Watching Handmaid's Tale really drove the point home for me regarding bodily autonomy. Kind of embarrassed to admit that I was anti-abortion as a younger man.
if bodily autonomy is a HUMAN right then unborn children (as human beings) would have that right and abortion would still need to be illegal as abortion violates the body of a human being in the worst way- by destroying that body
I dont get why people want to stand against abortions so bad. As a woman i should have a right to do what i want to do with my body like any man. If you dont like abortions simply dont get any. The bible treats fetuses as property so it isn't fair to bring in "religious reasons" considering the bible also says life begin at first breath and the abrahamic god also killed many children as well. I believe abortions CAN save lives whether it is the mother's or the child from suffering later on.
That's right. I am personally against abortion and will NEVER have one. That is my choice. But it SHOULD be a choice that's available to anyone that becomes pregnant. There are MANY people whose futures would be destroyed if they didn't have this option, especially for those in the lower rungs of society.
It should be a choice. People make mistakes, people are victims of unwanted sex, birth control fails, some people aren't ready to have children but when people argue like abortion is a GOOD thing that should be encouraged or glorified, it's pretty disgusting.
@@5-Volt Who has encouraged or glorified abortion? Do you think that any woman is happy to have to get an abortion? They may be relieved that they have the choice, but they are not choosing it because they like getting an abortion.
@@5-Volt you honestly lost me on the last part. Abortions CAN be good and it CAN be bad. Bad usually being unsafe, illegal abortions that are usually only there because of the criminalization of abortions.
That won't work as well all know what a priest wants to (and possibly will) do to them when they're a bit older...if you know what I amen, and I am sure you do.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Yes. Protect, nurture, educate, support, and cherish your offspring. You seem to think all prospective mothers can pull this off. You sure about that?
@@Sue-xv8os If they cannot do that with their born child (and they thought they could before giving birth) would that E V E R justify them taking the life of their unwanted newborn? Absolutely not. Therefore it is a horrible excuse for a man or a woman to the life of their unborn child.
Life and personhood are different. A human corpse has personhood, but no life. Bacteria has life, but not personhood. Something being alive does not mean it's a person or a human. That said, there's nothing wrong with someone getting an abortion.
@@rockys201 When you get a cut and you bleed, those blood cells are "alive", if you are going to use such an asinine definition. So washing away the blood is the definition of killing? How about you address the argument and talk about his point about personhood vs life? Is a zygote a person? No one disputes that it's alive, just like your blood cells are alive.
@@queuecee It does lead to interesting discussion i feel; what is 'personhood'? What are the defining characteristics of a 'person'? Is it merely the sum of our actions? Or are all beings inherently valuable? Is it tied to conciousness? If so, what level of conciousness?
If you accept the notion of "life begins at conception" that means every single time a person has a miscarriage that person is at minimum open to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide their partner also can be tried as an accessory.
@@holgerlubotzki3469 I made that comment as well. They are saying that a zygote is "alive". Well, so is an egg or sperm cell. For their ideology, they refuse to consider that a clump of cells is not the same as an independently viable baby. They want to throw away common sense.
@@holgerlubotzki3469 going even further, FAILURE to have an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy, can also mean that a future (wanted) pregnancy is avoided (because they already have all the kids that they want) - i.e. a (future) potential life is being ended by that choice.
I honestly think *all* doctors in those states should just... do a "I'm Spartacus". The state almost collapsed when 6 nurses quit their job to go to another hospital. So... kinda wanna see how that'd work out for them when they try to jail like, 97 % of the entire healthcare industry.
I’ve been offered positions in those states and have said no, and told them that I refuse to work anywhere where 50% of my patients don’t have body autonomy.
@@Godless_Doc So you're fine with terminating the lives of those who truly have no bodily autonomy at the expense of those who knew full well what the consequences of their actions could lead to? You are the epitome of a monster 👏👏👏
@@robmanning6006 Ah, I see you are an evil, immoral person that want to give those babies to child grapists, so that they can grape and tourture those babies to deaf. Inflict as much pain and suffering on them as humanly possible before they cease to excuse at the ripe age of 3. You are an ally to child traffickers.
@@robmanning6006 Ah, I see you are an evil, immoral person that want to give those babies to child grapists, so that they can grape and tourture those babies to deaf. Inflict as much pain and suffering on them as humanly possible before they cease to exist at the ripe age of 3. You are an ally to humantraffickers.
Why is body autonomy such a hard concept for people to understand? A fetus should not have any rights to someone else’s body without their consent. Too many women are going to die because of politics that prevent doctors from saving the a living woman from a nonviable fetus.
1: Because it can never happen to THEM. 2: I honestly think *all* doctors in those states should just... do a "I'm Spartacus". The state almost collapsed when 6 nurses quit their job to go to another hospital. So... kinda wanna see how that'd work out for them when they try to jail like, 97 % of the entire healthcare industry. 3: I'd want a law that forces grapists to be 100 % responsible for the result. Don't want to place a baby with a grapist? Well, tough luck. It's the law.
I just want to thank everyone here being against the right to abortion being so clear that they view pregnancy as a punishment for (women in particular) having sex. Your open misogyny is helpful towards promoting choice.
I've adopted a more inflammatory position, that "pro-life" is a synonym for slavery. To me that's what forcing any person to sacrifice themselves for the life of another without their consent is the definition of involuntary servitude. This practice is barred in the US by the 13th amendment, by the way, as well as simply being one of the most immoral acts imaginable. I also agree that, because of that, the issue of personhood/when "life" begins/etc. is irrelevant to the entire subject of bodily autonomy of women and freedom from slavery in any form. That's an entirely separate thing altogether that a lot of time and screaming and yelling is wasted on....
@@jkenwell Well, yes you do have a choice, sort of - you can go live somewhere else without income taxes. But yes, in general, civilization is expensive. First-world industrialized nations just plain aren't cheap to build and maintain. So we have to expect to pay pretty dearly for the privilege of living as a citizen in one. The alternative to civilization is actually a lot worse, so at the end of the day it's money well spent.....
@@willjackson5885 By analogy, one could argue that, if the African people knew about the risks of submitting to the American slave trade, then it's more like they agreed to a contract.... (in which another person was somehow granted a lifetime entitlement to the nonconsensual sole use and control of their bodies). Makes sense?..... Really?.... Of course not. Think about it: being aware of a risk when you have sex is not a justification for thereafter granting the government lifetime nonconsensual use and control of your body. When people jump out of airplanes and their parachute doesn't open properly, do we deny them healthcare if they survive? Sorry, dude, you knew the risk, no doctor for you! So, no. There is simply _no_ circumstance where governmental ownership of women's bodies is justified. Period. There's just no such thing.
@@lstavenhagen The key problem with your analogies is that pregnancy also involves the child’s life. No one should be forced to incubate someone else in their body, but no one should be forced to be incubated in someone else’s body either. That’s the dilemma. If you and a stranger were both forced into this relationship, then I think the incubator has no responsibility to keep the incubated person alive, even if the burden of keeping them alive is minor. But if you *knowingly* put yourself in a situation that forces someone else to become an incubatee inside your body, then you don’t get to stop incubating them except for an extremely good reason.
True, dishonest antiabortionists will try to conflate reaction to stimuli with pain. The simple leg reflex test that used to be common shows that one can have a reaction without any conscious thought or perception. Tapping the top knee of crossed legs just right can cause the leg to kick. There is no attempt to kick, and the reaction is far faster than a conscious one.
So, I went looking to find the relevant information for that and it seems there is some debate, mainly among medical associations in the US vs the UK. The UK leans earlier based on certain criteria. The reasoning isn’t religiously motivated, it has to do with how to approach performing surgery in utero. Although, surgery at that stage doesn’t occur, as far as I know. It honestly threw me for a loop. I had to accept what I was reading though, it was a legitimate site. It altered my preconceived understanding, and I admit it made me a little uncomfortable. Doesn’t change my pro-choice stance. It’s way too complicated an issue, which is why strangers shouldn’t decide for all pregnant people.
@@cassievining340 One thing that you should also look up is how deep into a pregnancy that abortions occur. The issue is pretty much a red herring since very few occur that late. That is when one switches over from abortion just to end a pregnancy to an abortion that is medically necessary. In other words it is giant red herring. Here is a quote from the CDC: "Similar to previous years, in 2021, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (57.0%). Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14-20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medication abortion is defined as the administration of medication(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2021, 53.0% of all abortions were early medication abortions. Use of early medication abortion increased 3% from 2020 to 2021 and 137% from 2012 to 2021. Source: MMWR. 2023;72(9);1-29."
There is no debate. You already lost. No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place: “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20 The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust. Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception. Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason. Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again. We’re all abortion survivors. The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex? Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex. You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger. All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
@@borthwrenblanston6632I bet your parents would have chosen a different path if they had know their son would be a jail bird. Who would later make a fool of himself on the Web.
@borthwrenblanston6632 None of what you said refutes my OP. NONE of what you said is evidence proving your claims. You again flail and fail Pizza Cutter the Cowardly.
@@jonclark8252 How can there be a debate when these trolls can only run away? As soon as I ask them to agree to a voice debate, they act like I asked them to agree to the sentencing.
The reason so many Christians claim that life begins at conception is because of a passage in Christian Scriptures about how their god knew them when they were conceived. Or something like that.
SCIENCE tells us the life of a new human being starts at fertilization. e.g. “A human being at an embryonic age and that human being at an adult age are naturally the same. The biological differences are due only to the differences in maturity. Changes in methylation of cytosine demonstrate that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell stage.” -Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a distinguished molecular biologist.
NEPy cannot figure out how I reduce entropy in open systems every day, so he just declared that he had debunked me. 🤣 And apparently *I'm* the one who refuses to learn, despite the fact he hasn't once asked me to explain how this works. 🤣
Imagine that one baby is born with a bad heart and needs a transplant. Also imagine that another baby is born without a brain, but has a fully functioning heart. The heart of the second baby cannot be used to save the life of the first baby without permission from the parents of the second baby.
yea, but neither parent can take a weapon and end the life of their baby... similarly no one should be able to take the life of their unborn child to make their life easier.
@@mathildeyoung1823The parents of either baby do have the right to stop life support. Abortion isn't taking the life of a child. It is ridding a woman's body of a clump of cells. Forcing a woman to carry a baby is the same as forcing the parents of the brain-dead baby to donate their child's heart. It is using a woman's body against her will. Rape is also using a woman's body against her will. So again, would it be right to force the parent's of the brain-dead baby to donate their child's heart?
@@terryfall8915 Abortion takes the life of a human being - that is a fact. Please educate yourself. Your comparison is wrong. What is correct is that taking the life of a child, born or unborn, has the same main result - i.e. a young human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life. Are you comparing an unborn child to a rapist!?!?! wow... one is a criminal, the other has done nothing wrong to deserve a death penalty. Don't want to donate an organ then DON'T, but obviously DO NOT take the life of a defenseless human being, born or unborn, to make your life easier. To help your education, please THINK. By definition, a fetus is a mammal...THINK - what species would a human fetus be a member of if not the human species? Note: the only current member of our species is the human being.
"kept as a secret from me, in the name of a god". That really hit me hard, as a Christian myself. To deliberately keep your child in ignorance in order to protect the fable you want them to live by. That's pathetic. Jesus, if you believe he is real, needs no such protection. And Science is our best tool to understand and investigate our world and ourselves. Hayden, I'm sorry. I'm sure your parents thought they were doing the right thing for you, and I hope they love you regardless. But I am angry at their Church for teaching them that that was a sensible way to rear a child, using intentional ignorance.
Religions are essentially biased against unrestricted knowledge. This is because they make claims of truth that further knowledge could demonstrate to be false.
According to Numbers 4: 27, God’s ok with forced abortions: “If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” 🥴
I'm just amused that most people seem to miss that the women drink the same thing, the difference is a miracle to make one person barren and the other not. There's no "abortion recipe" in the bible.@@joshsheridan9511
"Bodily autonomy means my body is for me; my body is my own. It's about power, and it's about agency. It's about choice, and it's about dignity." ~ United Nations Population Fund
It's interesting that when confronted with the fact that sex isn't merely procreation how many pro abortion banners shift to implying abortions are all from unprotected sex.
It's because they are stupid and absolutely uninformed. They don't know that half of all abortions that are sought after are because of failed contraceptive measures.
It's because they are incompetent and uninformed. They fail to understand that half of all abortions that are sought after are because of failed contraceptive measures. That means half of all the people that are going to get abortions did you some form of protection
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Using only one form of protection that is only partially protective is still incredibly reckless. If you don’t want to become a mother so badly that you’d kill your own child, then you better be extra, extra, *extra* careful. Not just 70-90% careful lol
5:37 You can even take that to the extreme. You don't have to be an adult for that. The moment you're born, you're on your own. If you give birth to a baby, and 5 minutes later that baby needs a blood transfusion, you can say no and let the baby die. You can argue that person would be a shitty parent, but that doesn't change that they can't be forced to give blood to their new born baby, even if that would prevent their death. It makes no sense that minutes before, while the baby was still inside the womb you HAVE to keep it alive, but the moment it's born then who cares anymore. Absolutely insane opinion to hold.
Perfectly coherent with the anti-choice movement. They don't care at all about healthcare, social support or anything else that the new family would need, they just want to impose their beliefs on others because they feel yucky when a maybe baby gets the boot. The ONLY way to lower the number of abortions is through social advancements and higher life quality, but they don't care about that, they just want to make it illegal to feel superior and demonize anyone different. As they've always done.
@@JSPHism The comment specified blood transfusions. Of course you have to feed them, but I doubt they can force you to donate blood, even if it would save the baby's life
Bodily autonomy is first. But what most discussions miss is that in 41+ States and most nations, an elective abortion past the time of "fetal viability" is illegal. Variously around 20+ weeks, or when it's got a developed brain and necessary organs to keep it alive as a preemie. It seems to vary depending on medical science or what is the earliest which can be kept alive. Most pro-choice people will agree that this prohibition is a good guide. 5+ months is plenty of time to decide whether you want to carry it to term. No "pro-life" person will admit to knowing this or to having been informed, and it goes in one ear and out the other like a neutrino, without interacting with anything in there. Also the fact that we don't declare death when the heart stops, but when they give up on restoring the brain to function - even a damaged brain in a crippled body that needs machines to continue. What needs to be viciously hammered down every time it pops up is their assinine assertion that there are thousands or millions of women just waiting 8+ months to decide that they just don't want to go through with it. It sounds like I'm making a huge straw man, but it's their straw man and we hear it all the time, along with the "post-birth abortion" thing they'll go off about. There are maybe 3 states that don't require paperwork from doctors saying that a late abortion is medically necessary, so that's their only possibility of showing any real numbers of elective abortion after 6 months, and the numbers don't exist. Women don't do that, no doctor will do that. It's a silly, atrocious myth and they drag it out all the time. This call touched on what they almost always will fall back on, even with an elective by 13 weeks (85% of all elective abortions) or the IUD or pills or even condoms: they'll insist that when she opens her legs, she's consenting to possibly/probably becoming a mommy. It's not about children or babies, the whole thing is about their theology's sick obsessive hatred for sex and especially women's sexuality. They want control of when and under what circumstances women can have sex or express sexuality. Their theology going back to and before those sick b@$t@®ds Paul and Augustine, has their fear and hatred of sex and women. They want the Handmaid's Tale and women being the property of their fathers until he gives her to another man to be a household drudge and baby factory and sex slave. This Pope (the modern, cool, hip one) wrote that allowing contraception is saying that sex outside of marriage or even within marriage but not trying for children is OK and it's not. All sex even in marriage and for children is inherently sinful and dangerous and should be minimized (Apparently even at the cost of women's lives).
