate desire. without it they werent even allowed to articulate their arguments. it was pretty obvious that the elders got mixed up with the community/policy type of thinking and decision making like many many others these days.
Sea turtles are endangered, human fetus are not. Sea turtles play vital roles in maintaining the health of the worlds oceans, human fetus do not. I get your point, but the battle to protect see turtles is a lot easier then battling for something that half a countries population is morally against. I have never seen a rally to allow poaching of an endangered species. As for the value of a fetus, she has a point whether you like it or not. All life has value, but not all life has equal value. If there is a home on fire, and it has a 90 year old and a 5 year inside, but you can only save one of their lives, who do you choose and why?
In questions of morality, value is always relative. So saying that sea turtle eggs are more protected than a fetus therefor americans value the life of sea turtle eggs more, is flawed logic. Idk the price of protecting a sea turtle egg but I'm going to guess that the cost is not the right to bodily autonomy that pro abortion folks hold in such high value.
Sea turtles’s lives in general are endangered by our very existence. Our rising population combined with the way in which we recklessly live is destroying the environment in which these sea turtles live. So yes, we need to protect them. They have value to the delicate balance of nature. Humans however….
That was answere. Sea turtles will be extinct if their eggs are not protected. No danger of humans being extinct so no need to protect their eggs. Therefore SAME value. If human eggs were in danger of EXTINCTION the. We would protect them equally so. Do you eat chicken eggs?
@@madcow9421 Yes I eat unfertilized chicken eggs AND I grew up in Hawaii on the big island and helped protect the turtles. That is not the point. Of course they should be protected! Cows are not near extinction, yet many people do not eat meat because they consider it a LIFE. It just seems hypocritical that many say that a turtle egg is a life, but a human fetus not yet born is not, then craft legislation around it.
I would hire Vlad in an instant if I had all these participants to a job interview. Collected, smart, informed, holds his own even against slight peer pressure.
No, there are levels of collective vaccination that need to be reached to stop a disease from spreading Like it was with polio - which is a super rare in developed countries as opposed to some afghan/pakistan areas where parents don't allow med personnel to give a child polio vaccine Some others like smallpox, chicken poх, measles were almost eradicated only due to mass vaccination
The people on the disagree side is a perfect example of what happens when people have no objectivity, especially moral objectivity. It’s one hundred percent ideology.
why did no one bring up the fact that vaccines are supposed to prevent people from getting something through contagion... thats what it means to *"immunize"* which was in the definition of vaccine prior to C-19 shot
This is the only logical conclusion. Hence why the Pink lady refers to the baby as a “fetus” or “embryo”. Take fetus or embryo to the logical extreme and it’s abhorrent idea.
well, no it's not. you shed 35 BILLION cells every day, can you tell me how many cells make a feotus? can you also tell me when that glob of cells becomes self aware? and why if this bunch of cells, this zygote, this blasticis is born who looks after it then, cos the mother is dead, or insane, or flat broke (cos even adoption has a limit dictated by money, so don't oull that one) cos atm no one cares once that child is born.
That is only true when you consider a 1minute zygote (or a very underdeveloped fetus) as a "body"...and that is up to discussion (not everyone thinks that). So you still cant reach a dininitive conclusion on that matter..."logic" cant be used in this context since you can have different premises to start from, and thus your logic can be different from that of another person who use a different premise for his reasoning.
@@dimercamparini You can have an opinion that a rock is alive. Is it your argument that rocks being alive is open to interpretation? Your psychosis isn't a "open interpretation" of reality. Reality exists and an embryo is absolutely a living organism, unless it's dead, of course. But you can't be dead without having been alive.
I'm not even from the United States. How many lives did vaccines save? Myself and everyone I know will never get any more. To be honest, I find the arguments from the elderly duo to be utter pish.
The arrogance of that woman in pink. "The consensus is that a fetus/embyro has a lower moral value than living, sentient people." How dare you speak for a majority of people.
She is just stating a thing that most ppl perceive as "reasonable"...that is true... 9 months are a LOOONG process, and the road for 1 single cell to become a full developed human body is long and complex. So is totally natural that most ppl think that up to a certain point of development a fetus is not yet a complete human with all his rights attached...
Forced medical injections without consent, no matter how safe or not, is not commensurate with freedom, thus not commensurate with human health. Freedom IS the greater good without which human health and life are under greater threat than from a virus.
Here's the thing, it's up to people to protect themselves from perceived threats, thus, I don't have to get a medical procedure to make you feel "safe." So yes, my body my choice when we're talking about vaccines. However, when you say my body my choice with abortion, there's a problem. In utero humans are nonetheless humans, and although they may be temporarily occupying a woman's body, they are humans, so it gets a little more complicated because we're not talking about your body per se, we're talking about intentionally ending the life of another human being who happens to be inhabiting your body while in development. This question is apples to oranges. It however does expose the left's hypocrisy due to the fact that they seem to almost always be the ones who are all about abortion and also want to have you forced into a medical experiment.
Indeed. And that is why I would still "disagree" with the assertion that "my body my choice" should be equally true for both issues. It's just that I would disagree for the OPPOSITE reason of those in this video. Vx is only affecting MY body. Ab affects another person.
Love the comment and I agree with most of what you're saying here. I, however, don't think the question is so much apples to oranges as you make it out to be. The moral value that the people should be arguing about in the activity is "personal autonomy and stewardship over their own bodies" When situated in the vaccine debate, we are looking at the tradeoff value of "personal autonomy" versus "public health/authority". When situated in the abortion debate, we are looking at the tradeoff value of "personal autonomy" versus "potential human life" If we rank-order our values from 1 to 3, then We could see individuals such as Vlad rank personal autonomy above all else, Pro-lifers would place human life first, and Pro-Vaccine mandate lefties would place public health above all else - it absolutely exposes them as hypocritical. The reason why this activity was so interesting is precisely because Peter balanced three values instead of just two.
Yet the pouplation being vaccinated is the whole point of vaccination, how do you think the spanish flue was erradicated.... Why do you think children are still required to get vaccination for measles. Because stupid people, who can't understand the science think like you. "it's my body it's only affecting me' And then we hear about measle outbreaks in a class because some parent read a blog and decided they knew more than the rest of the medical community. And hey, I'm all for writing into law that a fertalized egg is considered a human immidiately, Just know that means that if a miscarrige occurs for whatever reason there are grounds to throw a woman into prison. After all something she did with her body contributed the death of a person right. I wonder how many times your mother would have had to go to prison before you were born, or how many times your wife will. And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter. - Numbers 5:19-24 If abortion is good enough for god, it should be good enough for you.
@nick zzz I disagree with your final statement. This question highlights the hypocrisy on both sides not just one. The right believe that they are allowed to choose to get a jab or not because it is there body. But they want to choose to decide what someone else does with their body when it comes to abortion. There may be another body at play, but that does not mean it’s not your body and that you do not have a choice of what goes on with your body. The left believes it’s their body so they are free to get the procedure done because it is their body, their choice. But they want to choose what someone does with their body when it comes to getting a vaccine. Do you see the hypocrisy on both sides here? Each side wants to enforce their opinions on one another but neither side wants someone else’s opinion forced on them. If you are viewing “my body my choice” from a matter of principle, people should try to be less hypocritical
I think it's interesting that the phrase my body my choice applied to vaccines instills the same fear that people will make the wrong choice that it does in people who are against abortion. What a lovely discussion. Thank you
Old people are closer to death. They are speaking from a place of fear. The differences between past vaccines & their efficacy & possible side effects and the particular vaccine this discussion is really about should be mentioned, along with natural immunity. I know it’s a very small sample size, but I was glad to see where the younger people stood. Freedom & liberty have a price, but the price of not having freedom & liberty is much higher. Not all freedoms are the same. All vaccines are not the same either. My body, my choice is an important principle.
I noticed of the 2 extreme ends, one of them had thought more deeply about the issues with some reasoning and logic and understood the counter point of view. On the other end they didn’t even understand the other sides argument and seemed more like the immediate consequences of both actions were paramount and didn’t seem to think beyond that for the unintended, unexpected and unwanted consequences. I will let you guess which side is which :).
This holds true thru all of these videos. One side is always unwilling to even give thought to the other sides argument. It is not hard to find that common thread holding that side together
@@uneducatedthinker It does, but you realize he's shining the spotlight trying to get the overall answer he wants, right? I agree with the answer he's seeking, but he's clearly not neutral.
I notice the issue of the unborn's intrinsic personhood is dismissed as "debatable" but the myriad of issues & questions involved in a vaccine decision are somehow not "debatable"
The problem with the entire "my body, my choice" argument is it's NOT just the woman's body. The unborn have a unique DNA, a normal woman does not have two sets of organs and the vast majority of biologists and embryologists agree human life begins at fertilization: _"Overall, 95% of all biologists surveyed affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)."_ So I agree you're comparing apples and oranges, but their conclusions are completely irrational in the face of empirical, scientifically backed evidence.
Pregnancy - is a woman's body burden, so it's up to her to decide if she willing to experience that, and other problems after birth, when all pro-lifers don't care anymore how that child and in what circumstances will be raised and educated. And then we have psychologically unstable population )))
@@nettakogopolzovatela typical leftist idiocy. How is another human baby a burden? If you do not want to handle the consequences of sexual intercourse then focus on the strict measures for its prevention, snowflake.
@@nettakogopolzovatela your argument justifies killing anyone deemed 'a burden' on someone else. And you are already stepping away from arguing the 'fetus' (which is simply a stage of human development like new born, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, geriatric, etc) is part of the woman. You have already abandoned the idea that it is her body. Which proves my point. And I have addressed your new premise. It could be argued, and indeed has by pro abortion advocates, that those with 'medical defects' pose a burden on society and thus should be killed: _"According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”"_ The same argument, if applied consistently, could apply to any number of groups and be used as the basis to kill countless people. You are using the same argument used in 1930s Germany... _"As Adolf Hitler consolidated his power at home in anticipation of war, he moved not only against Jews, Sinti, and Roma but also against those Aryans whom he considered “unworthy of life”-people with epilepsy, alcoholism, birth defects, hearing loss, mental illnesses, and personality disorders, as well as those who had vision loss or developmental delays or who even suffered from certain orthopedic problems. Hitler viewed them as “marginal human beings” who had to make a case for their own survival at a time when the nation was preparing for war."_ As for your Red Herrings and Ad Hominem they only serve to show your intellectual dishonesty and disqualify you from further respectful discussion.
@@gusmc2220 Not justifying killing anyone - it's you who are trying to redherring me ))). Bad try It's up to a woman to decide what to do with her body. I'm just saying that pro-lifers treat woman as an incubator without her voice and they usually completely disappear after leaving a woman with another set of problems
@@nettakogopolzovatela you literally said 'a burden' that is not a 'Red Herring' (the term you're trying to use is Strawman) your entire argument was based on one human being a burden upon another. By trying to say that logic should apply in the case of abortions and not other cases without giving a legitimate reason why you are now committing the fallacy of Special Pleading: _"Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."_ SO we have moved from 'her body, her choice' to people who are a burden on others don't have a Right to Life, to no only those who YOU choose don't have a Right to Life. That is the crux of the problem, and exactly why I cited the examples I did. That way of thinking and those jumps in logic HAVE already resulted in the deaths of millions of people. And that type of devaluing human life so as to avoid personal inconvenience sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Because let's be honest the only 'choice' at question here is the one that necessitates the intentional ending of a human life through force and violence. And considering over 98% of abortions are performed as a form of retroactive contraceptive your argument amounts to 'I should be allowed to kill someone else because I made poor life choices' that is evil incarnated Especially when you realize that around 86% of women seeking an abortion admit to not using any contraception or not using their chosen contraceptive consistently the month they became pregnant and on top of that nearly half the women seeking an abortion have had at LEAST one prior abortion. So don't try and use Cherry Picked fringe cases as your justification for the rest. Oh sorry, does the truth not fit your narrative? That's your problem
Objectively speaking, American abortion laws were far more lenient than European laws: "Note, too, that the Democratic Party’s extreme position on abortion represents the views of its white, highly educated voters but not its minority members. While 83 percent of white Democrats support legal abortion, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center poll, only 66 percent of black Democrats agree. Similarly, Pew found that 35 percent of white Democrats say voters should support only candidates who favor legal abortion, while just 7 percent of black Democrats say the same. Meanwhile, the United States has, overall, more permissive abortion laws than almost anywhere else in the world. It is one of only seven countries - the others are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam - to allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column has confirmed."