I've seen a lot of ridiculous comments made by theists here, but this one by @shaylagonser9341 is a contender for the most ridiculous. "If you [atheists] genuinely believe that the Bible says that the Earth is flat, you're a flat earther by default. Flat earthers genuinely believe the Bible says so and so do atheists. Argue your way out of this one." For full context, this is discussing a post where @Blargleman derided the Bible for supporting flat earth. It's enough to make me suspect she's a poe. But, sadly, I can't be sure, because despite being so obviously flawed, I can't rule out that she hasn't realized how obviously flawed it is.
I've come to the conclusion based on word usage etc that it's an account used by that diaries poster. It originally started as a parody of you atheists but has now started using the same "arguments"
These hosts definitely don’t have kids. “Wad of snot” was a gross way to describe something that would later become, for example, one of my three beautiful kids. Who talks like that?
@@rockys201 So? Killing is bad because of the harm it causes, without the harm, it remains killing, but it doesn't remain harmful, and therefore it doesn't remain bad. Things are bad not because of what they are but because of their consequences in terms of harm or benefit.
@@rockys201 Oh, but we are having so much fun! You bring shit arguments, I demolish them, you whine these daycare comebacks "uh...uh...go back to sleep pal". Genius stuff, the teacher will give you a golden star for that.
This might be one way to help with the birth control/abortion controversies. Would you support the following as a way to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies? If males were to be encouraged to have a vasectomy early in life and place sperm in banks (Most sperm can be stored for more than 20 years) at a low cost or government subsidised. Let's not forget that a vasectomy reversal have exceptional success rates with the restoration of sperm in 90% of men. So Man Up & Get The Cut Well that would in my view go a bloody long way to sorting the problem out.
@@Beacon80 Not sure how it violates bodily autonomy. And there is another reason, it would not work in any country that doesn't have a and Socialist Medical system. So that rules out Seppo-land🤣
At least in the US, most of the conservative anti-choicers don't really want to reduce abortion. They want control. There are plenty of research that show teen pregnancy goes down when there's good sex-ed and birth control easily available, such as from Planned Parenthood. Yet they want abstinence-only education. And lot of these people want to make contraception more difficult to get. And they could push for programs that give better options to those with unwanted pregnancies. If they REALLY thought that abortion was equivalent to murder of an actual human beings, they would WANT to implement these things that reduce abortion. But they do not behave like people who really think that abortion is same as killing a baby. They just tut-tut. But when they are in a situation where they need their girl friends or mistresses to get an abortion, they are happy to quietly pay them to go get an abortion.
If you think that life begins at conception, why did you stop there? Why not say that the gamete is "life"? Isn't it a living cell? And it has the potential to become a human being. And if you are going to stick with a zygote being "life", does that "life" have all the things that you claim is life? Such as intelligence, consciousness, morality, emotion, will, etc. If not, why do those "intangible" properties depend on the physical cells? And if you insist that a zygote is "life" with as much rights as a baby, what about all the frozen embryos? No IVF anymore it seems. And what about the human cell lines, the HeLa cells, that are used for research? Under the definition of someone who thinks life begins at conception, these are alive. In which case millions of these cells get destroyed every day. Someone who doesn't know the definition of genocide will call it a genocide.
What we STICK WITH is what the creator said about it. "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER." No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place: “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20 The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust. Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception. Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason. Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again. We’re all abortion survivors. The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex? Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex. You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger. All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
@@borthwrenblanston6632 Did the creator say anything about 'THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT FRAUD" or "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RACQUETEERING"? Come on coward. Come on a live voice debate.
@@sideboob6851 Well, he can't even tell the difference between taking the existence of knowledge as a given vs all knowledge as a given. Obviously, he shouldn't be even mentioning epistemology. And of course, since he's a Romanian, he doesn't hear actual English very often, so my Midwestern English probably sounds weird to him. But as he's just as much of a coward as all the other trolls here, he absolutely won't show up. Talks big but is just a little boy.
Mind blown, seriously. What a sound, logical, persuasive argument you made. I have always been pro choice, but rest assured that from now on, when someone brings up the topic, I will be stealing this argument. There's no counter! What could someone possibly say in response? What retort is there? None. Thanks!
Yes but some people don't like that suggestion, even though the fetus has to release a chemical to stop the women's body attacking, it. And in some situations if that chemical is not present the fertilised egg gets distroyed as an invading organism 🧐
Oh my. We are an hour and a half from some of us discussing these WATs (weak-a** trolls) on the comments. This will be live streamed, so I invite those trolls to come and listen. Or if they are too scared, they can listen after the stream is done, in the safety of their own dark, dank basement. 😂 I'm talking to you, Damonkey. 😉
Make sure you also talk about this: ATTENTION ATHEISTS! You have chosen poorly in your life THUS FAR, so let this GENIUS and TOTAL STRANGER give you the WHAT’S UP regarding your true reality. To start, you’ve superficially and cheaply chose to have a God bias. That’s because you’re a person of low character that usually always chooses the path of least resistance. In your stagnate ignorance, you have thus far refused to muster up the interest & passion to do the proper research to find out who placed you on earth and why. INSTEAD you’ve listened to the losers on this channel that talked you into just laying back in your sofa w/ a beer in your hand and just saying to whoever will listen, “Hey, God has to prove himself to me while I relax and sip on my beer for the rest of my life. I simply refuse to believe things of God until God comes to me and slaps me sideways. Until that time, I see no reason to pay attention to what my creator might want from me.” You simply DEMAND that it be God’s “turn” to pursue you EVEN THOUGH God has already: 1. Created you out of nothing and gave you the gift of life. 2. When Adam doomed all of mankind to hell, Jesus then died for Adam’s sin & your sin. 3. Jesus gave you TIME (+/- 70 yrs on this earth to decide to accept him or not). 4. God gave you a life to enjoy. The freedom to make your own life. 5. God’s prepared a place in heaven for you if you’ll only RETURN his love. 6. God loves you and is merciful to you even though you count him of ZERO VALUE. 7. In his love & mercy for you, his UNIQUE CREATION, God sent me to teach you these things. So far in your life, you still You demand that God pursue you and beg you to accept him. THAT is a dangerous position to take, because you’re not God; HE IS GOD. And God gives the orders. God did the 7 things (see above) for you and even this life teaches you that “THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.” We all must pay our bills. And Jesus paid the largest bill you will ever have. And if you think God doesn’t expect a return on his investing his son to die for you, then you are SADLY MISTAKEN. I’ve personally witnessed the evidence to prove it, because I’ve seen the interpretation of tongues in a Camp Meeting back in the 80’s by the Night Speaker/Evangelist Ray Hughes, and I remember it verbatim to this day, because it was the scariest thing I ever heard. God was yelling through this evangelist. I depicted the yelling in Caps. God said: “You’ve heard my Gospel time and again. And yet… it falls far from you. From pulpit to pulpit, you’ve been warned... IT PASSES YOU BY! And I say, LET IT SINK DOWN INTO YOU EARS!!!! ... BELIEVE ON ME! BELIEVE ON ME! BELIEVE ON ME! FOR EXCEPT YOU BELIEVE, YOU SHALL BE DAMNED! AND YOU SHALL BE DAMNED, because you have rejected my death upon Calvary.” I still have the cassette tape of it. And like I said, it’s the scariest thing I’ve ever heard and those of you that are acquainted with Ray Hughes knows of his very strong masculine voice. So back to you. Let me reiterate; the problems for you are manifold. First, you don’t even know how to observe God. Do you actually think God can be placed in a test tube for your review? Do you have any idea who God truly is? Let's face the facts, shall we? You're just another lost & clueless fool that thinks humanity came from star dust or something else equally ridiculous. You're breathing air that doesn't belong to you. Taking up space that doesn't belong to you. Given a life that doesn't belong to you. He brought you from nothing and you're nothing, YET you feel totally justified to raise your tiny stupid fist at him at the height of your ignorance. THAT is what you are; never mind him. That said, Jesus loves you dearly & has shown you this love by bringing you from non-existence & giving you “the gift of life.” And did you say “thank you?” No. He also removed your doom via the sin of Adam by the suffering on the cross for you. And did you say “thank you?” No. He’s also “prepared a place for you in Heaven” if you’ll only return his love that’s already given you. And did you say “thank you?” No. Again, it’s the “love” of Jesus for people is what attracts them to Christianity. Your move, Chief. P.S. - We already read the last page of The Book of Revelation and it says "God wins." I don't know about you, but I'm going to fight and be an overcomer of Satan, the world and with God's help, the flesh. I'm not just going to barely cross the finish line of heaven; I'm going to cross the finish line doing warp 13 w/ my hair on fire! NOTHING is going to stop me from going to heaven. STOP wallowing in your ignorance & cluelessness. Get w/ the program. START TODAY NEW!! I’m here to help you. I will end with this truth… I would say that you fail to understand exactly who God is. He wants to be sought after. Why? Because he's worthy of our pursuit for what he’s done for us thus far. His awesome greatness is beyond yours and my comprehension. What he’s done for you is UNIMAGINABLE! GREAT! AWESOME! Honor him.
@@borthwrenblanston6632 Don't you worry your little head, Pokey. We'll DEFINITELY be talking about you. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 If you had ANY balls, you would come and listen and join us in the discussion. You can then get destroyed when we call out your idiocy, but you'll be able to go back and claim that you won. Just like how you lie about "winning" for FIFTY years.
@@sideboob6851 OH MAN, you're so right! Clearly, it was a mud puddle (or star dust?) that came from nothing by nothing to do nothing and be nothing & produced the first cell with systems within to eat, digest food, eliminate waste, move, breathe & reproduce, NOT TO MENTION that first cell contained the DNA blueprints for 9 million DIFFERENT species of life. THAT is the bald face stupidity of atheism UNLESS of course, you have a better atheist explanation for reality. I'll be glad to hear it, but we both know you don't. And that means you're the very definition of being "lost & clueless" when it comes to reality. God is real and EVERYTHING we observe (e.g. life, intelligence, love, consciousness, morality) is only explained by an INFINITE CAUSE that has the intelligence, power, purpose, resources & means that are FAR BEYOND that of mankind. We call him “OUR INFINITE/ETERNAL/SUPERNATURAL GOD and there is no other option. That's why no atheist has a rational/possible, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one. Try to learn what I'm teaching you before it's too late (when your temporary free will expires at your last gasp on earth and you go to an eternal hell - wishing you had never been born). For now, you and your asinine, lost & clueless cult of atheism are hereby debunked (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy).
@@borthwrenblanston6632 "Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
I can't help but think that a lot people who argue for forced birth are jealous of those of us that are getting some, thus feel the need to lash out. It couldn't be more obvious that a lot of forced births want to punish women for having sex.
My nomination for the Straw Man Fallacy of the Week award: "If you genuinely believe that the Bible says that the Earth is flat, you're a flat earther by default." 🏆👏
Grifting with my name again? Quecee can’t name an argument against me. He spends his time making phantom accusations over every factoid to cook up a fake controversy, with people he can’t compete with.
When Donkey has enough Clozapine He invokes Damon the Green And when supplies are down Online DonKey turns Brown While in debates neither is ever seen!
Passages that show how much God really cares about children: Psalm 137: 9 Exodus 12: 29 Luke 14 :26 Ezekiel 23: 20 Exodus 21: 7 _Thanks to AXKfUN9m for these_
@@papabeard4976 when he k!lls them and the bible labels a fetus as mere property. Biblical scholars already said that the bible dont and shouldnt have a place on abortion.
Xtians: Life begins when an egg gets fertilized. Science: Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant. Yahweh/Jesus: Slaughtering millions of "lives" every year. LOLZ
Hey 15 yr old, I have to be pregnant before I can have an opinion on right or wrong? The answer is "no," in case you were wondering. God gave us all common sense and morality, so we're to use it. No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place: “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20 The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust. Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception. Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason. Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again. We’re all abortion survivors. The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex? Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex. You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger. All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
@@borthwrenblanston6632 You don't know what a pregnancy is like, so you shouldn't be allowed to say people should be forced to go through one that isn't wanted. Most abortions are from young people who can't afford to have a baby. What are they even supposed to do with it once it's born? Throw it in the trash, since they can't afford to care for it? And how the hell did you produce a baby at 55?
@@borthwrenblanston6632 AGAIN: There are three things that you should know about your book, if you don't already: - It's irrelevant to literally everyone that isn't in your religion (thus the vast majority of the population of Earth). - It has no place whatsoever in government. - Nobody has the right to force others to comply with it. If you forced birth christofascists actually do think it's murder, that means you want to force people that you see as murderers (if they have had an abortion) or potential murderers (wanted an abortion, but couldn't get one) into becoming parents. Why would anyone that thinks someone is so immoral that they have or would murder someone want that same person to be forced into becoming a parent? The logic behind your stance is so flawed that either you haven't thought it though, you're an outright imbecile, or you're trying to push bullshit that you don't believe yourself.
@@ApatheticFish3667 Well, you should thank God that I'm not God. You think you and the rest of the maggots can drop down into the mud of the gutter and argue about what's what and arrive at a decision, when GOD IS THE ONLY DECIDER AND THE ONLY CREATOR AND YOUR ONLY JUDGE - NOT YOU AND THE REST OF THE MAGGOTS!
Science? NOTHING of the NONSENSE of atheism has anything AT ALL to do with the scientific method of testing, measuring and observing (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy). So there's that... Established science? There's no such thing as "established science" for any atheist idea, because not even one of them has every been EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED IN REAL TIME (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution) Only TRUE NATURE can be EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED IN REAL TIME (e.g. flower bloom, reproduction, photosynthesis, digestion, respiration, top down production, gravity, sunshine). Try to learn what I'm teaching you before it's too late (when your temporary free will expires at your last gasp on earth and you go to an eternal hell - wishing you had never been born). YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO GET THIS WRONG. Because 100+ trillion yrs from the moment you entire hell, it won’t even be the start of eternity! For now, you and every facet of your asinine, lost & clueless cult of atheism are hereby debunked (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy).
Intersex people exist. Biology is not consistent. It's not this perfect structure that you people want to pretend it is. It is a messy messy web of outcomes
5:10 no right to live inside somebody else’s body without their consent. That’s pretty hilarious considering that’s the only place an unborn baby can live. Atheism defies logic.
It doesn't matter if that's the only place that a fetus can live it still doesn't have the right to use someone else's body against their will. The owner of the body has the final say. By your logic we cannot remove cancer because inside of a body is the only place cancer can live.
But you put the child there. You created the circumstances where the unborn child is dependent upon your body. You forced the fetus to be dependent on you. You made the decisions that caused it come into being. Therefore you must take responsibility for the consequences of your actions even if you regret them. You know that every time you have sex you’re risking 9 months of pregnancy. You’re not 5 years old, you know this. Using abortion as birth control is not only irresponsible, it’s anti human and for lack of any better word it’s demonic. The atheist experience is responsible for my atheism. It’s also responsible for why I refuse to call myself an atheist.
No you don't. Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy. My husband and I do not want to have kids. We want to have intimacy but we do not want to have kids. We did not intentionally put a kid there. We actively worked against that but if it happens that was not our intention and that was not our choice. No one is forcing the fetus to be dependent that is just simply a function of biology. No we do not have to take responsibility because there is no obligation to it because no one has the right to use another person's body. No one uses abortion as birth control. Abortion is sought after when birth control fails. Half of all your people getting abortions did take birth control measures and they failed. The other half made mistakes. That does not mean that they have to suffer with those mistakes. If you cut yourself you don't have to let it sit there and bleed to death you get to go to the hospital and have that corrected. You are responsible for you considering women incubators. You are responsible for degrading women.
While I disagree with your conclusion your first 6 sentences are why I disagree with the bodily autonomy argument save for the case of rape and why I instead use the biological argument.
I’m a fan of forest but his argument regarding the fetus having no rights to a women’s body and the comparison to organ donation was ridiculous, and when does accountability and taking responsibility for adult decisions come into the equation?
You realize that you can't just say accountability when there are plenty of people that aren't actually educated in how sex works or why the human body actively gets horny. Humans make extremely dumb decisions when they're horny because we're animals looking to reproduce. No the fetus does not have the right to the uterus. If someone was attached to my arm it's still my f****** arm. A fetus isn't a living thing even if it was a fully living breathing human it's still not the f****** fetuses uterus. It's stupid that you think every abortion is because of lustful decisions only... Condoms can f****** break my guy. Complications with pregnancy can happen my guy rape can happen my guy. I don't want a child being born to a woman who is so f****** poor that she absolutely can't afford to raise the child for 9 months let alone for the rest of its life. It's not fair to the child or the mother to make both of them deal with that situation. It's actually disgusting that you still think that it's all just people having sex for the sake of having sex and then using abortion for the sake of f****** contraception. It's amazing how you people don't actually think about this s*** because you don't want to
@@user-blob I'm pro choice but that's b/c it's not human with rights yet. he is saying when you have sex you are responsible for your actions. meaning if it was a human at conception, you can't just kill it and say bodily rights. since you were the cause of your body being used. someone randomly needing your organ that you had nothing to do with and were not the cause is very different.
@@scoop2448 If you are in an abandoned cabin with a surgeon and a cellist, and you stab the cellist and damage their kidney. Your kidney happens to be a match. The surgeon can save the cellist's life but need to take your kidney. He can do it without killing you. Is it OK for him to take away your kidney?
You are consistent regarding bodily autonomy, correct? What I mean is that you would agree that no one should ever been forced or coerced to wear a fabric mask or receive a vaccine? (To preface, yes, I do receive vaccines).
Body autonomy means the freedom to make decisions about your life and body free of outside coercion. But like all freedoms, the line at which this freedom ends is precisely where another's begins. You are free to wear the clothes you want, but you are not free to go out in public naked. You are free to go outside and swing your arms, but that freedom ends once your hand reaches someone else's face. Similarly, you generally have the freedom to choose to protect yourself from illness or not. However, Public Health, by it's very name, is an institution that operates on the scale of whole communities and populations. Your choice to not get a Measles vaccine would mean you'd be much more likely to catch, multiply and spread the virus. Thus everyone who interacts with you or touches something you've touched is put at risk, even if they are vaccinated.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Nope if the woman doesn't want the child or she as been assaulted, or may die from the birth then it's time to snip snip. The woman can make that decision. Cry harder.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Actually yes the woman's wants or needs overrides that. A baby isn't a baby until birth. She has to sustain a life with her body, she has the rule right and authority to make that decision. Just like men have autonomy over their reproductive parts so does a woman. End of story.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Would you like it if laws were made where you couldn't govern your male reproductive rights? Men have always had a privilege in this arena. It's time for women to have the same privilege for themselves.
Why are people so behind bodily autonomy? If you can help someone else, and it doesn't put you at risk, I don't think you should be able to opt out. PS not Christian
I would love to converse about not the legality, but the morality of abortions if anyone is interested. There is one circumstance and one circumstance only where an abortion would be immoral. In any other circumstance, if any one of these criteria don't apply then I would find an abortion moral, however, if they all apply I would find it immoral. Here are the criteria: A lack of reasonable precautions taken to prevent conception. Reasonable precautions include the use of condoms by one or both partners, oral contraceptives, IUD, vasectomy or hysterectomy. However, if the person believed that contraceptives were being used but then found out that they weren't or still became pregnant after using contraceptives then those would both be exceptions that would make it moral in my view. The second criterion is consent. I recognize there are dictionary definitions but I will be describing consent for this specific circumstance. Consent occurs when prior to engaging in the act, the person was conscious, aware of their surroundings, alert, not under the influence of drugs/alcohol such that their decision making is heavily impaired, gave permission to engage in the act, and understands the risk of becoming pregnant. The third criterion is that both carrying the fetus and delivering the baby do not pose a significant risk of grave bodily injury or death to the mother. The fourth and last criterion is that the baby is not born with any defects that would cause it to live an incredibly shortened and/or painful life. I'm open to any critiques or your own viewpoint on the morality of abortions.
@@nealjroberts4050 Again, the intention of the this thread is to have a dialogue on the morality, not legality of abortions. To answer your question though, I would not and do not advocate that anyone be barred from having access to safe abortions. I would just find it morally impermissible under the aforementioned circumstances. If I were a lawmaker, I wouldn't rely on my own moral beliefs to determine whether something ought to be legal or illegal.
@@Steven_DunbarSL I apologise if I offended you. Just trying to be clear on your views and intentions. Am too used to people using their opinion on the morality to argue legislation.
One of my more compelling arguments for prochoice, at least for myself, is that of personhood. I am fully within the camp that bodily autonomy shalt not be infringed upon, by breathing living people, let alone not breathing, arguably living people. But think of what makes personhood. Personhood is the ability to feel, think, reason, recognize self, and conceptualize greater concepts. Are fetuses persons by their cognitive capacity? Can they feel? perhaps. Can they think? unlikely. Can they reason? improbable. Can they recognize self? Most certainly not. Can they conceptualize greater concepts? Babies let alone fetuses aren't philosophers. So no. And such questions are vanishing when you consider earlier stages of life where there is no central nervous system or greater bodily functions. A very problematic aspect of human thought as it relates to science and daily human interactions, is anthropomorphism. Is a fetus human life? Yes. Is it a person with human thoughts and feelings comparable to yourself. No. We regularly inject personhood into animals, plants, and even the dead, that aren't warranted. And in the argument of personhood, there is a need to consider what is rather than what will be. The future isn't now. So even if a fetus may be a person in the future, at present it is not. At least not to a degree like the breathing. A braindead comatose person having the plug pulled on them isn't murder as those anti-abortionists would consider for a fetus. Just as a disembodied finger might be human life. If my body were vaporized outside of my finger, should it be grafted onto the flesh of another human in the vain hope my body might be reconstructed by future science? No. That's insane to consider a possibility such as that and subject a person to a parasitic appendage grafted to their body. Potential is in no way equivalent to present.
Person = human being. Our rights are called HUMAN rights. HUMAN rights need to apply to all human beings - which include unborn children. That is why abortion needs to be illegal.
@@Sue-xv8os there is no right to take the life of a defenseless human being to make your life easier. And of course, a human fetus, a mammal, is a human being. What other species would they be a member of? Hint, the only member of our species is the human being.
Emma referred to last was Exodus 21:22”New International Version “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.” Depends on text read how they translate, but I the child was born dead, that would be a serious injury. It is important to remember that Emma isn’t trying to understand the scripture but instead using it as an attack; a weapon. It is insincere which I think she would admit to. I don’t think she struggles with understanding the Bible or understanding abortion. It is different for some of us who have a strong belief in human life and want to protect life even if it is not our own. I would protect everyone on here if I am called to do so. I respect life and babies.
What do you think her argument was? Let's see if you understood it enough to steelman her argument, so that you don't sound so hypocritical about denigrating her understanding.
@@queuecee I think Emma said something about the death of a baby not being worth much according to scripture but she couldn’t remember the scripture nor the location. So I was giving the scripture and location. It doesn’t say that the baby died. So she might be referring to a different translation and reading into the passage her meaning. It is difficult to improve upon a faulty and insincere argument. That is ultimately the flaw with Atheism in my view. They often only find value in the Bible if they can use a passage to hurt a believer. They ended the segment on how could anyone believe the Bible is pro life? However, countless Christians have found the Bible to have a message of love and life. So it isn’t as far fetched as they make it sound.
@@kw2080 Good job "steelmanning" her position. Definitely not faulty or insincere.🙄 It IS Exodus 21:22, which you quoted but refused to actually try to understand her argument. Even if it was indeed faulty or insincere argument (it was not), the whole point of me challenging you to steelman her position is so that you can demonstrate that you are willing to accept her argument in good-faith and sincere manner. And it seems you couldn't. The point Emma was making is that the passage treats the loss of an unborn child differently than harm done to the woman. Losing the child merits fines. If the WOMAN is seriously injured, the offender can be punished life for life, eye for eye, tooth for toth. I have strange feeling that despite me explaining to you Emma's point, you will still not get it. Maybe you will accuse ME of making a faulty or insincere argument. Let's see.
@@queuecee it’s more like you did not listen to my point. Emma did say the passage said the death of the unborn was a fine BUT the passage does not say that. There is no steel man for inaccurately quoting scripture. That’s why I said she didn’t read the scripture in good faith. It was just a tool. Am I wrong? The scripture doesn’t say a child died. It says a child is born and no harm was done. No harm means the child didn’t die. I suppose a steel man on her side would be we just don’t know. However that’s not the argument she was making. However, how can we have a discussion if you aren’t actually discussing what I said?
There happens to be a footnote to the NIV on "gives birth prematurely" that points out the alternative meaning as "has a miscarriage". Given you failed to present that alternative interpretation and thus that her argument has validity it does suggest some bad faith on your part.
I'm pro choice, but regarding the argument of "Nobody has the right to use your body (or parts) without your consent, which would follow that the fetus is a person or at least a human lifeform; Isn't the right to life the top human right? Because then you'd be killing the fetus (which would be a person, or living thing by that logic, in which case it is at no fault as it didn't choose to be conceived.) Unless you believe it should only be considered a person or human lifeform after a particular stage in the pregnancy, in which case it should be no moral issue to abort the zygote. But then one we would have to agree on when the zygote becomes a person or human lifeform. Also what if some day we live in a society in which we have sufficient resources to store and grow or transplant a zygote or fetus from a woman who decides not to continue carrying the zygote/fetus as apposed to having an abortion? Would it be amoral to have an abortion since the zygote/fetus and the pregnant woman can both happily go their separate way, considering abortion is no longer needed to prevent further reliance on anothers body for survival? That last one is hypothetical, I know. ore of a thought experiment. Edit* That stabbing/ blood donor argument is pretty good. kinda
As Forest said it doesn't matter if you grant personhood to the fetus/baby/etc. (and I don't) nobody has the right to use your body without consent. You can need my organs to live but even if I'm dead you don't have the right to them if I didn't give permission first. A dead body shouldn't have more rights than a living pregnant person.
@@Mollytov840 Outside of the case of rape, the argument is that the foetus wouldn't be considered an invader as it is a knowable consequence of intercourse. Most wouldn't considered it fair or moral to bring a life into the world in a state where it's survival is solely dependent on you only to decide to kill it just because their dependency inconveniences you outside of it being life-threatening. Hence why many opt for the biological argument as it is much more defensible.
I'd honestly want a law that forces grapists to be 100 % responsible for the result. Don't want to place a baby with a grapist? Well, tough luck. It's the law. If a literal preteen is deemed a fit parent, a grown man sure as heck is too.
@@Sundae_Times In case of grape: *Force* the grapist to raise the baby, pay for the baby. Be 100 % responsible. 0 child support from the mother. He will be legally obligated to raise the child until 18.
Ok first you can say rapist. People in the video don't say rapist because it can get the video demonetized or hidden from the general public. Comments can say whatever they want. Second why would you do that? Like conceptually I see the line of logic "Dont rape a woman cause then you gotta take care of the kid" but like. If someones gonna rape a woman whos to say they wont rape the kid? Or abuse the kid? Or put them up for adoption? Or hell even if they don't abuse the kid that's still REALLY rough to go through FOR THE KID. Lots of people will tell you that they wished their parents got a divorce instead of staying together when they hated each other now imagine it when one of them is a full on rapist. I'm just saying that's a really poorly thought out idea
@@Sundae_Times I didn't say I believe they don't. There are many ways to make the case for bodily autonomy. I'm looking for a secular/non-religious version. Have you go tone?
@@markwoodhouse2929 "Bodily autonomy means my body is for me; my body is my own. It's about power, and it's about agency. It's about choice, and it's about dignity." ~ United Nations Population Fund
@@Sundae_Times Thanks, but I think that's a definition of bodily autonomy, rather than an argument that everyone has a 'right' to such. WHY is my body for me?
@@markwoodhouse2929 Because Elon Musk hasn't bought the rights to it yet. So make the most of it before he gets round to it. It's just a matter of time.
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Pregnancy is not something just just happens. There is a process that takes place. Unless rape is involved or maybe drugs or alcohol are involved or if for some reason the birth control fails than its a choice.
@@greenbat731 all I'm trying to say is that everyone's argument for abortion is always something about the woman just becoming pregnant and she had nothing to do with it. Like abortion is removing a cancerous growth. How about taking responsibility for your actions. I'm not against abortions just to be clear. The argument for it that everyone seems to have is just ridiculous. I haven't heard one that seems logical to me.
@@treuter Do you think the people planning on and consenting to getting pregnant are the people getting abortions? If they want the pregnancy why would they abort it?
I don't find the the stabbing/blood donor argument that the caller provided convincing. By engaging in intercourse you're knowingly risking bringing a potential life into existence whose survival relies solely on you which isn't equivalent to making someone who can survive in their own be forced to be dependent on others for survival. The Violinist Thought Experiment is at least the more appropriate analogy but in most cases the scenario involves willingly choosing to help keep the violinist alive which would bare a greater amount of responsibility than if one where kidnapped. This is why I believe bodily autonomy regardless of personhood is largely applicable to cases of rape or life-threatening pregnancies and why biological arguments are better for being pro-choice as they possess better logical consistencies.
Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy. All you are doing is telling women they're not allowed to have intimacy. All you're really doing is shouting to everyone that you don't think women are equal individuals
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Consenting to intimacy is accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant and accepting the responsibilities that comes with it. Rejecting the bodily autonomy argument except in cases of rape or life-threatening pregnancies doesn't necessarily mean being anti-choice as I believe that biological arguments a better for arguing the pro-choice position.
@@whodatboi2567 No. Consent to sex is consent to your partner using your body. No one else. The unborn baby is a separate person who doesn't even exist when the act is performed and doesn't get indirect entitlement to exist because of your agreement with a completely different person. That's insane. This has nothing to do with responsibility. That is just objectively not how consent works.
One of the possible consequences of sex is pregnancy Mom takes on the consequence(inconvenience) Or the baby takes on the consequences(death) Consequences don’t go away Humanists are savage
the very base impulse to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex is quite strong in most of our kind... evolution has made it so because life - no matter what form it takes - clearly has, as a root motivation, the continuation of itself. this compulsion was more important in our evolutionary past when sufficient propagation and specific propagation (of certain genetic material) was necessary to satisfy life's fundamental directive. there is now a form of life (namely human kind) which could persist without this very strong reproductive impulse, nonetheless most of us are still quite forcibly driven by it. that is the real world and there are implications. i choose to face reality on its own terms and not on the terms of some fantasy i'm trying to live in. if fetuses could be consciously aware and able to communicate and have foresight into what the remainder of their life in utero and beyond would be like, while also having access to humane euthanasia i wonder what sort of decisions might be made. it is degrading to command ourselves or one another to behave reproductively as many other forms of life do on this planet. i think humankind represents a unique and important branch of the tree of life - one in which the species is not quite so imprisoned by biology in pursuit of its collective well being
Organ donation is the same as pregnancy???! Blood donation is the same as pregnancy????! “Right to take your bone marrow” What does that have to do with a natural pregnancy
It's an equivalency. It's an example showing how the logic doesn't follow for pro-lifers when they agree that bone marrow shouldn't be forced from non-consenting people
@@MotownModels not an equivalency One is natural and normal One is abnormal and unnatural This is one of the stupidest argument a person can make to justify the destruction of another human
@@michaeldominick8394if you are against unatural thing then we have a big problem. Wearing glasses to see is not natural, takeing any kind of pills is not natural, useing a car is not natural. We as a species evolved past the nature so our lives will be better.