This, is not a traditional vaccine. And it just doesn't work effectively, that's the issue. The mRNA technology has huge flaws . Mostly, survival to get to the target sites without being destroyed in the blood stream.
Asking students to be honest and possibly get completely socially banished is awesome, probably terrifying (you can see it in their eyes usually)and totally necessary right now.
I think its interesting that the young people (most likely to be affected by vaccine, least likely to be affected by COVID) agreed that bodily autonomy should be respected, but the old people say that they should be forced. Maybe a 5 minute lesson beforehand on the actual gains of the vaccine after 3 months would be relevant?
The American system was founded on the premise that the individual given the choice will do what's in his own best interest and that the best interest of the individual aligns with his community more often than not.
The woman that says “the burden of a little jab in your arm is nothing and a baby is huge.” We don't know the burden of these jabs yet. And killing a baby at 6 months has to have a mad effect on the woman, and what if the man what's to keep it but the woman doesn't? The man would feel huge pain at the loss of his child.
Oh man...I felt bad for that guy who kept saying "woman," and then claimed a company paid a 70K a week salary. I got his point in the end, but he was STRUGGLING badly...he needed a lifeline there!
I would say that logically "my body, my choice" should apply to vaccines, but not abortion. By and large there is a choice (or sometimes many) that precede abortion, but vaccine mandates are foisted upon us. There's a major difference. One is a direct and obvious consequence of our actions (pregnancy/abortion), and the other is a problem brought to our doorstep to figure out, not of our own making.
I agree with you, but tell this to a leftist and they'll give the predictable responses: 1. You can choose not to take the vax. 2. What about women who are raped?
I believe these issue comes down to accountability. If a women gets pregnant under normal circumstances its her responsibility to nurture, love her baby, and take care of her baby. For vaccines it comes down to the fact that nobody except yourself is responsible for your health and the biggest things that are necessary for your health is nutrition, sleep, light exposure, being a part of a community/social connection, purpose in life, exercise, etc are free and we dont need to pay some doctor or pharmaceutical company for our health. The government and pharma companies want to take away our sense of personal responsibility/accountability and make us think we NEED them to function/survive. Giving away personal responsibility to big daddy government is a pillar of liberal/socialist idealogy that tries to tell people all there problems are caused by external factors outside of the individuals control and also can be solved by a external actor (government or other big agencies/industries).
@@Mewing4life I'm not vaccinated. I am Pro choice. The Government and strangers should never have a say over another's body. If you think women who fall pregnant should be forced to keep it. They made their choice when having sex. The same can be said about thoses that fall ill, through not having a vaccine. Having cancer through smoking. Diabetes through not eating properly. Liver disease through drinking, and so forth should not receive any medical care. And they should live with the fact that they are going to die through the lack of responsibility they took with their lifestyle! We need to be careful what we wish for and what we force onto others. Once we've opened Pandora's Box, it can not be closed and you might not like the outcome, of what You helped put in place!
@@Mewing4life So you're against giving children up for adoption then? How unreasonable can you be? Not everyone's made for parenthood - some people simply aren't up to the job, for any number of reasons, some of which are none of their fault. What about rape? What about failed contraception? Why place all the responsibility on the woman? She's not the only one creating the foetus. Not being vaccinated for viruses like polio has huge implications on society. It doesn't just affect the unvaccinated undividuals. Some vaccines actually do curb transmission. Viruses mutate when they spread, so the more they spread, the more they mutate. The fewer people who are vaccinated, the more they spread and the more they mutate, which increases the chance of them mutating into a virus that the vaccines don't cover. Aside from that, where vaccines reduce the severity of a disease, getting vaccinated reduces the risk of wasting hospital resources on treating severe symptoms, which has a knock-on effect for people with other conditions.
Having sex doesn't grant a fetus the right to use somebodies body without their permission. The mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy on the ground that it's self-defense. How she got into that situation has no relevance to that choice. People have sex for all sorts of reasons and it doesn't mean that her life should be totally wrecked based on some weird theological reasons.
Foetus means "small child" or "unborn child " in Latin so using a word in another language doesn't mean the meaning of the word has changed . Aqua still means water even if it's in Latin so saying Foetus instead of a child doesn't mean it's not a child .
So, your line of reasoning js wrong. Often when you "adopt" words in your language, over time they can end up becoming somehing different. That being said, in the cambridge dictionary fetus is "unborn human being". So it is by definition a human. So yeah, you are right.
As usual, a fascinating dissection of the tenuous nature of our thinking. Plus, REALLY alarming how many people believe in the efficacy of vaccination and downplay its negative outcomes.
Vaccines are actually incredibly effective. mRNA injections that required the definition of vaccine to be changed for them to count as such, not so much
@@dogbot55 I have chronic bladder infection and ethanol allergy cause of the vaccine. My girlfriend's menstrual cycle is off the charts. Some times occurring twice a month, sometimes not occurring for 6 months. We are trying to have a child...good luck with that now. I would not have taken the vaccine had I known about these side effects.
@@dogbot55 sorry that is not true at all. Most pro vaxxers love pointing to polio as the shining example of vaccine efficacy. However, even mainstream news sources have reported in the last few years that the majority of polio cases today worldwide are vaccine induced, rather than wild type.
I like the topic, but was really disappointed in the depth of the participants answers. I would give credit to those that are younger and learning. but to the older, it was scary to hear such inconsistency and lack of individualism. It appears to be all they care about is the collective.
The covid vaccines cannot protect one from catching covid but just lessen the potential of having serious adverse health conditions upon catching covid. Beaides, vaccinated people can still spread covid.
Yes, so if YOU have the vaccine, me being vaccinated has zero affect on you directly. Some indirect "hospitals are full" bullshit that never actually hits reality isn't the fault of the sick, or potentially sick either
Exactly, but he didn’t limit the argument to one type of vaccine. I was thinking along the lines you were but there are other vaccines that have nearly eradicated diseases. So that changes a bit on what line I would stand on.
I’m in with Vlad on this scale. I’m not buying that if someone else is vaccinated, my choice not to be is effecting them more than a woman getting an abortion. And I’m going to be consistent that if I use ‘my body, my choice’ for one, I have to for the other.
This is a very hypothetical scenario, but to push back on the argument of the benefit to society: if the human race was on the verge of extinction (or a subset of humans), would it be acceptable to force artificial insemination?
Hypotheticals are great. I hate how everyone would pretend they are logical fallacies. This is how humans get to PRINCIPLED decision making.. they compare and contrast. Thats a GREAT question BECAUSE it's the extreme. The edge cases are how you really define boundaries well. We spend so much time arguing over the middle with very little thought into why we are there. I don't believe that humanity is THAT important, but I also don't believe you would have to have that as the human sex drive would suffice, and if it did not . I believe natural selection ensues. So I would say, forcing pregnancy would be wrong. The individual should decide their own path, but... if you decide to voluntarily do the things get pregnant (we call that sex for the odd folks lol), I believe the consequences are in, not the choices, at that point.
@@truthbetold1855 I agree, I hate the term false equivalence… there is no perfect comparison and sometimes analyzing extreme hypotheticals allows to better question our own beliefs. Another hypothetical would be: If your blood contained a rare compound that could cure a very rare disease (100ppl worldwide), should you be mandated to give your blood?
@@johnnylatulipe Thats right, and that slope is easily extrapolated to all human experiments. We've been here before, and the same people are the same people. Not to sound like a nerd, but THANOS thinks he's doing what's best for the universe.. same as these folks.
@@truthbetold1855 Imagine a man and a woman who don't know each other being marooned on an island say after some worldwide human tragedy, and as long as they think they are (probably) the only humans left, and assuming they can still make babies, they are likely to mate (have sex) even if there isn't any love or affection between them. That is, I agree that in the extinction scenario, probably there is no need to force a couple to have sex and thus a baby.
Is that lady really trying to say that for "hundreds of years" Americans have had the same moral values regarding abortion? Really? 1800s, same "consensus"?
It's the quiet ones who stab you in the back. Some of these people are incredibly dangerous. A logical argument can be made a mile long, but if it's rooted in a false premise, all you've got is a convincing lie.
The main flaw there is that not taking the vaccine risks people, but primarily people who are not vaccinated, who by that virtue have accepted that risk just like you. They consent to the risk just as you do.
The argument for liberty over public safety is simple. Once we stop valuing liberty (individual autonomy), society decays into tyranny, and arguments along the lines of "we must do/sacrifice this or that for public safety" become just one more means by which that tyranny is perpetuated. QED.
Once we sacrifice liberty in favour of safety, we are left with neither liberty nor safety. The act of sacrificing liberty negates the justification for it, as a society without liberty is not worth sacrificing anything for.
@@xdrowssap4456 Civil society has laws to ensure that, as much as possible, one individual does not infringe on the individual autonomy of others. A society that sacrifices individual autonomy for public safety sacrifices the very thing that makes it worth living. Human flourishing cannot exist without individual autonomy.
@@lucasfabisiak9586 and if we work diligently at ensuring and protecting individual rights, the rights of the collective are, by extension, also protected.
“Consensus” does not equal truth or morality. It was the consensus at one time that slavery was moral.
The consensus argument is complete horse shit. There was a consensus among scientists the earth was flat at one point. The consensus was wrong.
She's a HR type, all about conformity.
She is a Leftist, and not a smart one. Listening to her voice and body language shows her smugness and I hope she never gave birth!
Also, there is no consensus in this nation that babies in the womb do not have significant value as she stated.
It also could mean that political slavery (loss of individual rights) could be a new norm.
Actual debates at a university?! I thought that didn't exist anymore. Great job Peter
Of course they still exist.
@@commandershepard9920 no they don’t, if you don’t have liberal views, you will be a pariah
@@Hello-uk5xp I'm asking this sincerely (not being sarcastic), are you on a college campus these days? Is this what you, yourself, are experiencing?
@@commandershepard9920 yes I go to university of Washington, and saying I am pro life will make look like bad guy
@@Hello-uk5xp Well I'll have to take your word for it. I graduated college in 2014 and things were very different back then.
Genuine question here - If a vaccine does not stop the spread of a virus, but rather reduces the harm done to the person with the vaccine when they become infected, who exactly is at risk by a person's choice not to be vaccinated?
🍻
Exactly.
Exactly. The individual.