@@michaeldominick8394 How is abortion unnatural and abnormal but other forms of Healthcare aren't? Just because you're getting emotional over a clump of cells?
@@nealjroberts4050 if she valued her life so much why did she let herself get pregnant by intentionally having sex? Being aware of sex's primary purpose? These are the only people I'm referring to
@@Beacon80 I am pro-choice. As long as that choice is analytically morally correct. And uphold your moral obligations as a human being to other human beings
At last, not the irrelevant issue of God existing or not, but the central issue of atheism - abortion! You know, I used to think Godsquad were obsessed with sex, gender, and reproduction. But my fellow atheists have really bought into the cult.
@@Sundae_Times Apparently if you Atheists aren't 100% discussing the lack of gods you aren't being atheist. Even if what you're discussing happens to be a talking point loudly used by us Theists.
Numbers 5 makes no mention of abortion. The scripture provides an outlet for the husband to forgive his wife, make amends. It doesn’t say she is pregnant. If anything, if she were pregnant, the formula would not cause anything to happen to the baby. End of story. Anyway pro life is not a biblical or religious argument. Watching my child in videos develop a personality in the womb and seeing him outside the womb, it’s the same person. Truly incredible what biology is capable of. Grabbing a tool and yanking is just not impressive biologically.
Numbers 5:21-22: here the priest is to put the woman under this curse-“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb *miscarry* and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb *miscarries.”* If she was not pregnant, then there's no miscarriage. If she was, the miscarriage terminates the pregnancy. In modern parlance, that's called abortion.
@@queuecee “21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman-“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh [e]rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.” ‘Then the woman shall say, “Amen, so be it.”” No mention of abortion here. Your version of text might be being more liberal with words. Either way, it doesn’t matter because the benign drink will not cause he the illness described and the husband is forced to accept her as she is. It is an outlet for male jealousy to be freed and peace to exist
@@kw2080 Oh, so you take a translation that describes miscarriages as "thigh rot" and say that there's nothing like an abortion? Do you think thigh rot is some skin disease. Get out of here with your disingenuous word play.
@@kw2080What do you think the belly swelling and the thigh rotting is supposed to mean? Because in other translations it means genitals. This is the same thing as in greek mythology. Zeus sewed the heart of Dionysus into his thigh because in the original text he sewed it into his penis but thigh was a more palatable way to phrase it and is around the same area. The bible was written in a similar era where the people would have phrased things similarly
Pro abortion arguments are so cringe. You can have whatever stance you want, but nitpicking on terms to use to lessen the horror is ridiculous. Be pro-choice if you want, but the end result of an abortion is a dead human. Own it and stop being cowards.
@@greenbat731 a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens and then child is a young person especially between infancy and puberty OR an unborn or recently born person. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
No, we need to know what the CREATOR has to say about it. My ham sandwich doesn't have an opinion. It's purpose was in my mind when I made it. I left my ham sandwich a Bible to instruct on all things, because he sinned and is not worthy of my presence. My sandwiches are not to decide what I meant for my creation THEY ARE TO COME FIND OUT WHAT I WANT..................or else. Man, fighting the creator is the epitome of stupid.
@@joshsheridan9511 Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that the Creator is the Only True and Sovereign God Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that the Creator authorized and sent Jesus Christ from heaven to earth thousands of years ago to preach and teach the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" to imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who willingly submit to the authority of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" will definitely bring themselves honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death. Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that the teaching of Jesus Christ about the "Resurrection of the Dead" is the Creator's guarantee that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.
I am an atheist, but I must say Forrest's arguments on these issues are the worst. Except in cases of rape, pregnancy happens with consent. It's not the same as forcefully taking his mother's blood or an organ or whatever. But then again, Forrest also makes stupid arguments to justify mental illness as normal. *shrug*
Thank you for saying you are an atheist, I'm sure that went a long way in convincing everyone here to think that whatever you wrote afterwards will be some fallacious reasoning. Just like if someone starts with, "I'm not a racist, but..." You know what's coming next is going to be racist.🤦♂
Tacking the implication that you want mental illness to be stigmatised onto the end of your comment was quite the nosedive. I mean you really made the effort to try and make your anti-medical-rights views appear legitimate then just… BOOM, “and also here’s some fucking ableism for no reason at all”.
@7:30 Human rights are not an age issue from him says the man arguing that it should be legal for one person to murder another, based on the physical location of the other person at the time they choose to commit the murder
“30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.” Source: ‘When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?’, a peer-reviewed study by Dr. Susan Tawia
So tell us why you believe it is morally acceptable to slaughter children to punish the parents? Is it the children or the parents who have no human rights in your opinion?
I'm just curious. Would anybody or "atheist" call killing a 5 year old body autonomy? Does the child have any rights? Children are the future of humanity and if it was mandatory that "everybody" should have an abortion or else. We would have no children and without children humanity would have no future. What would you think if you were being aborted? Oh that's right "nothing" because you wouldn't be around to have a say in this. If all atheists were required to have an abortion it would take about 100 years for the last few to die off. That means goodbye atheism.
“30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.” Source: ‘When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?’, a peer-reviewed study by Dr. Susan Tawia
According to Numbers 4: 27, God’s ok with forced abortions: “If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” 🥴 Thoughts, Shayla?
Here's the interesting thing about Forrest He's not exactly sure when life begins He is sure that women should have the bodily autonomy to stab a fully-formed infant in the skull and deliver the full body without dusmemberment even though at that point in time you could deliver the child alive as there is no difference to the medical consequences to a woman getting an abortion at 39 plus weeks He seems to be unaware that should you take a 1-month-old or one year old baby and place them in a room and walk away they're going to die, even though he stops arguing for bodily autonomy when it comes to men and women working jobs to earn money to pay child support But the one thing Forest is 100% sure on is that there are souls and people are born in the wrong bodies and need hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemical castration and surgical intervention to fix God's mistakes, all of that despite the fact that according to the only research ever conducted thus far suggests that 80% of children if left alone without chemical castration and surgical intervention will desist from gender dysphoria by the time they exit puberty leaving 20% whom such interventions might help however if you intervene before puberty is over 100% of that cohort is suddenly at the highest suicidal ideation rate we have ever seen in all of human history It's just amazing what medical facts Forest is unaware of and unsure of an absolutely 100% sure of and all of it just happens to match current thing dogma And he adheres to it with an almost fanatical religious like zeal
If you think there's only been one research thus far, it demonstrates either how willfully ignorant you are or how you don't care about discarding the truth for your ideology.
Do you still want people to ignore those passages that suggest otherwise Libby? Or is cherry picking for your feels how you want people to see your version of Christianity?
You just refuse to learn, probably due to your massive desperation and foolishness. There are several laws of entropy and you keep mentioning the wrong one. I'm talking about the increasing, continuous disorder of matter over time that's observed in all systems. You're going to age/lose information every moment of every day, just like an engine wears/loses information every moment of every mile it works in your car. The sooner you learn that fact the better. But just in case an educated person is going to read this, I'll explain it: If the world was ETERNAL, the usable energy would have been exhausted trillions of yrs ago - no matter how many universes you want to add to the equation, because of The Law of Entropy causes all matter to degrade over time to it's heat death end. If we had UNLIMITED TIME, this world would of already entered a dead state of heat death 900+ trillion yrs ago. The 2nd law says the universe is running down. That means someone had to wind it up with an INITIAL SET AMOUNT of usable energy. So we’d have no energy today if the universe was eternal (infinite); it would of ran out a long time ago. Therefore, this FINITE UNIVERSE not only had a beginning by an INFINITE/ETERNAL/SUPERNATURAL entity, but this world also has an eventual end. If G0D allowed it, the sun & all stars would eventually burn out & the entire universe would totally decay into heat death and would then become cold, dark & motionless. Try to learn what I'm teaching here.
@@sideboob6851 Q: So what did you do to pass the time while you were in prison? A: Air hockey on a wet floor in the shower block using a block of soap for a puck.
For anyone wondering about the context, this is directed at me. I'm apparently refusing to learn because he can't figure out how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems, and he's not willing to ask me.
@@Beacon80 They don't understand literally anything from science. Complete and utter ignorants. 😀True images of their bronze age god and authors of their "holy" book.
But why should I worship a God that objectifies women literally says that you can rape women. This God literally tells you that you will be eternally punished for something as stupid as not honoring your mother or father.
Speaking of who the g0d of the bible actually is, after the Job episode where g0d and Satan got together, had a wager, and Satan messed with Job big time just to amuse g0d, Satan went back to g0d and said, "That sure was fun, wasn't it? All those postulating skin lesions. emerods, dead livestock, and ten dead kids!!! I've got another really fun idea!" "Since the scribes haven't penned the bible yet, how about you let me mess with their heads while they are writing that stuff down? I'll convince them that they have been inspired by "the Lord" while at the same time I'll do a bait'n'switch to supplant myself as you. Then we can see if the bible believers do what Job did and become total simps for "the Lord"! I will *LIE* to Eve in the garden, slaughter infants as collective punishment, arrange for human sacrifice, condone slavery, and get some bears to shred 42 boys just for being cheeky to an old man" "I'll bet you I can make it so convincing that every bible believer will be a hard core apologist for all that nasty stuff and they will become staunch and devout defenders of the perpetrator of those foul and evil crimes! They will truly believe that I am you and you are me! Are we on??" And g0d said, "let there be some fun!"
No one is murdering children, we are talking about abortions. Abortion doesn't hurt the fetus in any way. It just takes away a life it doesn't know it has and has no particular preference about.
We appreciate that you are posting the content of the post-it notes that you keep to remind you to behave. But none of us here have any problems behaving like a member of a society. But I hope there are others near you who can keep a watch on you just in case you lose your post-its.
Watching Handmaid's Tale really drove the point home for me regarding bodily autonomy. Kind of embarrassed to admit that I was anti-abortion as a younger man.
And ironically, Elizabeth Moss practises Scientology, which allegedly has a shameful history on this.
Same
if bodily autonomy is a HUMAN right then unborn children (as human beings) would have that right and abortion would still need to be illegal as abortion violates the body of a human being in the worst way- by destroying that body
I dont get why people want to stand against abortions so bad. As a woman i should have a right to do what i want to do with my body like any man. If you dont like abortions simply dont get any. The bible treats fetuses as property so it isn't fair to bring in "religious reasons" considering the bible also says life begin at first breath and the abrahamic god also killed many children as well. I believe abortions CAN save lives whether it is the mother's or the child from suffering later on.
It's essentially because they want to control sex and access to women.
That's right. I am personally against abortion and will NEVER have one. That is my choice.
But it SHOULD be a choice that's available to anyone that becomes pregnant. There are MANY people whose futures would be destroyed if they didn't have this option, especially for those in the lower rungs of society.
It should be a choice. People make mistakes, people are victims of unwanted sex, birth control fails, some people aren't ready to have children but when people argue like abortion is a GOOD thing that should be encouraged or glorified, it's pretty disgusting.
@@5-Volt Who has encouraged or glorified abortion?
Do you think that any woman is happy to have to get an abortion? They may be relieved that they have the choice, but they are not choosing it because they like getting an abortion.
@@5-Volt you honestly lost me on the last part. Abortions CAN be good and it CAN be bad. Bad usually being unsafe, illegal abortions that are usually only there because of the criminalization of abortions.
If we're supposed to do the biblical thing and go to a priest for an abortion... they really shouldn't be doing it without a license.
That won't work as well all know what a priest wants to (and possibly will) do to them when they're a bit older...if you know what I amen, and I am sure you do.
you're supposed to do the RIGHT thing and protect your offspring, not take their lives.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Yes. Protect, nurture, educate, support, and cherish your offspring.
You seem to think all prospective mothers can pull this off.
You sure about that?
@@Sue-xv8os if they can’t pull it off, they cannot take the life of their child, born or unborn.
@@Sue-xv8os If they cannot do that with their born child (and they thought they could before giving birth) would that E V E R justify them taking the life of their unwanted newborn? Absolutely not. Therefore it is a horrible excuse for a man or a woman to the life of their unborn child.
Life and personhood are different. A human corpse has personhood, but no life. Bacteria has life, but not personhood. Something being alive does not mean it's a person or a human. That said, there's nothing wrong with someone getting an abortion.
If something is alive and then is forcibly terminated then that's the definition of killing
@@rockys201 When you get a cut and you bleed, those blood cells are "alive", if you are going to use such an asinine definition. So washing away the blood is the definition of killing?
How about you address the argument and talk about his point about personhood vs life? Is a zygote a person? No one disputes that it's alive, just like your blood cells are alive.
hmm is a human in coma a person?
@@queuecee It does lead to interesting discussion i feel; what is 'personhood'? What are the defining characteristics of a 'person'? Is it merely the sum of our actions? Or are all beings inherently valuable? Is it tied to conciousness? If so, what level of conciousness?
@@mrcodpwns or how about someone who's under deep sedation during surgery? Are they suddenly irrelevant during that time?
If you accept the notion of "life begins at conception" that means every single time a person has a miscarriage that person is at minimum open to prosecution for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide their partner also can be tried as an accessory.
States have tried to pass legislation on that idea.
@Beacon80 as long as the legislation impacts men, it'll never pass lol
I don't why it needs to be conception. An unfertilised ovum is also a potential life.
@@holgerlubotzki3469 I made that comment as well. They are saying that a zygote is "alive". Well, so is an egg or sperm cell. For their ideology, they refuse to consider that a clump of cells is not the same as an independently viable baby. They want to throw away common sense.
@@holgerlubotzki3469 going even further, FAILURE to have an abortion of an unwanted pregnancy, can also mean that a future (wanted) pregnancy is avoided (because they already have all the kids that they want) - i.e. a (future) potential life is being ended by that choice.
I honestly think *all* doctors in those states should just... do a "I'm Spartacus". The state almost collapsed when 6 nurses quit their job to go to another hospital. So... kinda wanna see how that'd work out for them when they try to jail like, 97 % of the entire healthcare industry.
I’ve been offered positions in those states and have said no, and told them that I refuse to work anywhere where 50% of my patients don’t have body autonomy.
@@Godless_DocGood on you!
@@Godless_Doc So you're fine with terminating the lives of those who truly have no bodily autonomy at the expense of those who knew full well what the consequences of their actions could lead to? You are the epitome of a monster 👏👏👏
@@robmanning6006 Ah, I see you are an evil, immoral person that want to give those babies to child grapists, so that they can grape and tourture those babies to deaf. Inflict as much pain and suffering on them as humanly possible before they cease to excuse at the ripe age of 3. You are an ally to child traffickers.
@@robmanning6006 Ah, I see you are an evil, immoral person that want to give those babies to child grapists, so that they can grape and tourture those babies to deaf. Inflict as much pain and suffering on them as humanly possible before they cease to exist at the ripe age of 3. You are an ally to humantraffickers.
Why is body autonomy such a hard concept for people to understand? A fetus should not have any rights to someone else’s body without their consent. Too many women are going to die because of politics that prevent doctors from saving the a living woman from a nonviable fetus.
1: Because it can never happen to THEM.
2: I honestly think *all* doctors in those states should just... do a "I'm Spartacus". The state almost collapsed when 6 nurses quit their job to go to another hospital. So... kinda wanna see how that'd work out for them when they try to jail like, 97 % of the entire healthcare industry.
3: I'd want a law that forces grapists to be 100 % responsible for the result. Don't want to place a baby with a grapist? Well, tough luck. It's the law.
It's not hard to understand they just don't want to. Because it's not about protecting life, it's about punishment for sex.
Why did they decide to start a pregnancy in the first place? What abut the autonomy of the body of the baby in the mothers womb?
@@tunneltu maybe they DIDN'T DECIDE TO.
The autonomous baby in the womb can be an autonomous baby outside the womb.
its like a you are countering your own argument within your argument, it makes no sense. The bigger human decide to kill the smaller human.
I just want to thank everyone here being against the right to abortion being so clear that they view pregnancy as a punishment for (women in particular) having sex.
Your open misogyny is helpful towards promoting choice.
At least on here, they aren't sophisticated enough not to say the quiet part aloud.
No be honest. It’s punishment for reckless sex and trying to back out of a commitment they knew the risks of
@@willjackson5885 So you are saying that pregnancy is the punishment to the woman for being a Jezebel and having sex without the intent to procreate?
@@willjackson5885 So you agree with Neal in that pregnancy = punishment.
@@holgerlubotzki3469 More like a deterrent for people to avoid recklessness
I've adopted a more inflammatory position, that "pro-life" is a synonym for slavery. To me that's what forcing any person to sacrifice themselves for the life of another without their consent is the definition of involuntary servitude. This practice is barred in the US by the 13th amendment, by the way, as well as simply being one of the most immoral acts imaginable.
I also agree that, because of that, the issue of personhood/when "life" begins/etc. is irrelevant to the entire subject of bodily autonomy of women and freedom from slavery in any form. That's an entirely separate thing altogether that a lot of time and screaming and yelling is wasted on....
and irony of ironies, you "pay" income tax... not like you have any choice in the matter...
@@jkenwell Well, yes you do have a choice, sort of - you can go live somewhere else without income taxes. But yes, in general, civilization is expensive. First-world industrialized nations just plain aren't cheap to build and maintain. So we have to expect to pay pretty dearly for the privilege of living as a citizen in one. The alternative to civilization is actually a lot worse, so at the end of the day it's money well spent.....
But if the woman knew the risk of pregnancy beforehand, then it’s more like agreeing to a contract, rather than involuntary slavery
@@willjackson5885 By analogy, one could argue that, if the African people knew about the risks of submitting to the American slave trade, then it's more like they agreed to a contract.... (in which another person was somehow granted a lifetime entitlement to the nonconsensual sole use and control of their bodies). Makes sense?..... Really?.... Of course not. Think about it: being aware of a risk when you have sex is not a justification for thereafter granting the government lifetime nonconsensual use and control of your body. When people jump out of airplanes and their parachute doesn't open properly, do we deny them healthcare if they survive? Sorry, dude, you knew the risk, no doctor for you!
So, no. There is simply _no_ circumstance where governmental ownership of women's bodies is justified. Period. There's just no such thing.
@@lstavenhagen The key problem with your analogies is that pregnancy also involves the child’s life. No one should be forced to incubate someone else in their body, but no one should be forced to be incubated in someone else’s body either. That’s the dilemma.
If you and a stranger were both forced into this relationship, then I think the incubator has no responsibility to keep the incubated person alive, even if the burden of keeping them alive is minor.
But if you *knowingly* put yourself in a situation that forces someone else to become an incubatee inside your body, then you don’t get to stop incubating them except for an extremely good reason.
gyn doctors say no pain is possible until 24 weeks
No brain, no pain.
True, dishonest antiabortionists will try to conflate reaction to stimuli with pain. The simple leg reflex test that used to be common shows that one can have a reaction without any conscious thought or perception. Tapping the top knee of crossed legs just right can cause the leg to kick. There is no attempt to kick, and the reaction is far faster than a conscious one.
So, I went looking to find the relevant information for that and it seems there is some debate, mainly among medical associations in the US vs the UK. The UK leans earlier based on certain criteria. The reasoning isn’t religiously motivated, it has to do with how to approach performing surgery in utero. Although, surgery at that stage doesn’t occur, as far as I know. It honestly threw me for a loop. I had to accept what I was reading though, it was a legitimate site. It altered my preconceived understanding, and I admit it made me a little uncomfortable. Doesn’t change my pro-choice stance. It’s way too complicated an issue, which is why strangers shouldn’t decide for all pregnant people.
@@cassievining340 One thing that you should also look up is how deep into a pregnancy that abortions occur. The issue is pretty much a red herring since very few occur that late. That is when one switches over from abortion just to end a pregnancy to an abortion that is medically necessary. In other words it is giant red herring. Here is a quote from the CDC:
"Similar to previous years, in 2021, women in their twenties accounted for more than half of abortions (57.0%). Nearly all abortions in 2021 took place early in gestation: 93.5% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (5.7%) were performed at 14-20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (0.9%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation. Early medication abortion is defined as the administration of medication(s) to induce an abortion at ≤9 completed weeks’ gestation, consistent with the current Food and Drug Administration labeling for mifepristone (implemented in 2016). In 2021, 53.0% of all abortions were early medication abortions. Use of early medication abortion increased 3% from 2020 to 2021 and 137% from 2012 to 2021. Source: MMWR. 2023;72(9);1-29."
The fetus is not a citizen of any nation, nor does it have standing in any national court. It has no rights. What's the debate?
There is no debate. You already lost. No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place:
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20
The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust.
Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception.
Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason.
Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again.
We’re all abortion survivors.
The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex?
Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex.
You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger.
All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
"Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
@@borthwrenblanston6632I bet your parents would have chosen a different path if they had know their son would be a jail bird.
Who would later make a fool of himself on the Web.
@borthwrenblanston6632 None of what you said refutes my OP. NONE of what you said is evidence proving your claims. You again flail and fail Pizza Cutter the Cowardly.
@@jonclark8252 How can there be a debate when these trolls can only run away? As soon as I ask them to agree to a voice debate, they act like I asked them to agree to the sentencing.
The reason so many Christians claim that life begins at conception is because of a passage in Christian Scriptures about how their god knew them when they were conceived. Or something like that.
SCIENCE tells us the life of a new human being starts at fertilization.
e.g. “A human being at an embryonic age and that human being at an adult age are naturally the same. The biological differences are due only to the differences in maturity. Changes in methylation of cytosine demonstrate that the human being is fully programmed for human growth and development for his or her entire life at the one cell stage.”
-Dr. David Fu-Chi Mark, a distinguished molecular biologist.
Honestly… this combo of hosts have some of the most pleasant voices to listen to.
If the child is under 18 years old then the mother makes medical decisions for them, not the other way around.
A bit hypocritical how NEPy claims we've chosen poorly in our lives when he got sentenced to 5 years.
7 in total, across two convictions for serious felonies.
NEPy cannot figure out how I reduce entropy in open systems every day, so he just declared that he had debunked me. 🤣
And apparently *I'm* the one who refuses to learn, despite the fact he hasn't once asked me to explain how this works. 🤣
Imagine that one baby is born with a bad heart and needs a transplant.
Also imagine that another baby is born without a brain, but has a fully functioning heart.
The heart of the second baby cannot be used to save the life of the first baby without permission from the parents of the second baby.
yea, but neither parent can take a weapon and end the life of their baby... similarly no one should be able to take the life of their unborn child to make their life easier.
@@mathildeyoung1823The parents of either baby do have the right to stop life support.
Abortion isn't taking the life of a child. It is ridding a woman's body of a clump of cells.
Forcing a woman to carry a baby is the same as forcing the parents of the brain-dead baby to donate their child's heart.
It is using a woman's body against her will.
Rape is also using a woman's body against her will.
So again, would it be right to force the parent's of the brain-dead baby to donate their child's heart?
@@terryfall8915 Abortion takes the life of a human being - that is a fact. Please educate yourself.
Your comparison is wrong. What is correct is that taking the life of a child, born or unborn, has the same main result - i.e. a young human being is denied a chance at a full and productive life.
Are you comparing an unborn child to a rapist!?!?! wow... one is a criminal, the other has done nothing wrong to deserve a death penalty.
Don't want to donate an organ then DON'T, but obviously DO NOT take the life of a defenseless human being, born or unborn, to make your life easier.
To help your education, please THINK. By definition, a fetus is a mammal...THINK - what species would a human fetus be a member of if not the human species? Note: the only current member of our species is the human being.
"kept as a secret from me, in the name of a god". That really hit me hard, as a Christian myself. To deliberately keep your child in ignorance in order to protect the fable you want them to live by. That's pathetic. Jesus, if you believe he is real, needs no such protection. And Science is our best tool to understand and investigate our world and ourselves. Hayden, I'm sorry. I'm sure your parents thought they were doing the right thing for you, and I hope they love you regardless. But I am angry at their Church for teaching them that that was a sensible way to rear a child, using intentional ignorance.
Religions are essentially biased against unrestricted knowledge. This is because they make claims of truth that further knowledge could demonstrate to be false.
According to Numbers 4: 27, God’s ok with forced abortions: “If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” 🥴
Not only that, how many didn't survive the ordeal? Those priests weren't exactly trained chemists to make a 'fidelity' potion.
@@SurgiusMaximus comparing supernatural intervention to abortion seems misguided.
@@Nathan-ok1dqsame result, but I guess your murderous god gets a pass.
I'm just amused that most people seem to miss that the women drink the same thing, the difference is a miracle to make one person barren and the other not. There's no "abortion recipe" in the bible.@@joshsheridan9511
@@joshsheridan9511 so it is a murder?
"Every sperm is sacred"
...Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate 🎵😂
And imagine how many of them there are...
Not been a problem for me, I had the big V about 20 years ago.
Now it's just fun and games
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate
@@joshsheridan9511 You mean, they all have to die with no way out?
"Bodily autonomy means my body is for me; my body is my own. It's about power, and it's about agency. It's about choice, and it's about dignity."
~ United Nations Population Fund
Does the fetus have the right to body autonomy ?
@@jimmymags6516 Nope, not until 30 weeks, when it gains sentience.
@@Sundae_Times So can we kill people when they're in a coma ?
@@jimmymags6516yes it does. And bodily autonomy means you have autonomy over your OWN body, not the body of others.
@@johnnybgood7442 That would mean the mother doesn't have the right to kill the body of her baby , correct ?
It's interesting that when confronted with the fact that sex isn't merely procreation how many pro abortion banners shift to implying abortions are all from unprotected sex.
@@Sundae_Times
That can't be it. I'm currently single yet I still know what sex is and isn't.
It's because they are stupid and absolutely uninformed. They don't know that half of all abortions that are sought after are because of failed contraceptive measures.
It's because they are incompetent and uninformed. They fail to understand that half of all abortions that are sought after are because of failed contraceptive measures. That means half of all the people that are going to get abortions did you some form of protection
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite
Yeah. They're woefully lacking on actual facts.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Using only one form of protection that is only partially protective is still incredibly reckless. If you don’t want to become a mother so badly that you’d kill your own child, then you better be extra, extra, *extra* careful. Not just 70-90% careful lol
5:37
You can even take that to the extreme. You don't have to be an adult for that. The moment you're born, you're on your own. If you give birth to a baby, and 5 minutes later that baby needs a blood transfusion, you can say no and let the baby die. You can argue that person would be a shitty parent, but that doesn't change that they can't be forced to give blood to their new born baby, even if that would prevent their death. It makes no sense that minutes before, while the baby was still inside the womb you HAVE to keep it alive, but the moment it's born then who cares anymore. Absolutely insane opinion to hold.
Perfectly coherent with the anti-choice movement. They don't care at all about healthcare, social support or anything else that the new family would need, they just want to impose their beliefs on others because they feel yucky when a maybe baby gets the boot. The ONLY way to lower the number of abortions is through social advancements and higher life quality, but they don't care about that, they just want to make it illegal to feel superior and demonize anyone different. As they've always done.
Except no, there's laws against that. Criminal negligence and child neglect are extremely serious offences.
So a parent can refuse to feed his kid?
@@JSPHism The comment specified blood transfusions. Of course you have to feed them, but I doubt they can force you to donate blood, even if it would save the baby's life
@@JSPHism no, they can't. Thats the point of child negligence laws.
Emma!!! And Forrest!!! Oh THIS is gonna be a good episode❤
Bodily autonomy is first.
But what most discussions miss is that in 41+ States and most nations, an elective abortion past the time of "fetal viability" is illegal. Variously around 20+ weeks, or when it's got a developed brain and necessary organs to keep it alive as a preemie.
It seems to vary depending on medical science or what is the earliest which can be kept alive.
Most pro-choice people will agree that this prohibition is a good guide. 5+ months is plenty of time to decide whether you want to carry it to term.
No "pro-life" person will admit to knowing this or to having been informed, and it goes in one ear and out the other like a neutrino, without interacting with anything in there.
Also the fact that we don't declare death when the heart stops, but when they give up on restoring the brain to function - even a damaged brain in a crippled body that needs machines to continue.
What needs to be viciously hammered down every time it pops up is their assinine assertion that there are thousands or millions of women just waiting 8+ months to decide that they just don't want to go through with it.
It sounds like I'm making a huge straw man, but it's their straw man and we hear it all the time, along with the "post-birth abortion" thing they'll go off about.
There are maybe 3 states that don't require paperwork from doctors saying that a late abortion is medically necessary, so that's their only possibility of showing any real numbers of elective abortion after 6 months, and the numbers don't exist. Women don't do that, no doctor will do that.
It's a silly, atrocious myth and they drag it out all the time.
This call touched on what they almost always will fall back on, even with an elective by 13 weeks (85% of all elective abortions) or the IUD or pills or even condoms: they'll insist that when she opens her legs, she's consenting to possibly/probably becoming a mommy.
It's not about children or babies, the whole thing is about their theology's sick obsessive hatred for sex and especially women's sexuality.
They want control of when and under what circumstances women can have sex or express sexuality.
Their theology going back to and before those sick b@$t@®ds Paul and Augustine, has their fear and hatred of sex and women.
They want the Handmaid's Tale and women being the property of their fathers until he gives her to another man to be a household drudge and baby factory and sex slave.
This Pope (the modern, cool, hip one) wrote that allowing contraception is saying that sex outside of marriage or even within marriage but not trying for children is OK and it's not. All sex even in marriage and for children is inherently sinful and dangerous and should be minimized (Apparently even at the cost of women's lives).
I've seen a lot of ridiculous comments made by theists here, but this one by @shaylagonser9341 is a contender for the most ridiculous.
"If you [atheists] genuinely believe that the Bible says that the Earth is flat, you're a flat earther by default. Flat earthers genuinely believe the Bible says so and so do atheists. Argue your way out of this one."
For full context, this is discussing a post where @Blargleman derided the Bible for supporting flat earth.
It's enough to make me suspect she's a poe. But, sadly, I can't be sure, because despite being so obviously flawed, I can't rule out that she hasn't realized how obviously flawed it is.
I've come to the conclusion based on word usage etc that it's an account used by that diaries poster.
It originally started as a parody of you atheists but has now started using the same "arguments"
Look at her videos. I wouldn't be too hard on her. It would be best to not argue with her.
it seems to me, life is at first breath, just like death is at last breath.
This wouldn't be a subject of debate if there were as many women in power as there are in society.
These hosts definitely don’t have kids. “Wad of snot” was a gross way to describe something that would later become, for example, one of my three beautiful kids.
Who talks like that?
dehumanizing rhetoric. what makes it worse is the huge smile on their face when they such awful things. it is uncanny
Great video and well thought out argument.
I always use the same argument but not as agoo as you explained it .
Abortion doesn't hurt the fetus in any way. It just takes away a life it doesn't know it has and has no particular preference about.
It's still killing, pal
@@rockys201 So? Killing is bad because of the harm it causes, without the harm, it remains killing, but it doesn't remain harmful, and therefore it doesn't remain bad. Things are bad not because of what they are but because of their consequences in terms of harm or benefit.
@@Jorge-np3tq go back to sleep, pal
@@rockys201 Oh, but we are having so much fun! You bring shit arguments, I demolish them, you whine these daycare comebacks "uh...uh...go back to sleep pal". Genius stuff, the teacher will give you a golden star for that.
@@rockys201
You kill cells everyday brushing your teeth.
And with every bowel movement.