The vaccine nazis are convinced that vaccinated people threaten them with the virus they are vaccinated against
@@bruh-rt7sr No, the RNA vaccines mitigate the symptoms. So if you're vaccinated you don't experience Covid but you have it and spread it. If your not vaccinated, at least when you get sick you know it and can be cautious about spreading it. The government lied, saying if your not vaccinated you are a spreader knowing full well that vaccinated people were also spreading, in order to create fear and social pressure to get everyone to take the vaccine. My wife is a medical professional and also has a PhD in physiology. She has watched while people have turned science which should always be questioned and challenged (if we care about progress) turn into a religion with its dogma and heresies.
Whichever way you feel. The fact that we are seeing a reasonable debate without shouting the other side down is inspiring to watch. We need much more of this.
🛐🛐💯
The woman calling for the man to accept "our value system" based on "consensus" - amazing how people who demand diversity also really desire others to fall in line.
You know what? If you look at these comment sections, nearly everyone recognizes the cognitive dissonance, the inconsistency, the immorality...
I think the propaganda media is trying to make us think there are more of these asses than there actually are.
I'm not so sure the zombie apocalypse is real... We may be the majority, but not realizing it has kept us passive by way of pessimism.
She tried to bully him into accepting her values. The left idealizes poor countries, but failes to regocnise that they are all pretty conservative.
Also She said at first that there wasn't a consensus and then that there was.
@@g00ts As if consensus mattered in the slightest. Think of how broken your head has to be to think that morality is based on consensus after all the outright lunacy the masses have accepted throughout history. Right on the face of it, that position is insane.
I think that argument is a bit more nuanced to be fair, or maybe more fair than I should be. I think that argument presupposes that someone that wishes to exist in a society must understand and accept that the society is based on norms that, for all intents and purposes, are subscribed to by the majority or by a consensus of people, as one would expect in a democratic system. I think if she believed that the person espousing a different set of values were fine being ostracized from society, she wouldn't push for him to accept her (their) value system. I think that's a fairer reading of that argument. I disagree with how it is being used in this context, because I don't think the vaccine does what they think it does, namely stop or reduce the spread. So, her argument fails, not because that aspect isn't valid, but because it is prefaced on false assumptions.
She had "0" facts. Everything she said was talking points and for her to be, I assume, in a later stage of life than the three to the right of the spectrum, unable to think for herself is mind blowing!
The man to the left also could not defend his point. Apples and oranges? The question was strictly about bodily autonomy and he could not wrap his brain around the context? I now have some more confidence in the youth... at least they stand up and can verbalize their beliefs in a contextual way.
I'm 72 years of age but I find that the younger people have way more sense than the 2 older ones😂😂😂😂
I couldn't agree more, I knew I wasn't the only one that saw it. As a young man it gives me some hope that we aren't totally screwed.
I'm wondering what your own age has to do with your assessment of the participants. In other words, you started out with "I'm 72 years of age" but how does that have any bearing on whether the younger people have more sense than the older ones. It's about as irrelevant as starting out with "I like fudge ice cream, but I find that the younger people have more sense than the older ones." What am I missing?
@@garrettlees7497 I'll give my two cents. In general, older people in the US are thought to be more on the conservative side, while young people now a days are thought to be more on the Liberal side. So by saying'' I'm 72 years of age'', Libnomore is basically saying that he finds it amusing that the participants with the conservative point of views, that line up with his own, are the young people, while the older people are the ones with the more liberal views. That's it. And you are correct a persons age has nothing to do with someone else being logical or not, neither did I take it that it was implied that way.
@@Gooday2day Ohhh I see now. Thank you for your explanation! It was the omission of the "I find it amusing/interesting that" part that threw me. The way he worded it made it seem as if there was some relationship between his own age and the various responses. But I see what he's getting at now, thanks to your interpretation.
@@garrettlees I think they were also showing that their opinion about the young participants vs. the older ones had nothing to do with a "peer bias", I guess I could call it. Most of the time if you saw a comment that said "the younger participants were more reasoned than the older ones" people would assume the commenter was young.
I love how their argument is "but the community agrees so that should be chosen", yet when a community (state) agrees to not allow abortion, they get mad.
The whole argument that forced vaccination are a public good is predicated on the notion that vaccines work and are safe. FALSE. Their argument is invalid.
Hi Dankrupt,
The states where abortion is criminalized are such places where a majority of people who support criminalizing abortion exist, no?
I guess what was different before Roe v Wade's dissolution was the fact that federal majority's opinion oppressed the federal minority's opinion. Now the majority opinions in each state are oppressing the minority opinions in each state. Maybe this patchwork system of The Law is more fair in its doling out of arbitrary oppression? lol.
I mean, all that I typed above assumes that people don't care what states besides their own do. Then again, we do have a lot of people who want federal level enforcement of laws. I, for one, don't really seek to control other states unless the issue clearly affects the state that I reside in.
Yep. Tribalistic to the core. And they have to change the definition of words and do mental gymnastics to justify their actions. Think Jordan Peterson had something to say about "legality" and "consensus" this weekend. The Germans had "consensus" to do human experiments, murder, etc, and the public consensus said SURE.
Or when the Supreme court decides to Roe V Wade so that individual states have more freedom on it.
To them, we have no right to put there most cherished abortion up for debate.
@@tennisiswonderful Consensus can always be achieved with enough threat of force. So it is not a good indocator at all.
“I don’t understand the individual liberty argument”
Translated: “I don’t understand the concept of freedom”.
This is a big problem.
That’s why they are called sheep or NPC
The most underrated argument made by Vlad was that if we mandate vaccines & discriminate in terms of vaccine status medical care, i.e. withdrawing medical care for the unvaccinated then the temptation would be to also to withdraw medical care for other personal choices, e.g. obesity
Or smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, or even drinking soda for that matter. It's like, you knew smoking cigarettes was really bad for you and could cause cancer and all that and you still used them...so we're declining you medical care. Good luck with your cancer. But yea, you're right, it creates a slippery slope.
So far obesity isn’t contagious. Nor are abortions.
@@sharifsalem should a person in consultation with their physician decide whether or not to undergo a medical procedure?
@@sharifsalem *_"So far obesity isn’t contagious"_* correct I should have made use of the example of the health consequences of passive smoking...
@@sharifsalem You can still spread "C" if you are vaccinated. But obese people are taking away resources/time/etc from the hospitals that could be used on other issues.
Pretty obvious that Vlad has learned how to think for himself and back his beliefs. Love watching these. thanks Peter
He was the smartest and had the best argument, individual liberty andvfreedom above all, otherwise it's a slippery slope if you give your decisions to a Democrat controlled governor and woke politicians.
I actually disagree. He is very informed about what libertarians say but has hardly any information why this ideology is faulty. It is a proven fact that 10% of the worldwide population does not have the mental capacity to function in a responsible way in our society. This is a fact that Libertarians love to ignore or proclaim to be false. My source is simple: Jordan Peterson. He is very adamant that the facts are very clear. 10% of the population is just too stupid to act responsibly. He is also VERY adamant that training and education does ot change anything.
Morals can change, opinions can change & even truths can change.
@@jaderose3175 Truth doesn’t change.
@@sukaenacornelius9285 truth is a reflection of modern morality - there are even multiple truths in this video. To a conservative, it is true that abortion is immoral. To a progressive, it is not immoral but moral because you're saving the hosts "life" in a preservational sense.
What can you say is absolutely true, in a metaphysical sense?
Vlad was head and shoulders above the rest of the participants, in pretty much every way. Very impressive young man. Kudos.
women are often hypocrites. spoiled brats. gold diggers
He was swayed by that idiotic Columbus example. So no.
@@Alexanderisgreat Haha, that was awful, wasn't it? I would have extended the story to the naive natives took the vaccines and got Polio, became infertile, and now there are no American Indians left.
@@Alexanderisgreat was he swayed tho? he stayed on his line
@@sadiemakesmesmile He made the mistake of having something positive to say about the people on the other side of the debate.
I 100% think the same way vlad does and he by far articulated his reasoning very well.
I'd just like to point out that when 'people' (either individually or as groups) are suspicious of something, that declaring that there is a 'consensus' and that the issue is 'settled,' so there will be no more debate allowed is *NOT* the way to convince them to be quiet and do what they're told.
💯
100%
Yes, I was curious about this consensus she spoke so confidentially of...
Theres been a moral consensus in societies that now is considered evil. The moral consensus of the majority is irrelevant.
the way to answer the abortion question in my opinion would be that: Yes, developed human beings are valued more morally, simply because abortions will be provided if there's even a sliver of a risk for the mothers life during pregnancy or childbirth, even if the chances are decent for the survival of both. Most reasonable people that don't have their opinions rooted in religion would also agree that abortion should be okay in the cases of incest, rape, etc. which further prooves that point".
I love how everyone keeps saying "not getting vaccinated also puts others at risk".
who? the vaccinated? then why are they vaccinated in the first place?
This is something that’s so obvious and as far as I have seen has never been addressed in any discussion about the coof jabs.
@@mojojojo560 with propaganda comes intentional blindness.
The jab is making people stupid
gaatjegeenrukaan gek propaganda doesn’t have to be a bad thing. And it doesn’t rely on blindness. You think propaganda is inherently a bad thing? It’s actually a neutral term.
@@3-methylindole730
Propaganda:
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
The woman's claim that the abortion rate has been "the same for hundreds of years" is laughably false. She clearly has never looked into it and just wanted to try to use it to bolster her position. There is certainly not an "American consensus" about the moral status of a fetus - not in general and not for particular stages of development.
In fact, Who could know the abortion rate, since much of it is hidden?
Can't believe she said hundreds of years. Even people who never looked into it wouldn't agree with that statement.
@@leonardmarks533 can't or won't?
Abortion was allowed by common law before quickening. It was only criminalized after quickening, starting in the early 1800s. You were saying?
@@bladee_enjoyer540 How does that invalidate my point? Ever heard of logic before?
these are great. getting people to talk about these topics in a way where they’re thinking them through instead of trying to “win” is no small feat
Only ignorant people think of it as won or lost. The fact is the Left basically has no argument; it’s why they’ve lost every major social issue in the last 70 years.
Thank god for Vlad being there. The only free thinking, non conforming mind in the room.
Logical engineer type on the spectrum. Not surprising to see him think for himself and not go authoritarian groupthink.
My guess is he is a bit hesitant to answer some of these because you can't stray too much from the "approved" path of everyone elses in the room. I am still amazed that older women think that killing babies is perfectly fine. I am guessing she has had kids and knows from conception its going to be a person. Still just mind blowing that the older people were just as brain washed as some of the younger kids.
I am guess STEM student just based on his logical consistency and proportionate reasoning when asked about quantifying his confidence. But who knows. Maybe he’s just an English major who writes poetry 🤷♂️
@@amoyer1441 Because she thinks morality is culturally relative, that's why. She even indicated she thinks it's somewhat individually relative in the way that she engaged the fence rider about the fact that he DOES think they have value. Since she thinks there is no "societal consensus" on the moral value of the unborn then it must be the case that it has lower moral value and not really worth much consideration when debating the issue.
In short, she's a moron.
I love his response that abortion and vaccination are not the only available options. This really opens the mind and exposes the limitations of the premise.
It's really shocking to hear people say things like "a fetus doesn't have a value". How incredibly sad and depressing that we live in a world where this is commonplace thinking.
I agree completely I watch someone say a foetus is like cancer in another discussion. I feel so sorry for these people who do not see our unborn as valuable.
It is honestly horrifying to me
Because thats all it is... its sooooooo easy it happen by accident.... if you people put in 10% the effort on foster kids as you do about someone's zygotes we wouldnt have to call you walking contradictions.
@@cherryrush. Just like someone may want unchecked authority when it comes to vaccinating/educating/feeding their child, the only person who has a right to choose the outcome of an unborn embryo is the person who's uterus it's attached to. I'm open to hear pro-life folks arguments when it comes to fetuses that would otherwise survive outside of the mother's womb with minimal medical intervention that could come from another person. But, until a fetus can be brought up by people outside of the mother, in my eyes it is still part of HER body, and not it's own being. It's not a matter of seeing a fetus as a worthless item to be thrown out, it's a matter of ensuring that the would-be baby is only brought into this world with the prospect of a good life. And if we were to assign a worth to a fetus, is there a single human on earth that you would kill (seriously) in order to ensure the life of a fetus? Because I don't think that a single person would place a living person's life below that of an unborn, it's impossible to argue.
Good point kinda bothered me when she said America majority agrees ...I disagree..
Given the argument from the chap with the beard about how sometimes the needs of the community override the rights of the individual (in the case of vaccination), I would liked to have asked him if it would be acceptable to force a woman to have an abortion if (say) she already had 6 kids, no fathers involved, no job and the kids were all petty criminals. Clearly, the community might prefer that she not have any more of the little buggers. Should they be able to insist on an abortion or her sterilisation? If not, why not?
Yep, he doesn't address this glaring logical inconsistency at all.
There have already been many cases of involuntary nor plant for women who've been in that situation. But according to the supreme Court, and many states, forcing a woman to HAVE a child is just fine and dandy.
I know that woman
@@Supreme2k Then again the woman wasn't forced to sleep with someone without using the pill, condoms, or an iud. Actions do have consequences.
@@Supreme2k The Supreme Court doesn't make the laws -- your legislators do. Vote in someone who will reflect your beliefs and get the laws you want passed. Beyond that, I would ask if you want everyone to follow the laws you believe in, or just everyone in your community.
So glad to see people discussing contentious social issues without resorting to crying and namecalling.
Vlado’s thinking, speaking, listening, and humility were on display. By far the most impressive in the room.
Yeah, he was cool. I thought the younger female participant was similarly smart. To recognise that she had been essentially given her opinion by her family, etc, but that it was still her *own* opinion because of other family beliefs she hasn't upheld is pretty sophisticated.
The least impressive was that kid on neutral. I don't think that particular kid had an original thought in his head or, in truth, gave a fart about the issue. Kind of looked like he was merely shifting over to the side with the younger folk or, to be more specific, siding with the side that might get him some poontang later on. Might be disingenuous of me to think that, but it's bugging me.
@@anonfergenson9868 It is unfair, what you're saying. Nacho was head and shoulders above the old ones on the left. Being unsure and questioning is far superior to being stuck in the rut of propagandized, binary thinking that the older ones are steeped in. Seriously, nothing the older 'contestants' said had any validity for those interested in critical thinking. Only inflexible, cult-like repetition of received opinion. Even if Nacho was in the back of his mind trying to get laid the whole time, that's still a nobler impulse!
@@FungusMossGnosis It is unfair, what you're saying. The "Old Ones" (part of the Cthulhu Mythos, apparently) were head and shoulders above Nacho on the right. Being educated, informed, and confident is far superior to being utterly ambivalent and stuck in a rut of propagandized confusion that Nacho is steeped in. Seriously, nothing Nacho said had any validity for those interested in critical thinking. Only barely veiled indifference, hormone based stuttering with a few hesitant glances at the girl's butt. Even if "The Old Ones" were certain of their choices and less flexible, that's still a nobler impulse!
@@anonfergenson9868 staring at girls' butts. You got all that?
There's a great misunderstanding with vaccines in this country. Vaccines are meant to protect the vaccinated. If a person chooses not to accept the vaccine, that should bear no burden on someone who did accept it. Unless the vaccines are placebos.
The vaccines are far, far worse than placebos
Wrong. The purpose of vaccinations is also to prevent the spread of the viral infection to others. It's a matter of public safety. A person has no more right to refuse a vaccine than they do to refuse to obey traffic laws. The laws are not for controlling how you drive as they are meant make our roads safer for society.
The vaccines have been widely disproven that they stop the spread and prevent you from getting Covid. With that being said why should you be forced to get one? From what I see the choice clearly should be yours to make if you want a vaccine
@@stuartwayne4978 while that may be the purpose, it’s been proven that vaccines do NOT stop the spread so your theory is moot.
@@stuartwayne4978 You could not be any more incorrect. Vaccines do also serve a purpose of assisting in herd immunity, but you need to run and get a refund on who ever taught you those lies. As well I'd recommend looking at the recent definition changes of vaccine to immunization. Quite scary if you're willing to be honest with yourself.
Wow, this format is very engaging. Socrates would be proud. Kudos to all involved. Takes guts to stand up and discuss your ideas with the possibility of being proven wrong. Bravo
The “strongly disagree” lady made the point that there is a consensus that post-birth human life is more valuable than pre-birth human life. I don’t know that that’s true, but let’s run with it. She concluded by that logic that causing the death of a post-birth human is worse than causing the death of a pre-birth human, and therefore personal choice should be valued less or overridden in the case of vaccines, but not abortions.
If we’re going to play the proportionality game, though, it should also be noted that while not getting the vaccine MAY potentially result in the death of another person via transmission, abortion WILL 100% result in the death of another person.
Therefore, the real comparison isn’t causing the death of a valuable human vs a less valuable human, but rather possibly causing the death of a valuable human vs absolutely causing the death of a less valuable human. By leaving out the inconvenient half of the equation, her argument sounds stronger than it is
Vaccination doesn't reduce the chances of spreading infections, it allegedly prevents the harm the infection can cause to the individual...so if someone avoids getting vaccinated it will only affect the individual & not others...so that old man's argument dosen't stand a chance anyway.
Good point!
Good point. I would also like to add that the 2 who strongly disagree are saying that by not being vaccinated, you are putting other lives at risk. I would argue though, that everyone has equal opportunity to get the vaccine. So if someone gets infected, they had the opportunity to get the vaccine and protect themselves. Anyone who chooses to be unvaccinated and dies from the virus through transmission, they only have themselves to blame. I would also argue the effectiveness of the vaccine, because people who are vaccinated are definitely still getting covid.
If they are doing an abortion before there is even a person really there are they really killing a person or the idea of a person?
@@PaulSmith-nb6md That’s an idea worth discussing, but the lady I was addressing said that a fetus had less worth than the prospective mother, not no worth, so I was making my case on what she stated in the first place.
I appreciate that this exercise was not about finding 'the right answer', but was instead about getting people to think and share their paths of reasoning.
This is the point of every exercise these guys conduct.
Nice discussion, but 2 things were very frustrating:
1) The 'strongly disagree' side's argument hinged entirely on the fact that a given vaccine provides a substantial and measurable community benefit; so much so that an individual's choice in the matter can be put aside. It was incredibly bothersome that the hypothetical opposite ("what if the shot provided *no* community benefit?) was never posed. Especially considering that this is actually the case with the shot that was on everyone's mind.
2) It was not a category error because of mandates. The reason vaccines were grouped into "my body, my choice" was because of the apparent hypocrisy of utilizing the slogan for one personal medical procedure, yet supporting coercion for another. This could have been very easily explained.
You are a smart and articulate person very much lacking in todays 'Woke' ignorance.
Same exact thoughts here.
I’m shocked not one person brought up the fact that the vaccines have zero community benefit. This has been known for over a year now lol. I honestly don’t think I know a single vaccinated human who has not gotten Covid. Most of them got it twice!
#2 goes even farther than that. Not only are vaccine mandates clearly an issue of "my body", but aborting a baby is NOT your body. Its moronic to even suggest it
If a woman gets an abortion, do you start bleeding from the ass? No, right?
If you don't get vaccinated and get sick, can you make others sick? Yes, right?
There you go. Simple.
It's always the professors that are so quick to want to give rights away to "authority". I suppose they see themselves as an "authority" so subconsciously they believe they're fighting for their own "authority" to weigh over others. Its not really a feeling as community that drives them as much as the wanting to maintain their position in life.
Yes, their positions are very self-serving.
That's exactly it. As soon as the establishment falls their self worth goes. The day that society deems your occupation useless is the day you question your livelihood
You sure she was a professor!? Appealing to the majority is a very basic fallacy you’d hope a professor would avoid…
@@haroldberman1341 its the group think.
@@moonpie2637 no doubt. I’m just saying that she sounds more like your average student than a professor, as stated in the original post.
If we lose the right to choose what we do and how we live our lives, is there really a reason to keep living?
Giving the government control over what we do for one thing, opens the door for them to control how we do other things. Every year there are more regulations on what we can do and how we live our lives. If you really don't think that the government can overstep, than you haven't been paying attention to how things have changed over the years.
The lady said there is a general consensus that the fetus has less moral value yet there’s been a giant debate for 50+ years about it. And is that to suggest there Is a general consensus about the vaccine (which also has had a giant debate for the past two years).
Glad to see young people thinking things through with some complexity and flexibility.
@@LindsnDarth you can edit your comment if you prefer
Exactly the right question to ask. She seems to be under the impression that we have a cultural consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines. She also seems to be under the impression that an answer arrived at by consensus is always the correct answer.
Yeah, there definitely isn't a broad consensus, so returning the question to the individual states (of the USA) seems like a sensible move for political stability.
By general consensus, she means my personal opinion.
Putting the value of human life on a sliding scale based on arbitrary criteria is a dangerous place to go. And if you doubt that just look to just about any atrocity in history. Almost all steam from an idea that they, the other, the out group's life isn't as valuable. That they are less than, or not quite human.
Call that a Slippery Slope if you like, but history has borne it out many times over
If the vaccines (covid & flu) work so well, then how does the unvaccinated put the vaccinated at risk? As for the covid vaccine, you can still catch covid and spread covid. Does it make a difference on how bad your symptoms are whether you catch it from an unvaccinated person versus a vaccinated person?
The vaccine was a failed experiment so MSM put out a bunch of propaganda to fear monger people into getting the jab and completely redefined vaccine. People are stupid enough to fall for that shit apparently.
They dont know how vaccines work. What are you gonna do lol
Pretty much everyone I know got the Virus feom someone who was double vaxxed.
I caught COVID 4 mos ago. One of my coworkers who was vaccinated had a week before I did and he suffered worse. We talk about it sometimes acknowledging that is was weird that he was sick longer and had a cough longer. The big issues are there wasn't a lot of time to actually get a good study in before mandating the vax and the inconsistent information on the vax. This was definitely a huge failure.
@@tricktracy2254 I don't think it was a huge failure. People tried hard. However, the government mandate for the vaccinations was wrong. It clearly showed us that the people in charge for this type of issues were not leaders. Fauci should have known what to do. He could have done a lot. Instead, he was good at fighting with a politicians. I mean he should have prepared for this type of disaster. This proves there are no good, bright leaders in our government.
The “Consensus” is that when a woman has a miscarriage she doesn’t just smile and feel that she just lost something of low moral value.
Yeah, but you are leaving the wanted part out in that stament, is not the same
Neither when MOST women have an abortion. In fact, many are misled into thinking it's something that it's not and it affects them deeply for a long time. Statistically speaking, women who have had abortions commit suicide at higher rates and the trauma, guilt and shame are very difficult later so i don't believe her when she says a fetus has lower moral value. Abortion goes against your natural instinct as a woman.
So, the foetus changes in moral value depending on whether it is wanted or not. That's an interesting argument I've not heard before. I'm thinking I'll try that argument out on my puppy loving friends the next time I can't find a home for all the puppies in my dog's litter. As I say to my old dog each morning "no one way trip to the vet for you today".
this is an explanation, not a statement of my views, so don't expect a debate. This argument is a false equivalent, as having a miscarriage without knowledge of pregnancy would not evoke the same reaction, as well as there is a built-in assumption that all women who were to have a miscarriage would react exactly the same.