This might be one way to help with the birth control/abortion controversies.
Would you support the following as a way to reduce the number of accidental pregnancies?
If males were to be encouraged to have a vasectomy early in life and
place sperm in banks (Most sperm can be stored for more than 20 years) at a low cost or government subsidised.
Let's not forget that a vasectomy reversal have exceptional success rates with the restoration of sperm in 90% of men.
So Man Up & Get The Cut
Well that would in my view go a bloody long way to sorting the
problem out.
It'll never happen for - two- one reason
-1) It's violating bodily autonomy-
-2- 1) it's inconveniencing men
@@Beacon80 Not sure how it violates bodily autonomy.
And there is another reason, it would not work in any country that doesn't have a and Socialist Medical system.
So that rules out Seppo-land🤣
@@ookekklibarianbornagain6708My bad. You specifically said "encouraged", not "forced", but I missed that. Sorry.
@@Beacon80Sweet as mate🍻
At least in the US, most of the conservative anti-choicers don't really want to reduce abortion. They want control.
There are plenty of research that show teen pregnancy goes down when there's good sex-ed and birth control easily available, such as from Planned Parenthood. Yet they want abstinence-only education. And lot of these people want to make contraception more difficult to get.
And they could push for programs that give better options to those with unwanted pregnancies.
If they REALLY thought that abortion was equivalent to murder of an actual human beings, they would WANT to implement these things that reduce abortion. But they do not behave like people who really think that abortion is same as killing a baby. They just tut-tut. But when they are in a situation where they need their girl friends or mistresses to get an abortion, they are happy to quietly pay them to go get an abortion.
If you think that life begins at conception, why did you stop there? Why not say that the gamete is "life"? Isn't it a living cell? And it has the potential to become a human being.
And if you are going to stick with a zygote being "life", does that "life" have all the things that you claim is life? Such as intelligence, consciousness, morality, emotion, will, etc. If not, why do those "intangible" properties depend on the physical cells?
And if you insist that a zygote is "life" with as much rights as a baby, what about all the frozen embryos? No IVF anymore it seems. And what about the human cell lines, the HeLa cells, that are used for research? Under the definition of someone who thinks life begins at conception, these are alive. In which case millions of these cells get destroyed every day. Someone who doesn't know the definition of genocide will call it a genocide.
Wow I bet a kid would be impressed by your 5th grade explanations. Can you say it in your broken English accent?
What we STICK WITH is what the creator said about it. "THOU SHALT NOT MURDER."
No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place:
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20
The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust.
Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception.
Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason.
Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again.
We’re all abortion survivors.
The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex?
Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex.
You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger.
All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
"Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
@@borthwrenblanston6632 Did the creator say anything about 'THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT FRAUD" or "THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT RACQUETEERING"?
Come on coward. Come on a live voice debate.
@@sideboob6851 Well, he can't even tell the difference between taking the existence of knowledge as a given vs all knowledge as a given. Obviously, he shouldn't be even mentioning epistemology.
And of course, since he's a Romanian, he doesn't hear actual English very often, so my Midwestern English probably sounds weird to him. But as he's just as much of a coward as all the other trolls here, he absolutely won't show up.
Talks big but is just a little boy.
Mind blown, seriously. What a sound, logical, persuasive argument you made. I have always been pro choice, but rest assured that from now on, when someone brings up the topic, I will be stealing this argument. There's no counter! What could someone possibly say in response? What retort is there? None. Thanks!
24 weeks for pain perception per ob-gyn doctors
A fetus is essentially filling the role of a parasite throughout gestation.
Yes but some people don't like that suggestion, even though the fetus has to release a chemical to stop the women's body attacking, it. And in some situations if that chemical is not present the fertilised egg gets distroyed as an invading organism 🧐
You were a fetus. Were you a parasite?
And you caused the "parasite," so you're responsible, duh. "Judgement Day" will have a firm opinion on the matter. I'd proceed carefully.
@@borthwrenblanston6632 🎾👂😉
@@borthwrenblanston6632😂😂😂
Oh my. We are an hour and a half from some of us discussing these WATs (weak-a** trolls) on the comments. This will be live streamed, so I invite those trolls to come and listen. Or if they are too scared, they can listen after the stream is done, in the safety of their own dark, dank basement. 😂 I'm talking to you, Damonkey. 😉
Make sure you also talk about this:
ATTENTION ATHEISTS! You have chosen poorly in your life THUS FAR, so let this GENIUS and TOTAL STRANGER give you the WHAT’S UP regarding your true reality. To start, you’ve superficially and cheaply chose to have a God bias. That’s because you’re a person of low character that usually always chooses the path of least resistance. In your stagnate ignorance, you have thus far refused to muster up the interest & passion to do the proper research to find out who placed you on earth and why. INSTEAD you’ve listened to the losers on this channel that talked you into just laying back in your sofa w/ a beer in your hand and just saying to whoever will listen, “Hey, God has to prove himself to me while I relax and sip on my beer for the rest of my life. I simply refuse to believe things of God until God comes to me and slaps me sideways. Until that time, I see no reason to pay attention to what my creator might want from me.” You simply DEMAND that it be God’s “turn” to pursue you EVEN THOUGH God has already:
1. Created you out of nothing and gave you the gift of life.
2. When Adam doomed all of mankind to hell, Jesus then died for Adam’s sin & your sin.
3. Jesus gave you TIME (+/- 70 yrs on this earth to decide to accept him or not).
4. God gave you a life to enjoy. The freedom to make your own life.
5. God’s prepared a place in heaven for you if you’ll only RETURN his love.
6. God loves you and is merciful to you even though you count him of ZERO VALUE.
7. In his love & mercy for you, his UNIQUE CREATION, God sent me to teach you these things.
So far in your life, you still You demand that God pursue you and beg you to accept him. THAT is a dangerous position to take, because you’re not God; HE IS GOD. And God gives the orders. God did the 7 things (see above) for you and even this life teaches you that “THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.” We all must pay our bills. And Jesus paid the largest bill you will ever have. And if you think God doesn’t expect a return on his investing his son to die for you, then you are SADLY MISTAKEN. I’ve personally witnessed the evidence to prove it, because I’ve seen the interpretation of tongues in a Camp Meeting back in the 80’s by the Night Speaker/Evangelist Ray Hughes, and I remember it verbatim to this day, because it was the scariest thing I ever heard. God was yelling through this evangelist. I depicted the yelling in Caps. God said:
“You’ve heard my Gospel time and again. And yet… it falls far from you. From pulpit to pulpit, you’ve been warned... IT PASSES YOU BY! And I say, LET IT SINK DOWN INTO YOU EARS!!!! ... BELIEVE ON ME! BELIEVE ON ME! BELIEVE ON ME! FOR EXCEPT YOU BELIEVE, YOU SHALL BE DAMNED! AND YOU SHALL BE DAMNED, because you have rejected my death upon Calvary.”
I still have the cassette tape of it. And like I said, it’s the scariest thing I’ve ever heard and those of you that are acquainted with Ray Hughes knows of his very strong masculine voice.
So back to you. Let me reiterate; the problems for you are manifold. First, you don’t even know how to observe God. Do you actually think God can be placed in a test tube for your review? Do you have any idea who God truly is? Let's face the facts, shall we? You're just another lost & clueless fool that thinks humanity came from star dust or something else equally ridiculous. You're breathing air that doesn't belong to you. Taking up space that doesn't belong to you. Given a life that doesn't belong to you. He brought you from nothing and you're nothing, YET you feel totally justified to raise your tiny stupid fist at him at the height of your ignorance. THAT is what you are; never mind him.
That said, Jesus loves you dearly & has shown you this love by bringing you from non-existence & giving you “the gift of life.” And did you say “thank you?” No. He also removed your doom via the sin of Adam by the suffering on the cross for you. And did you say “thank you?” No. He’s also “prepared a place for you in Heaven” if you’ll only return his love that’s already given you. And did you say “thank you?” No. Again, it’s the “love” of Jesus for people is what attracts them to Christianity. Your move, Chief.
P.S. - We already read the last page of The Book of Revelation and it says "God wins." I don't know about you, but I'm going to fight and be an overcomer of Satan, the world and with God's help, the flesh. I'm not just going to barely cross the finish line of heaven; I'm going to cross the finish line doing warp 13 w/ my hair on fire! NOTHING is going to stop me from going to heaven. STOP wallowing in your ignorance & cluelessness. Get w/ the program. START TODAY NEW!! I’m here to help you.
I will end with this truth… I would say that you fail to understand exactly who God is. He wants to be sought after. Why? Because he's worthy of our pursuit for what he’s done for us thus far. His awesome greatness is beyond yours and my comprehension. What he’s done for you is UNIMAGINABLE! GREAT! AWESOME! Honor him.
@@borthwrenblanston6632 👈 Does anyone know what this disgraced chiropractor's prison conviction was for? 🎾👂
@@borthwrenblanston6632 Don't you worry your little head, Pokey. We'll DEFINITELY be talking about you. 😂😂😂😂😂😂
If you had ANY balls, you would come and listen and join us in the discussion. You can then get destroyed when we call out your idiocy, but you'll be able to go back and claim that you won. Just like how you lie about "winning" for FIFTY years.
@@sideboob6851 OH MAN, you're so right! Clearly, it was a mud puddle (or star dust?) that came from nothing by nothing to do nothing and be nothing & produced the first cell with systems within to eat, digest food, eliminate waste, move, breathe & reproduce, NOT TO MENTION that first cell contained the DNA blueprints for 9 million DIFFERENT species of life. THAT is the bald face stupidity of atheism UNLESS of course, you have a better atheist explanation for reality. I'll be glad to hear it, but we both know you don't. And that means you're the very definition of being "lost & clueless" when it comes to reality.
God is real and EVERYTHING we observe (e.g. life, intelligence, love, consciousness, morality) is only explained by an INFINITE CAUSE that has the intelligence, power, purpose, resources & means that are FAR BEYOND that of mankind. We call him “OUR INFINITE/ETERNAL/SUPERNATURAL GOD and there is no other option. That's why no atheist has a rational/possible, step-by-step atheist explanation for reality. That's because there isn't one.
Try to learn what I'm teaching you before it's too late (when your temporary free will expires at your last gasp on earth and you go to an eternal hell - wishing you had never been born). For now, you and your asinine, lost & clueless cult of atheism are hereby debunked (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy).
@@borthwrenblanston6632 "Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
Love Emma and Forrest! Awesome team 🤘
Excellent point Forrest
I can't help but think that a lot people who argue for forced birth are jealous of those of us that are getting some, thus feel the need to lash out.
It couldn't be more obvious that a lot of forced births want to punish women for having sex.
My nomination for the Straw Man Fallacy of the Week award:
"If you genuinely believe that the Bible says that the Earth is flat, you're a flat earther by default." 🏆👏
That is actually a Tautological Circular Straw Man Fallacy!
😂😂😂 Is it a good thing or a bad thing that i live rent-free in Damonkey's head?😅
Grifting with my name again? Quecee can’t name an argument against me. He spends his time making phantom accusations over every factoid to cook up a fake controversy, with people he can’t compete with.
Stop hanging from me son.
@@queuecee What you gonna do, give me a 5th grade explanation of Neural Activity for kids, as proof of metaphysical materialism?
@@queuecee You’ll get over losing son, you’re used to it.
When Donkey has enough Clozapine
He invokes Damon the Green
And when supplies are down
Online DonKey turns Brown
While in debates neither is ever seen!
Such a great one❤
I'm not gay, but I just had sexual thoughts about Forrest. Am I sapiosexual, maybe?
What???
I doubt he'll ever date you.
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 I am also a very clever and good-looking boy. Are you sure?
@dieudebois296 Yep. Pretty sure. You can always call one of the shows he hosts and ask him. 😁
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 You have an odd understanding of human interactions.
Passages that show how much God really cares about children:
Psalm 137: 9
Exodus 12: 29
Luke 14 :26
Ezekiel 23: 20
Exodus 21: 7
_Thanks to AXKfUN9m for these_
What about all the ones that show how much God hates children? There are many more of those.
@@papabeard4976 I know. See above 😉
But God loves you it says so in John 3:16
And he needs money Exodus 22:29 and your oldest grandchildren too for some reason.
@@papabeard4976 when he k!lls them and the bible labels a fetus as mere property. Biblical scholars already said that the bible dont and shouldnt have a place on abortion.
Xtians: Life begins when an egg gets fertilized.
Science: Between one-third and one-half of all fertilized eggs never fully implant.
Yahweh/Jesus: Slaughtering millions of "lives" every year.
LOLZ
But that's God's business - not yours. Make God's business yours if you like, but fighting the creator of all things is the epitome of stupid.
@@borthwrenblanston6632Thanks for outing yourself as a SLAVE to the Immoral Mafia Boss because he can break your legs.
LOLZ
Creationist feelings don't care about facts
@@borthwrenblanston6632 You are the epitome of stupid. Have fun in hell, for you are wicked in God's eyes.
Dear Flojo: UNTIL YOU GO THROUGH A FUCKING PREGNANCY, YOU DO NOT GET TO HAVE ANY OPINIONS ON ABORTIONS.
Hey 15 yr old, I have to be pregnant before I can have an opinion on right or wrong? The answer is "no," in case you were wondering. God gave us all common sense and morality, so we're to use it.
No, it’s not just the woman’s decision. Abortion = murder (taking life that’s not yours). The baby is not your BEING or your DNA or your FINGERPRINTS. If you CHOOSE to have sex, should you have the responsibility that comes with it? And since it takes a male & female decision to have sex, are not both responsible? So yes, the male also has a moral right about abortion. And all of humanity belongs to God in the first place:
“For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” - 1 Cor 6:20
The heathen are desperate to draw a line when there is no line to be drawn. Only humans can tell the difference between the just vs unjust.
Life begins at conception; thus, constitutional rights begin at conception.
Humans ALONE have rational speech and can reason.
Human DNA is special in that their DNA will never live again.
We’re all abortion survivors.
The difference between a baby by rape or by conconsensual sex? If you take an ultrasound of both babies without labling them, which one has more value? There’s no difference in value.
My 7 yr old depends on me and I just can’t kill them because my child depends on me and I don’t want that responsibility. We don’t have to over-think this. Why do we have the right to administer the death penalty to a child, just because you decided to have consensual sex?
Abortionists are pro-choice, because it was their choice to have sex.
You don’t get to kill a defenseless one week old just because you’re bigger.
All of us belong to God and he knew us before he placed us in the womb:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you…” - Jeremiah 1:5
@@borthwrenblanston6632 You don't know what a pregnancy is like, so you shouldn't be allowed to say people should be forced to go through one that isn't wanted. Most abortions are from young people who can't afford to have a baby. What are they even supposed to do with it once it's born? Throw it in the trash, since they can't afford to care for it? And how the hell did you produce a baby at 55?
Nonsense!
@@borthwrenblanston6632 AGAIN:
There are three things that you should know about your book, if you don't already:
- It's irrelevant to literally everyone that isn't in your religion (thus the vast majority of the population of Earth).
- It has no place whatsoever in government.
- Nobody has the right to force others to comply with it.
If you forced birth christofascists actually do think it's murder, that means you want to force people that you see as murderers (if they have had an abortion) or potential murderers (wanted an abortion, but couldn't get one) into becoming parents.
Why would anyone that thinks someone is so immoral that they have or would murder someone want that same person to be forced into becoming a parent?
The logic behind your stance is so flawed that either you haven't thought it though, you're an outright imbecile, or you're trying to push bullshit that you don't believe yourself.
@@ApatheticFish3667 Well, you should thank God that I'm not God. You think you and the rest of the maggots can drop down into the mud of the gutter and argue about what's what and arrive at a decision, when GOD IS THE ONLY DECIDER AND THE ONLY CREATOR AND YOUR ONLY JUDGE - NOT YOU AND THE REST OF THE MAGGOTS!