The _wanted_ aspect refers to wanting a life with a child, wanting to start the process of becoming a mother, wanting to have the experience of being a parent. It's not wanting the fetus for exactly 270 days in her belly. I'd be willing to bet that if, hypothetically with all other aspects being 100% equal, you could tell a potential mother that she could be pregnant for a single day and have her naturally conceived child easily in 24 hours, many women would like that. It's not because they want a fetus, it's because they want a child.
And again, the pro life/choice stance you may interpret from this isn't my opinion, this doesn't reflect my values. This is a statement of clarity about terms being used, twisted, and manipulated.
The more I watch these the more I’m convinced we need more honest journalism in this country.
Big medical has us all brainwashed. $$ selling baby parts, $$ selling vax. All about the $$. Blame Disney sponsored by big med.
Main stream journalism is a business, they will continue to lie for money. What’s need is a platform where individuals can discuss to understand why we agree as well as disagree on opinions regarding a titled subject. Twitter aka X can do it, but you must look for the proper page for great discourse that’s comparable to this videos methods~
Astounded how the boomer pro choice lady was anti my body my choice contradicted herself so much and was so unwilling to accept even a hypothetical!
I was hoping he would pose a different hypothetical: "If we could show to your satisfaction that a fetus is a living, sentient, being, would you be willing to move?" Her answer would be telling.
@@polsksm1 I'm not sure. I think she would still say because she thinks there is a general consensus that it has LOWER moral value than its mother does that the mother should have the right to abort it despite it having perhaps SOME moral value. That lady was severely and utterly brainwashed into a political and ideological pathology.
She's a cat lady
they're such hypocrites its disgusting. you literally cannot be pro-choice with abortion and anti-choice with vaccination. Even with the "community" argument, if you want a vaccine and you have access to it. If you're vaccinated then you should be fine, why would someone else need to get it if the vaccine protects you anyway? The Columbus argument is dumb too, no one could get vaccinated. People have the ability to get it no matter their race, income, education geological location within the US. The old morons clearly watch MSNBC
I really appreciate how Peter was able to facilitate in the spirit of sharing points of view.
like it used to be in the real world! I miss those days of objective thinking & respect. So refreshing (and gives me hope)
I realize at some point watching this, that we are taking for granted that the "vaccine" in question, is effective. If the vaccine in question was 100% effective, i would be standing on a different line than than if it were not. The fact that this new vaccine we are dealing with is not effective at all mires the discussion even more than the topic of abortion imo.
And that it's safe. And this is when we know there's been all kinds of collusion and censorship by the medical community, the government, and the press. I would love to see a segment where he gets to the root of the rationale behind this blind trust in government and corporations.
that shouldnt matter at all. if you feel like you want to get vaccine then get vaccine. if you feel like you dont want to get vaccine then dont. understand the risks of both sides and decide what risk you are willing to take. if a vaccine is 100% effective and someone decides they dont want to get it and they die thats on them. its as though vaccinated people are scared of unvaxxed people which makes zero sense. unvaxxed people maybe should be worried about other unvaxxed people. worry about yourself and decide your own risk.
The Covid vaccine is very effective at reducing risk of hospitalisation and death though. It reduces that by about 10x so it’s at the same level of risk as the seasonal flu. How can you claim what you’re claiming?
@@MusicalMemeology its a short lasting temporary therapy that needs to be reapplied constantly.
Ya this, those collage kids know if they say anything to the contrary it could be used against them. The boomers, especially the woman. Are dip shits who grew into older dishes who think they know best for everyone. The woman was struggling way too hard to explain herself
The abortion topic is conflicting for me. When i think of abortion, i cant help but think of my mom. Her and my dad didnt know i existed until 5 months into the pregnancy, and when they found out, they had a talk about if they should keep me or not.
Thankfully, she did keep me, but she could have went the other way and chosen to abort me, and if she did, i would not be here today, and to think that somebody who could have the potential to be born and have a truly fulfilling life be squandered before it began at the mothers discretion, makes me feel mournful and sorrowful, so i cant in good conscience condone abortion, except for very specific cases, such as the fetus already being dead in the womb, or with deformities of such an extent that if they were to be born, they wouldnt last two weeks, or if they do, then they would have a severe lack of brain function and body movement, to the point of being bedridden most of their life and spoonfed.
Aside from those types of cases, abortion just saddens me how quickly and easily a potential human life can be taken, completely beyond their control.
Do you think your views are superior to others and that you would deprive women with differing views to the right to choose for themselves? Do you think it’s right to criminalise desperate women?
@@megazw7740 there is no point to you trying to paint someone as an egotistical asshat due to a point of view you dont agree with, that only creates enemies.
No, i dont think my views are superior, im just in the more moralistic and empathetic side of it. I understand that abortion puts some women in a tight position, but i also think that i could have easily been the baby that gets aborted, and that would mean i wouldnt have the chance to exist and experience. I just want every potential baby to have a chance to live and experience the world like i have been able to.
Most abortions happen way before 5 months. Most abortions happen when the fetus hasn’t formed any features and would otherwise not be viable outside of the womb. What makes me sorrowful is to think about is all the i wanted amd abused and neglected children in this world that everyone seems to forget. People love to care about a fetus when it is inside a woman’s body and then give no fucks once the child is born. What are pro life people doing for these mothers? How are they supporting them? Are they gonna take it upon themselves to provide for or take care of the mother forced to have an unwanted child? Are they gonna provide for the baby once it is born? It makes me distressed to think about how many women will die if abortions are outlawed. Women and children. Keep abortions safe and legal and fix the fostercare system.
@@megazw7740 do you think those who advocated to free slaves held morally superior views? 🤔
@@bluebird6300 So you couldn't answer the questions. That's very telling.
You support slavery hun. Weird question.
The students were very impressive, I was very impressed with Vlad and his ability to articulate his beliefs and also the humility to leave room for growth and learning.
Quite the opposite for me. I thought they had many fallacies that I wish Peter had pressed them on. The older guy on the left was much more rational and concise in his words so I think he had the strongest argument. I think it's clear that most of the people here have not thought about this, and that's ok, but Peter has to push back more to help them come to their own rational conclusions.
@@NotEnoughHobbies my understanding is the older two people were professors, so the fact that these students are willing to not only articulate but push back is very impressive. I also think Vlad was correct in that there are risks to the vaccine, I know (actually know not just second hand) friends who had very adverse side effects from the vaccine, they are certainly a small percentage but knowing it does happen and they didn’t give any account for it, to me, showed lack of knowledge or concern for those. St the Vlad was willing to acknowledge that he didn’t take into account certain numbers because of the complexity of the issue. Again to me it just feels more honest and open because none of these subjects are as black and white as we assume. Also the idea that community consensus dictates morality is a bad one, as community ideas are ever changing and in this matter definitely doesnt have a full consensus.
My body my choice does not apply to abortion because there are TWO bodies involved not just the ONE. I know this is a apparently a difficult concept to grasp but it isnt fkn rocket science.
@@skinnie2838 I wasn’t making an argument for or against that…I was simply speaking on the articulation of the students.
I think that abortion has negative affects for the child, the woman, and society as well that we don’t speak about or aren’t educated enough.
@@NotEnoughHobbies Articulate in saying that killing a life is more acceptable than "potentially" harming someone that already took the vaccine? You have to start at "abortion" is just an innocent procedure in order to make this argument
Wow. The younger adults made so much more sense in this debate. Makes me smile.
The young woman didn't seem that smart.
@@lavienestpasunlongfleuvetr2559 I'm just glad she didn't allow the lady in pink to change her position
Everyone was wrong in this video. Not a single individual specified the false equivalence. I have yet to see anyone in the comments make the connection either.
@@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre Body autonomy should be across the board, that was the point. Including that of an unborn baby.
@@sarahwales6276 wellllllllllllllllll, I ain't never heard no future babies talkin' 'bout no 'bortions. Maybe they don't trust science🤔
Seriously though, that's not what I am talking about. I'm waiting for anyone to say what the actual problem with this is. Everyone is just running with it full speed. It reminds me of those videos that are like:
Gf : what does *Y E S* spell
Bf : _yes_
Gf : what does *E Y E S* spell?
Bf : E, _E yes?_ that's not a word
One thing i have never understood is why people say that someone who doesn’t get vaccinated is “putting others at risk” but if that vaccine works than why would it put someone at risk who’s been vaccinated?
It puts other unvacinated people at risk? As well as people who can't get vaccines
It has to do with the effort of slowing the spread so that the virus will stop mutating. You need to understand exponential growth to understand why. Everyone who doesn’t understand doesn’t understand exponential growth.
@@BlackJacketJones ok so that’s the risk they are willing to take, giving the state power over bodily autonomy is much more dangerous. Look what has happened over the last 2 years, “experts” were wrong about everything so I stopped listening. In Canada they just mandated a shot every 9 months, do you know how Insane that is? These shots are about profit and power can’t you see that yet?
Brainwashing.
They’re brainwashed.
@@richc369 no they cant they are fully brainwashed sheeple
If I was involved in this experiment i would be on the strongly agree side for this simple reason:
Taking a vaccine that could potentially harm me should always be a personal choice.
That doesn't mean I'm necessarily against vaccines but it's odd that people can't see that both issues are very similar.
The argument that i may harm others doesn't stand up as there are alternative actions I could take to avoid infecting others and there is NO actual certainty that I will infact harm someone.
So those who take the moral stance that it shouldn't be my choice because of the "possibility" that I may harm others but are totally ok with the "certainty" that a woman will end a the life of her child clearly shows the idiocy of the argument.
What they're ACTUALLY saying is that it's OK for a woman to have control over her body and DEFINITELY end a life if she chooses but it's WRONG for me to control my body and POSSIBLY harm someone.
👏👏👏👏👏👏
Exactly
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
9:58 she says something that genuinely made me question her intelligence
💯 percent agree🎉
@12:15. That lady is full of it. If a pregnant mother is murdered the killer is charged with 2 homicides. So her concensus argument is ridiculous.
I dunno the american law system (also because is different in different states)...but I highly doubt that that is true in all cases...
(like for example a pregnancy only up to the 5-6 week?)
@@dimercamparini It's a federal law. All over the US, a murderer will be charged for the harm against an embryo and fetus.
But what if the woman was on her way to an abortion clinic?
@@lavinder11 ok...that is quiet strange... :DDD
Bravo Vlad! I find it interesting that the two older people in the group were the ones that let their opinion on the specific subject matter influence how they thought about the overall policy question. They failed to see how their logic falls flat. If there were a consensus on value of a fetus as suggested by the older woman, then there would be no controversy around that subject. Similarly, if there were consensus on the value or importance of vaccines, there would be no need to mandate them. Individual liberty over ones own body should be paramount. No one should have dominion over my body except for me, regardless of the benefit to the greater society.
Right. And at 14:04 she admits "the truth is there is NO consensus" She is hunchbacked because her logic doesn't stand
she said there wasn't a consensus at around 3:03 as well. not sure where she said there was a consensus
@@jaxsonhammerkawk7436 I re-watched it and you are correct. I miss-heard her first statement. While it is correct that there is no such consensus, somewhere around 12:00 she claims that "...most Americans believe that fetuses have much less moral value that living ... people". Not sure where she gets that. If that were true, there would likely be no Pro-Life movement. It's obvious that both of the older people are both pro-abortion and pro-vaccine mandate. But, as Vlad points out, this is a slippery slope. If we mandate actions on our bodies based on majority decisions, they may not like the next one to come down the pike.