I wish they’d talk about animal rights, i may have to call in
Emma & Forrest are my favorite science duo! I've proposed to Emma several times but she ignores me every time, so Forrest, How u doin? 😏😘
Science? NOTHING of the NONSENSE of atheism has anything AT ALL to do with the scientific method of testing, measuring and observing (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy). So there's that...
Established science? There's no such thing as "established science" for any atheist idea, because not even one of them has every been EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED IN REAL TIME (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution)
Only TRUE NATURE can be EMPIRICALLY OBSERVED IN REAL TIME (e.g. flower bloom, reproduction, photosynthesis, digestion, respiration, top down production, gravity, sunshine).
Try to learn what I'm teaching you before it's too late (when your temporary free will expires at your last gasp on earth and you go to an eternal hell - wishing you had never been born). YOU CAN’T AFFORD TO GET THIS WRONG. Because 100+ trillion yrs from the moment you entire hell, it won’t even be the start of eternity! For now, you and every facet of your asinine, lost & clueless cult of atheism are hereby debunked (e.g. multiverse, big bang, abiogenesis, mistakes (mutations) gaining in complexity/new information, evolution, gain of complexity/gain of new information/new anatomy).
I'm still waiting for the scientific reasoning.
Science doesn't have an opinion on bodily rights.
It’s not a scientific topic.
🤦🏼♀️
Did you hear about that new born baby in the news? They searched it's pockets, and found it's mothers kidneys and bone marrow.
Is that a joke?
@@aarronwilson5647 Yes.
Atheist here, trying to imagine caring about pronouns and biology at the same time.
Feel free to call in when Forrest is on if you really want to discuss that.
🥗
Caring about two things at once must be difficult.
Is that too complicated for you?
Intersex people exist. Biology is not consistent. It's not this perfect structure that you people want to pretend it is. It is a messy messy web of outcomes
It all starts with sentience period
So around 30 weeks at the earliest, then
Would you claim rights to other peoples earnings and labor for you to survive?
5:10 no right to live inside somebody else’s body without their consent. That’s pretty hilarious considering that’s the only place an unborn baby can live. Atheism defies logic.
That's why abortions exist, idiot.
So you are saying women are incubators and women do not have bodily autonomy. You are saying women do not have the rights over their own bodies
It doesn't matter if that's the only place that a fetus can live it still doesn't have the right to use someone else's body against their will. The owner of the body has the final say. By your logic we cannot remove cancer because inside of a body is the only place cancer can live.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite It’s called procreation actually, if you’re looking for the technical term.
That has nothing to do with atheism. Nor with logic.
But you put the child there. You created the circumstances where the unborn child is dependent upon your body. You forced the fetus to be dependent on you. You made the decisions that caused it come into being. Therefore you must take responsibility for the consequences of your actions even if you regret them. You know that every time you have sex you’re risking 9 months of pregnancy. You’re not 5 years old, you know this. Using abortion as birth control is not only irresponsible, it’s anti human and for lack of any better word it’s demonic. The atheist experience is responsible for my atheism. It’s also responsible for why I refuse to call myself an atheist.
Tell that to a rape victim or an underage abuse victim
No you don't. Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy. My husband and I do not want to have kids. We want to have intimacy but we do not want to have kids. We did not intentionally put a kid there. We actively worked against that but if it happens that was not our intention and that was not our choice.
No one is forcing the fetus to be dependent that is just simply a function of biology.
No we do not have to take responsibility because there is no obligation to it because no one has the right to use another person's body.
No one uses abortion as birth control. Abortion is sought after when birth control fails. Half of all your people getting abortions did take birth control measures and they failed. The other half made mistakes. That does not mean that they have to suffer with those mistakes. If you cut yourself you don't have to let it sit there and bleed to death you get to go to the hospital and have that corrected.
You are responsible for you considering women incubators. You are responsible for degrading women.
@@Sundae_Times this person doesn't care this person thinks women are incubators and doesn't think women are people
Are you stupid on purpose
While I disagree with your conclusion your first 6 sentences are why I disagree with the bodily autonomy argument save for the case of rape and why I instead use the biological argument.
I’m a fan of forest but his argument regarding the fetus having no rights to a women’s body and the comparison to organ donation was ridiculous, and when does accountability and taking responsibility for adult decisions come into the equation?
If a woman has an abortion she is accountable for that decision and is taking responsibility for her actions.
You realize that you can't just say accountability when there are plenty of people that aren't actually educated in how sex works or why the human body actively gets horny. Humans make extremely dumb decisions when they're horny because we're animals looking to reproduce. No the fetus does not have the right to the uterus. If someone was attached to my arm it's still my f****** arm. A fetus isn't a living thing even if it was a fully living breathing human it's still not the f****** fetuses uterus. It's stupid that you think every abortion is because of lustful decisions only... Condoms can f****** break my guy. Complications with pregnancy can happen my guy rape can happen my guy. I don't want a child being born to a woman who is so f****** poor that she absolutely can't afford to raise the child for 9 months let alone for the rest of its life. It's not fair to the child or the mother to make both of them deal with that situation. It's actually disgusting that you still think that it's all just people having sex for the sake of having sex and then using abortion for the sake of f****** contraception. It's amazing how you people don't actually think about this s*** because you don't want to
@@user-blob I'm pro choice but that's b/c it's not human with rights yet. he is saying when you have sex you are responsible for your actions. meaning if it was a human at conception, you can't just kill it and say bodily rights. since you were the cause of your body being used.
someone randomly needing your organ that you had nothing to do with and were not the cause is very different.
@@scoop2448 If you are in an abandoned cabin with a surgeon and a cellist, and you stab the cellist and damage their kidney. Your kidney happens to be a match. The surgeon can save the cellist's life but need to take your kidney. He can do it without killing you. Is it OK for him to take away your kidney?
@@queuecee Well no but if you don't give up your kidney the cellist will die and you will be charged with murder... now apply that to abortion 😎
Great video as always. Stay blessed.
R'amen 🍜 🍝
You are consistent regarding bodily autonomy, correct?
What I mean is that you would agree that no one should ever been forced or coerced to wear a fabric mask or receive a vaccine? (To preface, yes, I do receive vaccines).
Body autonomy means the freedom to make decisions about your life and body free of outside coercion. But like all freedoms, the line at which this freedom ends is precisely where another's begins. You are free to wear the clothes you want, but you are not free to go out in public naked. You are free to go outside and swing your arms, but that freedom ends once your hand reaches someone else's face.
Similarly, you generally have the freedom to choose to protect yourself from illness or not. However, Public Health, by it's very name, is an institution that operates on the scale of whole communities and populations. Your choice to not get a Measles vaccine would mean you'd be much more likely to catch, multiply and spread the virus. Thus everyone who interacts with you or touches something you've touched is put at risk, even if they are vaccinated.
Body autonomy is for all.
including unborn children! That is obviously why abortion needs to be illegal.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Nope if the woman doesn't want the child or she as been assaulted, or may die from the birth then it's time to snip snip. The woman can make that decision. Cry harder.
@@randomlyweirdjeff4638 No one's WANTS should ever result in them being able to take the life of a defenseless human being.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Actually yes the woman's wants or needs overrides that. A baby isn't a baby until birth. She has to sustain a life with her body, she has the rule right and authority to make that decision. Just like men have autonomy over their reproductive parts so does a woman. End of story.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Would you like it if laws were made where you couldn't govern your male reproductive rights? Men have always had a privilege in this arena. It's time for women to have the same privilege for themselves.
If you willingly have unprotected sex you dont have the right to abort unless your pregnancy puts your life in danger.
Why are people so behind bodily autonomy? If you can help someone else, and it doesn't put you at risk, I don't think you should be able to opt out. PS not Christian
I would love to converse about not the legality, but the morality of abortions if anyone is interested. There is one circumstance and one circumstance only where an abortion would be immoral. In any other circumstance, if any one of these criteria don't apply then I would find an abortion moral, however, if they all apply I would find it immoral. Here are the criteria: A lack of reasonable precautions taken to prevent conception. Reasonable precautions include the use of condoms by one or both partners, oral contraceptives, IUD, vasectomy or hysterectomy. However, if the person believed that contraceptives were being used but then found out that they weren't or still became pregnant after using contraceptives then those would both be exceptions that would make it moral in my view. The second criterion is consent. I recognize there are dictionary definitions but I will be describing consent for this specific circumstance. Consent occurs when prior to engaging in the act, the person was conscious, aware of their surroundings, alert, not under the influence of drugs/alcohol such that their decision making is heavily impaired, gave permission to engage in the act, and understands the risk of becoming pregnant. The third criterion is that both carrying the fetus and delivering the baby do not pose a significant risk of grave bodily injury or death to the mother. The fourth and last criterion is that the baby is not born with any defects that would cause it to live an incredibly shortened and/or painful life. I'm open to any critiques or your own viewpoint on the morality of abortions.
So most abortions in your view are moral?
@@nealjroberts4050 If most situations in which contraception occurs do not include all of those criteria then most abortions in my view are moral.
@@Steven_DunbarSL
And would you ban abortions for any _conceptions_ that do?
@@nealjroberts4050 Again, the intention of the this thread is to have a dialogue on the morality, not legality of abortions. To answer your question though, I would not and do not advocate that anyone be barred from having access to safe abortions. I would just find it morally impermissible under the aforementioned circumstances. If I were a lawmaker, I wouldn't rely on my own moral beliefs to determine whether something ought to be legal or illegal.
@@Steven_DunbarSL
I apologise if I offended you.
Just trying to be clear on your views and intentions. Am too used to people using their opinion on the morality to argue legislation.
One of my more compelling arguments for prochoice, at least for myself, is that of personhood. I am fully within the camp that bodily autonomy shalt not be infringed upon, by breathing living people, let alone not breathing, arguably living people. But think of what makes personhood.
Personhood is the ability to feel, think, reason, recognize self, and conceptualize greater concepts. Are fetuses persons by their cognitive capacity? Can they feel? perhaps. Can they think? unlikely. Can they reason? improbable. Can they recognize self? Most certainly not. Can they conceptualize greater concepts? Babies let alone fetuses aren't philosophers. So no. And such questions are vanishing when you consider earlier stages of life where there is no central nervous system or greater bodily functions.
A very problematic aspect of human thought as it relates to science and daily human interactions, is anthropomorphism. Is a fetus human life? Yes. Is it a person with human thoughts and feelings comparable to yourself. No. We regularly inject personhood into animals, plants, and even the dead, that aren't warranted. And in the argument of personhood, there is a need to consider what is rather than what will be. The future isn't now. So even if a fetus may be a person in the future, at present it is not. At least not to a degree like the breathing.
A braindead comatose person having the plug pulled on them isn't murder as those anti-abortionists would consider for a fetus. Just as a disembodied finger might be human life. If my body were vaporized outside of my finger, should it be grafted onto the flesh of another human in the vain hope my body might be reconstructed by future science? No. That's insane to consider a possibility such as that and subject a person to a parasitic appendage grafted to their body. Potential is in no way equivalent to present.
Person = human being. Our rights are called HUMAN rights. HUMAN rights need to apply to all human beings - which include unborn children. That is why abortion needs to be illegal.
@@mathildeyoung1823 Again we meet.
An embryo/fetus is human, but not a human being nor is it a person.
What about the HUMAN rights of the mother?
@@Sue-xv8os there is no right to take the life of a defenseless human being to make your life easier. And of course, a human fetus, a mammal, is a human being. What other species would they be a member of? Hint, the only member of our species is the human being.
@@mathildeyoung1823 a fetus is not worth anything at all
@@immortalirx The lives of all innocent human beings are valuable.
Emma referred to last was Exodus 21:22”New International Version
“If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows.”
Depends on text read how they translate, but I the child was born dead, that would be a serious injury. It is important to remember that Emma isn’t trying to understand the scripture but instead using it as an attack; a weapon. It is insincere which I think she would admit to. I don’t think she struggles with understanding the Bible or understanding abortion. It is different for some of us who have a strong belief in human life and want to protect life even if it is not our own. I would protect everyone on here if I am called to do so. I respect life and babies.
What do you think her argument was? Let's see if you understood it enough to steelman her argument, so that you don't sound so hypocritical about denigrating her understanding.
@@queuecee I think Emma said something about the death of a baby not being worth much according to scripture but she couldn’t remember the scripture nor the location. So I was giving the scripture and location. It doesn’t say that the baby died. So she might be referring to a different translation and reading into the passage her meaning. It is difficult to improve upon a faulty and insincere argument. That is ultimately the flaw with Atheism in my view. They often only find value in the Bible if they can use a passage to hurt a believer. They ended the segment on how could anyone believe the Bible is pro life? However, countless Christians have found the Bible to have a message of love and life. So it isn’t as far fetched as they make it sound.
@@kw2080 Good job "steelmanning" her position. Definitely not faulty or insincere.🙄
It IS Exodus 21:22, which you quoted but refused to actually try to understand her argument. Even if it was indeed faulty or insincere argument (it was not), the whole point of me challenging you to steelman her position is so that you can demonstrate that you are willing to accept her argument in good-faith and sincere manner. And it seems you couldn't.
The point Emma was making is that the passage treats the loss of an unborn child differently than harm done to the woman. Losing the child merits fines. If the WOMAN is seriously injured, the offender can be punished life for life, eye for eye, tooth for toth.
I have strange feeling that despite me explaining to you Emma's point, you will still not get it. Maybe you will accuse ME of making a faulty or insincere argument. Let's see.
@@queuecee it’s more like you did not listen to my point. Emma did say the passage said the death of the unborn was a fine BUT the passage does not say that. There is no steel man for inaccurately quoting scripture. That’s why I said she didn’t read the scripture in good faith. It was just a tool. Am I wrong? The scripture doesn’t say a child died. It says a child is born and no harm was done. No harm means the child didn’t die. I suppose a steel man on her side would be we just don’t know. However that’s not the argument she was making. However, how can we have a discussion if you aren’t actually discussing what I said?
There happens to be a footnote to the NIV on "gives birth prematurely" that points out the alternative meaning as "has a miscarriage".
Given you failed to present that alternative interpretation and thus that her argument has validity it does suggest some bad faith on your part.
It is a highly controversial topic even outside of religion. In the exclusively atheist field, it gives food for thought and analysis.
What food for thought? Women's bodily autonomy is not up for discussion
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexiteThinking doesn't hurt, on the contrary. I always recommend it. 👍
I'm pro choice, but regarding the argument of "Nobody has the right to use your body (or parts) without your consent, which would follow that the fetus is a person or at least a human lifeform; Isn't the right to life the top human right? Because then you'd be killing the fetus (which would be a person, or living thing by that logic, in which case it is at no fault as it didn't choose to be conceived.) Unless you believe it should only be considered a person or human lifeform after a particular stage in the pregnancy, in which case it should be no moral issue to abort the zygote. But then one we would have to agree on when the zygote becomes a person or human lifeform.
Also what if some day we live in a society in which we have sufficient resources to store and grow or transplant a zygote or fetus from a woman who decides not to continue carrying the zygote/fetus as apposed to having an abortion? Would it be amoral to have an abortion since the zygote/fetus and the pregnant woman can both happily go their separate way, considering abortion is no longer needed to prevent further reliance on anothers body for survival? That last one is hypothetical, I know. ore of a thought experiment.
Edit* That stabbing/ blood donor argument is pretty good. kinda
No it doesn't because you're allowed to defend yourself from invaders.
As Forest said it doesn't matter if you grant personhood to the fetus/baby/etc. (and I don't) nobody has the right to use your body without consent. You can need my organs to live but even if I'm dead you don't have the right to them if I didn't give permission first. A dead body shouldn't have more rights than a living pregnant person.