@@joew94th Most people aren't pro abortion, they're pro choice. And most people ive talked to about abortions are ok with it up til a fetus has developed enough to be conscious. I know that's still a hotly debated topic, but everything ive read puts that time around the 24th week. Which was the original cut off date for a lot of states to have abortions. Personally i think a woman should have the ultimate choice about what grows inside her. I also think the man should have some say in it but that's a whole other topic. Personally i wouldn't want my wife to ever have an abortion, but i understand not everyone is in a steady relationship or financial situation to have a kid, or whatever their reason is.
I don't think their should be government mandates about vaccines, but i do think that if you choose not to then you may not have a right to enjoy the same freedoms as people who have been vaccinated. When a person decides not to get vaccinated, that choice affects the rest of society in a negative way. No matter what you all say, a woman choosing to get an abortion does not. A woman getting an abortion can't spread that abortion to multiple other women and have that abortion mutating inside her til it grows to be a super abortion that doctors can't treat. The two subjects are not similar at all.
@@jaxsonhammerkawk7436 I agree, for the most part. While I don't personally believe that abortion is the most ethical decision, I am strongly opposed to the government restricting it. It's a personal decision that can be made only by those most impacted by it. I also agree with the decision to be vaccinated. Again, I'm strongly opposed to the government mandating any such actions. Wherever one stands on these two issues, the government should have no say in them. We enact laws to support our common values. We pretty much all believe that murder is wrong, therefore, it's against the law. When the values in question are no longer common, the law should be questioned. As for whether abortion rights and vaccination rights are of equal standing, I believe that's a matter of opinion. The woman in this video was quick to trivialize the position with which she disagreed "a little prick in the arm", yet exaggerated that with which she agreed "the terrible burden of carrying a baby". (paraphrased of course).
Vlad is awesome. very well articulated points. i love his “i don’t feel confident quantifying my confidence because i’m open to changing.” he’s the type of person i want to surround myself with.
Absolutely. The ironic thing is that I wouldn't even be standing where he is standing because there are way too many variables both for vaccines and abortion for me. I think I'd stand on "neutral", even though I'm not neutral at all I am extremely opinionated, it just depends on too many factors. I might have even stood with the old unimpressive dingbats on the other side of the room because the two things are not the same, but I agree far more with Vlad.
Then again, as he points out "state" track records once they receive that sort of power, I might have then walked back across the room and joined Vlad. Or maybe I'd have walked across the room and joined Vlad because, like you said, I'd much rather be around people like him.
💯💯💯💯 🥂
He was too polite about the extreme left's side. Placating them by saying they had a "great argument for getting vaccinated" (cf. the old guy's absurd Christopher Columbus analogy) was either sly, dry sarcasm that went over my head, or mushy, over-indulgence to the oldster's illogical, anti-scientific propaganda.
The more I watch these. We need to split populations by opinions. I dont wanna live with people who think its ok to be violent for any reason. I also dont wanna live with people who think forcing me to take something I dont want is ok.
By any sane idea of a vaccine, those who have been vaccinated should be protected. There should be no threat from the unvaccinated.
Additionally, the implications of becoming infected (symptoms, outcome), or even the absolute risk of becoming infected will vary by individual.
These are the same ppl who have the highest STD rates because they aren’t scared of viruses. Make no mistake, they
know what they are part of and think they will rise to the top of it.
Correct. However the COVID 19 vaccines are not vaccines
and the vaccine does not prevent infection....so, people are just putting themselves at risk by trying an experiment, and there is no benefit whatsoever.
Children. Those with health problems that can not get the vaccine or have immunity problems. We also don’t want those who refuse the vaccine to get sick. It’s an awful thing to go through so why risk it? Nobody wants someone sick and contagious walking around. Whether it’s deadly for us vaccinated or not, it’s nasty.
There's a huge assumption taking place here, by those on the "strongly disagree" side the debate, and that is that vaccines are 100% safe and effective.
yea there wasnt any mention about how this vaccine was rolled out faster than any of its kind in all of medical history and because of decades of a drop in faith in our government, them telling us to go to china town and everythings fine and then telling us to stay indoors and triple mask and quadruple vaccine ASAP before being able to shop or work was where things went wrong.
and y'all think a little fever after the vaccine is equal to death. please...
They are not. I refused the vaccination after watching someone die from it. No way in hell I'm putting that poison in my body.
There's also a misconception that vaccines stop the spread or limit it. With those additional pieces to the puzzle, their premise for their position falls apart. The question is: if you provided them with this data, would they believe it or would their bias prevent them from incorporating the new data in order to formulate an updated opinion?
Their whole definition of a vaccine is already corrupted by the new narrative. If these "vaccines" were as effective as they claim, they wouldn't need to worry about the unvaccinated.
I remember when the hard scientific consensus was 30 to 35% is herd immunity. Now the popular opinion of that is suddenly 100%. This is how much it has shifted in only 2 years. And that's shocking, to put it mildly.
Being forced or coerced to have a procedure done to you is a much clearer violation of bodily autonomy than having a procedure be unavailable to you.
That's because being forced to have a procedure is actually a violation of bodily autonomy, while not having one available is not.
Someone else has to perform a procedure, and you don't have a right to someone else's labor, so there's no violation of a right when it's not performed.
Now, there *is* a violation when someone is told they cannot perform a procedure, or cannot participate in a procedure that another is freely willing to perform.
Just tightening up the nuances for whoever reads these comments.
I just hope that everyone in this discussion when they get a chance, will visit or call their mothers to thank them for choosing life.
That guy on our right needs a podcast. He has humility and also confidence. What a combination. I hope he doesn't lose that.
Love that you pointed out his humility!
Most people lose it once they go into universities and find out they mostly lean left and push narratives. You either join or stay quiet
His own pod cast? Man I have conversations with lot of people like him. He is normal in my book which is good. Disagree without malice
Can we at least have a consensus that an 8 month fetus is different than an an embryo?
That's definitely true. A fetus is never an embryo as embryo is the stage prior to the fetus in human development.
A toddler is also different from a teenager too.. just to make sure we are all in agreement.
Most pro abortion folks won't agree to that because then why not 6 months or 5 months, or 4 months. So they hold the line and say up to delivery it's just a clump of cells. It's sad really.
@@iandrake4683 well can you point to where it says, definitively? who is the authority? (don't say god ffs, when does god come and let us in on anything?) cos i went to the NHS website to look up "when does life start" but i forgot about it when i read "abortion is between the patient and the doctor" and that's really all anyone needs to know, unless you're directly involved.
Of course. And there is no such thing as "abortion" of an 8 month fetus. In such a case there would be a delivery with efforts to save the life of the child. What you are proposing is an absolute MYTH.
One dimension not well explicated here is the efficacy of the vaccine. There's a big difference between a vaccine with horrendous and frequent side effects and minimal protective effect, and one that has virtually no side effects and is essentially perfectly protective. This needs to be balanced with the morbidity of the disease - that is, something like a cold versus rabies.
How does a non vaccinated person endanger a vaccinated person? If the vaccine works then what are you endangered of?
This is my biggest problem with the entire argument. No one has ever been able to give me a coherent answer to this question.
Assuming by vaccine they mean covid specificly. Wow that older lady said unborn children don't have value. That is mind blowing to me. She also said the individual consequence to getting jabbed is not comperable. Many would disagree
Vlad is on point with his critical-thinking ability. I wholeheartedly appreciated his statements especially him concluding with “7-10”.
Yes!
He was the only one with common sense, and could see past his nose where allowing others and the Government to control your body, leads to a dangerous slippy slope!
that humility was insane on his part; i was really impressed
that humility was insane on his part; i was really impressed
"A tiny poke in the arm", they also use "tiny pokes" in inmate executions.
Right. Like saying raising the baby is like having a pet goldfish. The “little jab” has caused a lot of damage
Would love to see this done with the question "if a mother can choose to have an abortion, the father should be able to choose whether to be apart of the childs life (physically and financially)"
Men have been doing that for years anyway
People seem to forget about the rights of the father. Does he have any?
@@melitageivett2084 No. That's why there's condoms. Don't want a kid, use protection.
Do you believe that same argument could be made to a woman who wants to abort a child she willingly conceived?
"Didn't want a kid? should've used protection"
@@Gryzzn I don't understand. Why would she abort a child she "willingly conceived"? Or do you mean something else?
What an interesting dichotomy. Vlado articulated his reasoning very well, but remained open to listening to other points of view. On the other hand, the lady on the opposite side seemed preoccupied with assumed consensus of opinion.
It is encouraging that young people value freedom of choice, rather than the coercive group think that is prevalent in a lot of social discourse at the moment.
I'm amazed that this kind of discussion can still happen in some universities. I mean, this is a real discussion.
It seems that Leftalitarians often manufacture or coerce consensus by either appealing to the state to mandate things they like or to make people think they will be ostracized if they speak their mind. They are masters of it. Luckily about 10% of people are naturally contrarian and that switch is a psychological antibody to such social pressure.
At 14:04 she backtracks and says that the truth is there is no consensus.
Vlad is Russia. The abortionists are American Jewry. They'll never agree.
she was COKED UP ON CONSENSUS.
@LonerlRelnol they DID understand, they just willfully feigned being oblivious because it didnt align with their line of thinking. personal freedom/liberty is a very basic concept and an innate desire. without it they werent even allowed to articulate their arguments. it was pretty obvious that the elders got mixed up with the community/policy type of thinking and decision making like many many others these days.
Very interesting take on the "value" of the fetus. Why are sea turtle eggs more protected in our country than a human fetus?
Sea turtles are endangered, human fetus are not. Sea turtles play vital roles in maintaining the health of the worlds oceans, human fetus do not. I get your point, but the battle to protect see turtles is a lot easier then battling for something that half a countries population is morally against. I have never seen a rally to allow poaching of an endangered species. As for the value of a fetus, she has a point whether you like it or not. All life has value, but not all life has equal value. If there is a home on fire, and it has a 90 year old and a 5 year inside, but you can only save one of their lives, who do you choose and why?
In questions of morality, value is always relative. So saying that sea turtle eggs are more protected than a fetus therefor americans value the life of sea turtle eggs more, is flawed logic. Idk the price of protecting a sea turtle egg but I'm going to guess that the cost is not the right to bodily autonomy that pro abortion folks hold in such high value.
Sea turtles’s lives in general are endangered by our very existence. Our rising population combined with the way in which we recklessly live is destroying the environment in which these sea turtles live. So yes, we need to protect them. They have value to the delicate balance of nature. Humans however….
That was answere. Sea turtles will be extinct if their eggs are not protected. No danger of humans being extinct so no need to protect their eggs. Therefore SAME value. If human eggs were in danger of EXTINCTION the. We would protect them equally so. Do you eat chicken eggs?
@@madcow9421 Yes I eat unfertilized chicken eggs AND I grew up in Hawaii on the big island and helped protect the turtles. That is not the point. Of course they should be protected! Cows are not near extinction, yet many people do not eat meat because they consider it a LIFE. It just seems hypocritical that many say that a turtle egg is a life, but a human fetus not yet born is not, then craft legislation around it.
I would hire Vlad in an instant if I had all these participants to a job interview. Collected, smart, informed, holds his own even against slight peer pressure.
Extraordinary exercise design Peter!! Highlights the extreme hypocrisy of the hill so many stand on!
I don't understand the phobia that the vaccinated have for the un-vaccinated. I mean if you are vaccinated, you are safe. Right?
No, there are levels of collective vaccination that need to be reached to stop a disease from spreading
Like it was with polio - which is a super rare in developed countries as opposed to some afghan/pakistan areas where parents don't allow med personnel to give a child polio vaccine
Some others like smallpox, chicken poх, measles were almost eradicated only due to mass vaccination
@@nettakogopolzovatela what you said makes no sense
@@JDmix123 Very funny. I can write your nonsense to reply - "what you said makes no sense"
The people on the disagree side is a perfect example of what happens when people have no objectivity, especially moral objectivity. It’s one hundred percent ideology.
they're mentally retarded walking hypocrites
The saying “They don’t have an opinion, the opinion has them” comes to mind.
By moral, do you mean using fairy tales?
why did no one bring up the fact that vaccines are supposed to prevent people from getting something through contagion... thats what it means to *"immunize"* which was in the definition of vaccine prior to C-19 shot
I totaly agree with my body my choice, but when you get pregnant its not your body but 2 body's
This is the only logical conclusion. Hence why the Pink lady refers to the baby as a “fetus” or “embryo”. Take fetus or embryo to the logical extreme and it’s abhorrent idea.
Then vaccines don't apply to my body my choice either, because you're part of a society and your choice can impact everyone around you.
well, no it's not. you shed 35 BILLION cells every day, can you tell me how many cells make a feotus? can you also tell me when that glob of cells becomes self aware? and why if this bunch of cells, this zygote, this blasticis is born who looks after it then, cos the mother is dead, or insane, or flat broke (cos even adoption has a limit dictated by money, so don't oull that one) cos atm no one cares once that child is born.
That is only true when you consider a 1minute zygote (or a very underdeveloped fetus) as a "body"...and that is up to discussion (not everyone thinks that).
So you still cant reach a dininitive conclusion on that matter..."logic" cant be used in this context since you can have different premises to start from, and thus your logic can be different from that of another person who use a different premise for his reasoning.
@@dimercamparini You can have an opinion that a rock is alive. Is it your argument that rocks being alive is open to interpretation? Your psychosis isn't a "open interpretation" of reality. Reality exists and an embryo is absolutely a living organism, unless it's dead, of course. But you can't be dead without having been alive.
I'm not even from the United States.
How many lives did vaccines save?
Myself and everyone I know will never get any more.
To be honest, I find the arguments from the elderly duo to be utter pish.
Honestly probably not many. I believe they have more harm than good. The goods are things like sanitation, clean water.
The arrogance of that woman in pink. "The consensus is that a fetus/embyro has a lower moral value than living, sentient people." How dare you speak for a majority of people.
She is just stating a thing that most ppl perceive as "reasonable"...that is true...
9 months are a LOOONG process, and the road for 1 single cell to become a full developed human body is long and complex.
So is totally natural that most ppl think that up to a certain point of development a fetus is not yet a complete human with all his rights attached...
@Phillis "Dick" Black she is in fact arrogant. Notice how she completely ignored the request to stand on the line.
@Phillis "Dick" Black and the sources that it's the truth?
@Phillis "Dick" Black citation needed
Forced medical injections without consent, no matter how safe or not, is not commensurate with freedom, thus not commensurate with human health. Freedom IS the greater good without which human health and life are under greater threat than from a virus.
Here's the thing, it's up to people to protect themselves from perceived threats, thus, I don't have to get a medical procedure to make you feel "safe." So yes, my body my choice when we're talking about vaccines. However, when you say my body my choice with abortion, there's a problem. In utero humans are nonetheless humans, and although they may be temporarily occupying a woman's body, they are humans, so it gets a little more complicated because we're not talking about your body per se, we're talking about intentionally ending the life of another human being who happens to be inhabiting your body while in development. This question is apples to oranges. It however does expose the left's hypocrisy due to the fact that they seem to almost always be the ones who are all about abortion and also want to have you forced into a medical experiment.
Ive read a few comments here and yours is by far the best in articulating the issue ,,IMO
Indeed.
And that is why I would still "disagree" with the assertion that "my body my choice" should be equally true for both issues.
It's just that I would disagree for the OPPOSITE reason of those in this video.
Vx is only affecting MY body.
Ab affects another person.
Love the comment and I agree with most of what you're saying here.
I, however, don't think the question is so much apples to oranges as you make it out to be.
The moral value that the people should be arguing about in the activity is "personal autonomy and stewardship over their own bodies"
When situated in the vaccine debate, we are looking at the tradeoff value of "personal autonomy" versus "public health/authority".
When situated in the abortion debate, we are looking at the tradeoff value of "personal autonomy" versus "potential human life"
If we rank-order our values from 1 to 3, then
We could see individuals such as Vlad rank personal autonomy above all else,
Pro-lifers would place human life first, and
Pro-Vaccine mandate lefties would place public health above all else - it absolutely exposes them as hypocritical.
The reason why this activity was so interesting is precisely because Peter balanced three values instead of just two.
Yet the pouplation being vaccinated is the whole point of vaccination, how do you think the spanish flue was erradicated.... Why do you think children are still required to get vaccination for measles. Because stupid people, who can't understand the science think like you. "it's my body it's only affecting me' And then we hear about measle outbreaks in a class because some parent read a blog and decided they knew more than the rest of the medical community.
And hey, I'm all for writing into law that a fertalized egg is considered a human immidiately, Just know that means that if a miscarrige occurs for whatever reason there are grounds to throw a woman into prison. After all something she did with her body contributed the death of a person right. I wonder how many times your mother would have had to go to prison before you were born, or how many times your wife will.
And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.
- Numbers 5:19-24
If abortion is good enough for god, it should be good enough for you.
@nick zzz I disagree with your final statement. This question highlights the hypocrisy on both sides not just one.
The right believe that they are allowed to choose to get a jab or not because it is there body. But they want to choose to decide what someone else does with their body when it comes to abortion.
There may be another body at play, but that does not mean it’s not your body and that you do not have a choice of what goes on with your body.
The left believes it’s their body so they are free to get the procedure done because it is their body, their choice. But they want to choose what someone does with their body when it comes to getting a vaccine.
Do you see the hypocrisy on both sides here? Each side wants to enforce their opinions on one another but neither side wants someone else’s opinion forced on them.
If you are viewing “my body my choice” from a matter of principle, people should try to be less hypocritical
I think it's interesting that the phrase my body my choice applied to vaccines instills the same fear that people will make the wrong choice that it does in people who are against abortion. What a lovely discussion. Thank you
The woman in pink.
If my wonderful mother heard someone declaring her pregnancy 'a burden' she'd have just felt sorry for the this woman.
Vlad showed a clearly more intelligent and balanced approach. This should be a sign to everyone.
Old people are closer to death. They are speaking from a place of fear. The differences between past vaccines & their efficacy & possible side effects and the particular vaccine this discussion is really about should be mentioned, along with natural immunity. I know it’s a very small sample size, but I was glad to see where the younger people stood. Freedom & liberty have a price, but the price of not having freedom & liberty is much higher. Not all freedoms are the same. All vaccines are not the same either. My body, my choice is an important principle.
I noticed of the 2 extreme ends, one of them had thought more deeply about the issues with some reasoning and logic and understood the counter point of view. On the other end they didn’t even understand the other sides argument and seemed more like the immediate consequences of both actions were paramount and didn’t seem to think beyond that for the unintended, unexpected and unwanted consequences. I will let you guess which side is which :).
Well put.
This holds true thru all of these videos. One side is always unwilling to even give thought to the other sides argument. It is not hard to find that common thread holding that side together
@@tripperjones1294I agree, I think Peters style of conversation shines a spotlight on it that makes it easily recognizable.
@@uneducatedthinker It does, but you realize he's shining the spotlight trying to get the overall answer he wants, right? I agree with the answer he's seeking, but he's clearly not neutral.
I notice the issue of the unborn's intrinsic personhood is dismissed as "debatable" but the myriad of issues & questions involved in a vaccine decision are somehow not "debatable"
Aren't compelled medical interventions against the Nuremberg treaty? Aren't they considered a violation of human rights?
The problem with the entire "my body, my choice" argument is it's NOT just the woman's body.
The unborn have a unique DNA, a normal woman does not have two sets of organs and the vast majority of biologists and embryologists agree human life begins at fertilization:
_"Overall, 95% of all biologists surveyed affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502)."_
So I agree you're comparing apples and oranges, but their conclusions are completely irrational in the face of empirical, scientifically backed evidence.
Pregnancy - is a woman's body burden, so it's up to her to decide if she willing to experience that, and other problems after birth, when all pro-lifers don't care anymore how that child and in what circumstances will be raised and educated. And then we have psychologically unstable population )))
@@nettakogopolzovatela typical leftist idiocy. How is another human baby a burden? If you do not want to handle the consequences of sexual intercourse then focus on the strict measures for its prevention, snowflake.
@@nettakogopolzovatela your argument justifies killing anyone deemed 'a burden' on someone else. And you are already stepping away from arguing the 'fetus' (which is simply a stage of human development like new born, baby, toddler, child, preteen, teenager, young adult, adult, geriatric, etc) is part of the woman.
You have already abandoned the idea that it is her body. Which proves my point.
And I have addressed your new premise. It could be argued, and indeed has by pro abortion advocates, that those with 'medical defects' pose a burden on society and thus should be killed:
_"According to Sanger, the code would “protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.”"_
The same argument, if applied consistently, could apply to any number of groups and be used as the basis to kill countless people.
You are using the same argument used in 1930s Germany...
_"As Adolf Hitler consolidated his power at home in anticipation of war, he moved not only against Jews, Sinti, and Roma but also against those Aryans whom he considered “unworthy of life”-people with epilepsy, alcoholism, birth defects, hearing loss, mental illnesses, and personality disorders, as well as those who had vision loss or developmental delays or who even suffered from certain orthopedic problems. Hitler viewed them as “marginal human beings” who had to make a case for their own survival at a time when the nation was preparing for war."_
As for your Red Herrings and Ad Hominem they only serve to show your intellectual dishonesty and disqualify you from further respectful discussion.
@@gusmc2220 Not justifying killing anyone - it's you who are trying to redherring me ))). Bad try
It's up to a woman to decide what to do with her body. I'm just saying that pro-lifers treat woman as an incubator without her voice and they usually completely disappear after leaving a woman with another set of problems
@@nettakogopolzovatela you literally said 'a burden' that is not a 'Red Herring' (the term you're trying to use is Strawman) your entire argument was based on one human being a burden upon another. By trying to say that logic should apply in the case of abortions and not other cases without giving a legitimate reason why you are now committing the fallacy of Special Pleading:
_"Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason."_
SO we have moved from 'her body, her choice' to people who are a burden on others don't have a Right to Life, to no only those who YOU choose don't have a Right to Life.
That is the crux of the problem, and exactly why I cited the examples I did. That way of thinking and those jumps in logic HAVE already resulted in the deaths of millions of people. And that type of devaluing human life so as to avoid personal inconvenience sets an extremely dangerous precedent.
Because let's be honest the only 'choice' at question here is the one that necessitates the intentional ending of a human life through force and violence. And considering over 98% of abortions are performed as a form of retroactive contraceptive your argument amounts to 'I should be allowed to kill someone else because I made poor life choices' that is evil incarnated
Especially when you realize that around 86% of women seeking an abortion admit to not using any contraception or not using their chosen contraceptive consistently the month they became pregnant and on top of that nearly half the women seeking an abortion have had at LEAST one prior abortion.
So don't try and use Cherry Picked fringe cases as your justification for the rest.
Oh sorry, does the truth not fit your narrative? That's your problem
Objectively speaking, American abortion laws were far more lenient than European laws:
"Note, too, that the Democratic Party’s extreme position on abortion represents the views of its white, highly educated voters but not its minority members. While 83 percent of white Democrats support legal abortion, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center poll, only 66 percent of black Democrats agree. Similarly, Pew found that 35 percent of white Democrats say voters should support only candidates who favor legal abortion, while just 7 percent of black Democrats say the same.
Meanwhile, the United States has, overall, more permissive abortion laws than almost anywhere else in the world. It is one of only seven countries - the others are Canada, China, the Netherlands, North Korea, Singapore and Vietnam - to allow elective abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as The Washington Post’s Fact Checker column has confirmed."
The putting other people in danger point is moot. These vaccines dont stop transmission
This, is not a traditional vaccine. And it just doesn't work effectively, that's the issue. The mRNA technology has huge flaws . Mostly, survival to get to the target sites without being destroyed in the blood stream.
So happy I’m in Hvac and go to work with normal ass dudes that talk shit and enjoy life. These professors are insane.
Asking students to be honest and possibly get completely socially banished is awesome, probably terrifying (you can see it in their eyes usually)and totally necessary right now.
I think its interesting that the young people (most likely to be affected by vaccine, least likely to be affected by COVID) agreed that bodily autonomy should be respected, but the old people say that they should be forced. Maybe a 5 minute lesson beforehand on the actual gains of the vaccine after 3 months would be relevant?
The American system was founded on the premise that the individual given the choice will do what's in his own best interest and that the best interest of the individual aligns with his community more often than not.
so what? The individual in not subordinate to the group, that's what liberty is all about.
The American system was not founded on anarchy. It was founded as a Republic, a compromise between anarchy and mob rule
The woman that says “the burden of a little jab in your arm is nothing and a baby is huge.” We don't know the burden of these jabs yet. And killing a baby at 6 months has to have a mad effect on the woman, and what if the man what's to keep it but the woman doesn't? The man would feel huge pain at the loss of his child.
Oh man...I felt bad for that guy who kept saying "woman," and then claimed a company paid a 70K a week salary.
I got his point in the end, but he was STRUGGLING badly...he needed a lifeline there!
He meant to say yearly, referring to Dan Price's company.
I would say that logically "my body, my choice" should apply to vaccines, but not abortion.
By and large there is a choice (or sometimes many) that precede abortion, but vaccine mandates are foisted upon us. There's a major difference.
One is a direct and obvious consequence of our actions (pregnancy/abortion), and the other is a problem brought to our doorstep to figure out, not of our own making.
I agree with you, but tell this to a leftist and they'll give the predictable responses:
1. You can choose not to take the vax.
2. What about women who are raped?
I believe these issue comes down to accountability. If a women gets pregnant under normal circumstances its her responsibility to nurture, love her baby, and take care of her baby.
For vaccines it comes down to the fact that nobody except yourself is responsible for your health and the biggest things that are necessary for your health is nutrition, sleep, light exposure, being a part of a community/social connection, purpose in life, exercise, etc are free and we dont need to pay some doctor or pharmaceutical company for our health. The government and pharma companies want to take away our sense of personal responsibility/accountability and make us think we NEED them to function/survive.
Giving away personal responsibility to big daddy government is a pillar of liberal/socialist idealogy that tries to tell people all there problems are caused by external factors outside of the individuals control and also can be solved by a external actor (government or other big agencies/industries).
@@Mewing4life I'm not vaccinated. I am Pro choice.
The Government and strangers should never have a say over another's body.
If you think women who fall pregnant should be forced to keep it. They made their choice when having sex.
The same can be said about thoses that fall ill, through not having a vaccine. Having cancer through smoking. Diabetes through not eating properly.
Liver disease through drinking, and so forth should not receive any medical care. And they should live with the fact that they are going to die through the lack of responsibility they took with their lifestyle!
We need to be careful what we wish for and what we force onto others.
Once we've opened Pandora's Box, it can not be closed and you might not like the outcome, of what You helped put in place!
@@Mewing4life So you're against giving children up for adoption then? How unreasonable can you be? Not everyone's made for parenthood - some people simply aren't up to the job, for any number of reasons, some of which are none of their fault.
What about rape? What about failed contraception? Why place all the responsibility on the woman? She's not the only one creating the foetus.
Not being vaccinated for viruses like polio has huge implications on society. It doesn't just affect the unvaccinated undividuals. Some vaccines actually do curb transmission. Viruses mutate when they spread, so the more they spread, the more they mutate. The fewer people who are vaccinated, the more they spread and the more they mutate, which increases the chance of them mutating into a virus that the vaccines don't cover.
Aside from that, where vaccines reduce the severity of a disease, getting vaccinated reduces the risk of wasting hospital resources on treating severe symptoms, which has a knock-on effect for people with other conditions.
Having sex doesn't grant a fetus the right to use somebodies body without their permission. The mother has the right to terminate a pregnancy on the ground that it's self-defense. How she got into that situation has no relevance to that choice. People have sex for all sorts of reasons and it doesn't mean that her life should be totally wrecked based on some weird theological reasons.
Foetus means "small child" or "unborn child " in Latin so using a word in another language doesn't mean the meaning of the word has changed . Aqua still means water even if it's in Latin so saying Foetus instead of a child doesn't mean it's not a child .
So, your line of reasoning js wrong. Often when you "adopt" words in your language, over time they can end up becoming somehing different. That being said, in the cambridge dictionary fetus is "unborn human being". So it is by definition a human. So yeah, you are right.
Talk to your friends and family who you know that work in the hospitals. Ask them who they are seeing more often... Vax or Unvaxxed individuals.
She said the abortion rate hasnt changed in hundreds of years? Are you kidding me. Just who was keeping track and where are the records?
Great job, Vlad!👏
As usual, a fascinating dissection of the tenuous nature of our thinking.
Plus, REALLY alarming how many people believe in the efficacy of vaccination and downplay its negative outcomes.
Vaccines are actually incredibly effective. mRNA injections that required the definition of vaccine to be changed for them to count as such, not so much
@@dogbot55 I have chronic bladder infection and ethanol allergy cause of the vaccine. My girlfriend's menstrual cycle is off the charts. Some times occurring twice a month, sometimes not occurring for 6 months. We are trying to have a child...good luck with that now.
I would not have taken the vaccine had I known about these side effects.
@@dogbot55 sorry that is not true at all. Most pro vaxxers love pointing to polio as the shining example of vaccine efficacy. However, even mainstream news sources have reported in the last few years that the majority of polio cases today worldwide are vaccine induced, rather than wild type.
Those that sacrifice freedom for safety end up with neither freedom nor safety
I like the topic, but was really disappointed in the depth of the participants answers. I would give credit to those that are younger and learning. but to the older, it was scary to hear such inconsistency and lack of individualism. It appears to be all they care about is the collective.
The covid vaccines cannot protect one from catching covid but just lessen the potential of having serious adverse health conditions upon catching covid. Beaides, vaccinated people can still spread covid.
Yes, so if YOU have the vaccine, me being vaccinated has zero affect on you directly. Some indirect "hospitals are full" bullshit that never actually hits reality isn't the fault of the sick, or potentially sick either
Exactly, but he didn’t limit the argument to one type of vaccine. I was thinking along the lines you were but there are other vaccines that have nearly eradicated diseases. So that changes a bit on what line I would stand on.
Exactly there is no moral justification for claiming it prevents others from getting sick.
@@GilaMonster971 Agreed, equating all vaccines as one monolith is disingenuous.
Is this video two years old? This is basic knowledge now.
I’m in with Vlad on this scale. I’m not buying that if someone else is vaccinated, my choice not to be is effecting them more than a woman getting an abortion.
And I’m going to be consistent that if I use ‘my body, my choice’ for one, I have to for the other.
If you have been vaccinated then why would you care if someone hasn’t? If the vaccine is effective then it wouldn’t matter.
This is a very hypothetical scenario, but to push back on the argument of the benefit to society: if the human race was on the verge of extinction (or a subset of humans), would it be acceptable to force artificial insemination?
Hypotheticals are great. I hate how everyone would pretend they are logical fallacies. This is how humans get to PRINCIPLED decision making.. they compare and contrast. Thats a GREAT question BECAUSE it's the extreme. The edge cases are how you really define boundaries well. We spend so much time arguing over the middle with very little thought into why we are there. I don't believe that humanity is THAT important, but I also don't believe you would have to have that as the human sex drive would suffice, and if it did not . I believe natural selection ensues. So I would say, forcing pregnancy would be wrong. The individual should decide their own path, but... if you decide to voluntarily do the things get pregnant (we call that sex for the odd folks lol), I believe the consequences are in, not the choices, at that point.
For the extra controversial points, remove "artificial" for "X" reason(s) (e.g., not accessible/too costly).
@@truthbetold1855 I agree, I hate the term false equivalence… there is no perfect comparison and sometimes analyzing extreme hypotheticals allows to better question our own beliefs. Another hypothetical would be: If your blood contained a rare compound that could cure a very rare disease (100ppl worldwide), should you be mandated to give your blood?
@@johnnylatulipe Thats right, and that slope is easily extrapolated to all human experiments. We've been here before, and the same people are the same people. Not to sound like a nerd, but THANOS thinks he's doing what's best for the universe.. same as these folks.
@@truthbetold1855 Imagine a man and a woman who don't know each other being marooned on an island say after some worldwide human tragedy, and as long as they think they are (probably) the only humans left, and assuming they can still make babies, they are likely to mate (have sex) even if there isn't any love or affection between them.
That is, I agree that in the extinction scenario, probably there is no need to force a couple to have sex and thus a baby.
Is that lady really trying to say that for "hundreds of years" Americans have had the same moral values regarding abortion? Really? 1800s, same "consensus"?
Holy cow! A series of well thought logical arguements on both sides that doesn't degenerate into a shouting match. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU.
It's the quiet ones who stab you in the back. Some of these people are incredibly dangerous. A logical argument can be made a mile long, but if it's rooted in a false premise, all you've got is a convincing lie.
Arguments perhaps but not of equal value.
"When thirsty in a desert, even urine would be a delightful beverage"
Well, there were certainly logical arguments, but not all on both sides.
@@KageOji77 In the current piss poor environment, I'm trying to encourage anything that is better.
The main flaw there is that not taking the vaccine risks people, but primarily people who are not vaccinated, who by that virtue have accepted that risk just like you. They consent to the risk just as you do.
The argument for liberty over public safety is simple. Once we stop valuing liberty (individual autonomy), society decays into tyranny, and arguments along the lines of "we must do/sacrifice this or that for public safety" become just one more means by which that tyranny is perpetuated. QED.
Once we sacrifice liberty in favour of safety, we are left with neither liberty nor safety. The act of sacrificing liberty negates the justification for it, as a society without liberty is not worth sacrificing anything for.
Right. Anything can be justified as part of "the greater good." The ends don't always justify the means. In my experience, almost never.
individual autonomy is at odds with living in a civil society
@@xdrowssap4456 Civil society has laws to ensure that, as much as possible, one individual does not infringe on the individual autonomy of others. A society that sacrifices individual autonomy for public safety sacrifices the very thing that makes it worth living. Human flourishing cannot exist without individual autonomy.
@@lucasfabisiak9586 and if we work diligently at ensuring and protecting individual rights, the rights of the collective are, by extension, also protected.