@@Mollytov840 Outside of the case of rape, the argument is that the foetus wouldn't be considered an invader as it is a knowable consequence of intercourse. Most wouldn't considered it fair or moral to bring a life into the world in a state where it's survival is solely dependent on you only to decide to kill it just because their dependency inconveniences you outside of it being life-threatening. Hence why many opt for the biological argument as it is much more defensible.
@@capthavic Forest is illogical. The rights of offspring are incumbent upon the mother. Parental bonds.
@@Mollytov840 You’re not scientific.
I'd honestly want a law that forces grapists to be 100 % responsible for the result. Don't want to place a baby with a grapist? Well, tough luck. It's the law.
If a literal preteen is deemed a fit parent, a grown man sure as heck is too.
Er... huh?
@@Sundae_Times In case of grape: *Force* the grapist to raise the baby, pay for the baby. Be 100 % responsible. 0 child support from the mother. He will be legally obligated to raise the child until 18.
When is the rapist going to provide for the child he helped create? He should be in prison for life at a minimum.
So punish the baby?
Ok first you can say rapist. People in the video don't say rapist because it can get the video demonetized or hidden from the general public. Comments can say whatever they want. Second why would you do that? Like conceptually I see the line of logic "Dont rape a woman cause then you gotta take care of the kid" but like. If someones gonna rape a woman whos to say they wont rape the kid? Or abuse the kid? Or put them up for adoption? Or hell even if they don't abuse the kid that's still REALLY rough to go through FOR THE KID. Lots of people will tell you that they wished their parents got a divorce instead of staying together when they hated each other now imagine it when one of them is a full on rapist. I'm just saying that's a really poorly thought out idea
What's the best secular case that someone has a 'right' to bodily autonomy?
On what basis do you believe they don't?
@@Sundae_Times I didn't say I believe they don't. There are many ways to make the case for bodily autonomy. I'm looking for a secular/non-religious version. Have you go tone?
@@markwoodhouse2929 "Bodily autonomy means my body is for me; my body is my own. It's about power, and it's about agency. It's about choice, and it's about dignity."
~ United Nations Population Fund
@@Sundae_Times Thanks, but I think that's a definition of bodily autonomy, rather than an argument that everyone has a 'right' to such. WHY is my body for me?
@@markwoodhouse2929 Because Elon Musk hasn't bought the rights to it yet. So make the most of it before he gets round to it. It's just a matter of time.
It doesn't have anything to do with rights. Pregnancy is not something just just happens. There is a process that takes place. Unless rape is involved or maybe drugs or alcohol are involved or if for some reason the birth control fails than its a choice.
That's a lot of ifs.
Accidental pregnancies? I mean it's only about 5% of the time but 5% of the population of women in the US is still a LOT of accidental pregnancies
@@greenbat731 all I'm trying to say is that everyone's argument for abortion is always something about the woman just becoming pregnant and she had nothing to do with it. Like abortion is removing a cancerous growth. How about taking responsibility for your actions. I'm not against abortions just to be clear. The argument for it that everyone seems to have is just ridiculous. I haven't heard one that seems logical to me.
@@treuter Do you think the people planning on and consenting to getting pregnant are the people getting abortions? If they want the pregnancy why would they abort it?
So you do not have bodily autonomy so I can go ahead and force you to work for me
While this is obviously very important, remember, the longer the Icon of Sin is on Earth the stronger it will become.
Elon Musk?
@@Sundae_Timeshahahah
Are you advocating for the removal of religions?
@@nealjroberts4050A little too subtle for gabiark I think.
I don't find the the stabbing/blood donor argument that the caller provided convincing. By engaging in intercourse you're knowingly risking bringing a potential life into existence whose survival relies solely on you which isn't equivalent to making someone who can survive in their own be forced to be dependent on others for survival. The Violinist Thought Experiment is at least the more appropriate analogy but in most cases the scenario involves willingly choosing to help keep the violinist alive which would bare a greater amount of responsibility than if one where kidnapped. This is why I believe bodily autonomy regardless of personhood is largely applicable to cases of rape or life-threatening pregnancies and why biological arguments are better for being pro-choice as they possess better logical consistencies.
Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy.
All you are doing is telling women they're not allowed to have intimacy.
All you're really doing is shouting to everyone that you don't think women are equal individuals
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Consenting to intimacy is accepting the possibility of becoming pregnant and accepting the responsibilities that comes with it.
Rejecting the bodily autonomy argument except in cases of rape or life-threatening pregnancies doesn't necessarily mean being anti-choice as I believe that biological arguments a better for arguing the pro-choice position.
@@whodatboi2567abortion is being a responsible adult.
Why not just be honest and openly admit that you want to punish women for having sex?
It's not like it could be any more obvious.
@@whodatboi2567
No. Consent to sex is consent to your partner using your body. No one else. The unborn baby is a separate person who doesn't even exist when the act is performed and doesn't get indirect entitlement to exist because of your agreement with a completely different person. That's insane. This has nothing to do with responsibility. That is just objectively not how consent works.
“Going to die”
Give one example?????
Culture of Death
What is? Christianity? I agree.
Culture of enslaving women
And you think women shouldn't have equal rights
Yep 45,000 Christian death cults
@@Sundae_Times👏👏👏
Don't Murder Your Children.
And that question goes to contestant no. 1 - God.
Is it okay to murder the children of other people in order to punish them?
Do you actually need someone to remind you that? Yikes.😬
@@queuecee And even then, it's just "your children". So does that mean they think it's ok to kill other people's? 🤔
Don't enslave women
One of the possible consequences of sex is pregnancy
Mom takes on the consequence(inconvenience)
Or the baby takes on the consequences(death)
Consequences don’t go away
Humanists are savage
the very base impulse to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex is quite strong in most of our kind... evolution has made it so because life - no matter what form it takes - clearly has, as a root motivation, the continuation of itself. this compulsion was more important in our evolutionary past when sufficient propagation and specific propagation (of certain genetic material) was necessary to satisfy life's fundamental directive. there is now a form of life (namely human kind) which could persist without this very strong reproductive impulse, nonetheless most of us are still quite forcibly driven by it. that is the real world and there are implications. i choose to face reality on its own terms and not on the terms of some fantasy i'm trying to live in.
if fetuses could be consciously aware and able to communicate and have foresight into what the remainder of their life in utero and beyond would be like, while also having access to humane euthanasia i wonder what sort of decisions might be made. it is degrading to command ourselves or one another to behave reproductively as many other forms of life do on this planet. i think humankind represents a unique and important branch of the tree of life - one in which the species is not quite so imprisoned by biology in pursuit of its collective well being
I’m not gonna rip on abortion. Just wanna know how y’all feel about my state? Florida
Too many crocodiles
@@AXKfUN9m only in south Florida. There are almost 0 the further north you go
@@sideboob6851 gators can. Not crocodiles
I'm glad I only ever flew over it.
Organ donation is the same as pregnancy???!
Blood donation is the same as pregnancy????!
“Right to take your bone marrow”
What does that have to do with a natural pregnancy
It's an equivalency. It's an example showing how the logic doesn't follow for pro-lifers when they agree that bone marrow shouldn't be forced from non-consenting people
@@MotownModels not an equivalency
One is natural and normal
One is abnormal and unnatural
This is one of the stupidest argument a person can make to justify the destruction of another human
@@michaeldominick8394if you are against unatural thing then we have a big problem. Wearing glasses to see is not natural, takeing any kind of pills is not natural, useing a car is not natural.
We as a species evolved past the nature so our lives will be better.
@@michaeldominick8394 How is abortion unnatural and abnormal but other forms of Healthcare aren't? Just because you're getting emotional over a clump of cells?
@@Gankstomper because the intention is to end a life. That’s not health care
Nothing natural or normal about ending lives
Here's the science it's a stage of human development. It's a human being. In an early stage. Simple. Respected as you would all human life
Except the women who is pregnant of course. Her life has no respect or value.
/S
Well, since we don't allow one human being to violate the bodily autonomy of another, you should be pro-choice, then.
@@nealjroberts4050 if she valued her life so much why did she let herself get pregnant by intentionally having sex? Being aware of sex's primary purpose? These are the only people I'm referring to
@@Beacon80 where do they allow that?
@@Beacon80 I am pro-choice. As long as that choice is analytically morally correct. And uphold your moral obligations as a human being to other human beings
At last, not the irrelevant issue of God existing or not, but the central issue of atheism - abortion!
You know, I used to think Godsquad were obsessed with sex, gender, and reproduction.
But my fellow atheists have really bought into the cult.
If you think that abortion is the central issue of atheism then you don't actually think.
Maybe tomorrow?
Eh? We're what? Sex-obsessed? What cult? What's happening? I'm confused 🥴
Abortion has f all to do with atheism.
Also learn English
@@Sundae_Times
Apparently if you Atheists aren't 100% discussing the lack of gods you aren't being atheist. Even if what you're discussing happens to be a talking point loudly used by us Theists.
@@nealjroberts4050 Haha, glad you could decipher it. You did better than me 😆
Numbers 5 makes no mention of abortion. The scripture provides an outlet for the husband to forgive his wife, make amends. It doesn’t say she is pregnant. If anything, if she were pregnant, the formula would not cause anything to happen to the baby. End of story. Anyway pro life is not a biblical or religious argument. Watching my child in videos develop a personality in the womb and seeing him outside the womb, it’s the same person. Truly incredible what biology is capable of. Grabbing a tool and yanking is just not impressive biologically.
Numbers 5:21-22: here the priest is to put the woman under this curse-“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[d] among your people when he makes your womb *miscarry* and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb *miscarries.”*
If she was not pregnant, then there's no miscarriage. If she was, the miscarriage terminates the pregnancy. In modern parlance, that's called abortion.
@@queuecee “21 then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman-“the Lord make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your thigh [e]rot and your belly swell; 22 and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.”
‘Then the woman shall say, “Amen, so be it.””
No mention of abortion here. Your version of text might be being more liberal with words. Either way, it doesn’t matter because the benign drink will not cause he the illness described and the husband is forced to accept her as she is. It is an outlet for male jealousy to be freed and peace to exist
@@kw2080 Oh, so you take a translation that describes miscarriages as "thigh rot" and say that there's nothing like an abortion?
Do you think thigh rot is some skin disease. Get out of here with your disingenuous word play.
@@queuecee thigh rot means abortion in your dictionary? Doesn’t even say she is pregnant
@@kw2080What do you think the belly swelling and the thigh rotting is supposed to mean? Because in other translations it means genitals. This is the same thing as in greek mythology. Zeus sewed the heart of Dionysus into his thigh because in the original text he sewed it into his penis but thigh was a more palatable way to phrase it and is around the same area. The bible was written in a similar era where the people would have phrased things similarly
Emma looks like she's 10!
Pro abortion arguments are so cringe. You can have whatever stance you want, but nitpicking on terms to use to lessen the horror is ridiculous. Be pro-choice if you want, but the end result of an abortion is a dead human. Own it and stop being cowards.
"but the end result of an abortion is a dead human"
Is a zygote a human?
Define a human for me please
@@greenbat731 a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens and then child is a young person especially between infancy and puberty OR an unborn or recently born person. Courtesy of Merriam-Webster.
@@roarilan Alright perfect. So does a cell count as a human? Or a cell cluster?
Straw man alert 🙄
Holy crap, it says "he, him" there... so damn vomitable...
trans people and non binary people are a minority population... stop being such a drama queen
I hope you threw up all over your phone and had to buy a new one
After watching this I am still pro-life.
After watching this you still don't think women are human beings with equal rights
You're not pro life, you're anti choice misogyne.
So what?
I'm still pro not denying women their reproductive rights and against forcing women to have babies.
So you still think women don't deserve rights
No, we need to know what the CREATOR has to say about it. My ham sandwich doesn't have an opinion. It's purpose was in my mind when I made it. I left my ham sandwich a Bible to instruct on all things, because he sinned and is not worthy of my presence. My sandwiches are not to decide what I meant for my creation THEY ARE TO COME FIND OUT WHAT I WANT..................or else. Man, fighting the creator is the epitome of stupid.
The creator says life doesn't start until the first breath and that's in your bible.
You know the thing you claim a god thingy wrote.
Your sandwich is not sentient.
@@Tuna_Man2323yet it is smarter than neppy
@@joshsheridan9511 Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
DON'T BELIEVE
that the Creator is the Only True and Sovereign God
Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
DON'T BELIEVE
that the Creator authorized and sent Jesus Christ from heaven to earth thousands of years ago to preach and teach the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" to imperfect, suffering, and dying human beings.
Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
DON'T BELIEVE
that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who willingly submit to the authority of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
will
definitely bring themselves honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death.
Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
DON'T BELIEVE
that the teaching of Jesus Christ about the "Resurrection of the Dead"
is
the Creator's guarantee that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago
like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others
will
all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD"
and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity
under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.
@@jaflenbond7854TS/DR
I am an atheist, but I must say Forrest's arguments on these issues are the worst. Except in cases of rape, pregnancy happens with consent. It's not the same as forcefully taking his mother's blood or an organ or whatever. But then again, Forrest also makes stupid arguments to justify mental illness as normal. *shrug*
You think that mental illness is is some kind of crime?
Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy
Thank you for saying you are an atheist, I'm sure that went a long way in convincing everyone here to think that whatever you wrote afterwards will be some fallacious reasoning. Just like if someone starts with, "I'm not a racist, but..." You know what's coming next is going to be racist.🤦♂
Tacking the implication that you want mental illness to be stigmatised onto the end of your comment was quite the nosedive.
I mean you really made the effort to try and make your anti-medical-rights views appear legitimate then just… BOOM, “and also here’s some fucking ableism for no reason at all”.
@@nealjroberts4050Umm, it's consent to potential pregnancy. Especially if you don't use any form of birth control.
@7:30
Human rights are not an age issue from him says the man arguing that it should be legal for one person to murder another, based on the physical location of the other person at the time they choose to commit the murder
“30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”
Source: ‘When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?’, a peer-reviewed study by Dr. Susan Tawia
You give the timestamp as if it supports your viewpoint. But all it does is evidence your inability to pick up on the point.
This is the s***iest strawman I ever saw.
A Manureman.
This is all they can do, they have not one real arguments.
So tell us why you believe it is morally acceptable to slaughter children to punish the parents? Is it the children or the parents who have no human rights in your opinion?
This is why you should wear gloves
I'm just curious. Would anybody or "atheist" call killing a 5 year old body autonomy? Does the child have any rights? Children are the future of humanity and if it was mandatory that "everybody" should have an abortion or else. We would have no children and without children humanity would have no future. What would you think if you were being aborted? Oh that's right "nothing" because you wouldn't be around to have a say in this. If all atheists were required to have an abortion it would take about 100 years for the last few to die off. That means goodbye atheism.
Oh, get over it
“30 weeks is considered a more plausible stage of fetal development at which the lower boundary for sentience could be placed.”
Source: ‘When is the Capacity for Sentience Acquired During Human Fetal Development?’, a peer-reviewed study by Dr. Susan Tawia
According to Numbers 4: 27, God’s ok with forced abortions: “If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.” 🥴
Thoughts, Shayla?
Passages that show how much God really cares about children:
Psalm 137: 9
Exodus 12: 29
Luke 14 :26
Ezekiel 23: 20
Exodus 21: 7
Thoughts, Shayla?
I'm just curious. Why do you believe it is morally acceptable to kill a 5 year because you didn't like what their parents did?
John 3 16 invites you to know God's love and promise for you. As you draw near to Him, He will draw near to you.
Just don't read the other verses as they might upset the OP by being contradictory!
You're pathetic with your cherry picking from immoral book of fairy tales.
@@Seticzech
While you're right it's usually best to keep the moral highground so their accusations are even more blatant hypocrisy 😉
Other passages that show how much God "loves" us:
Psalm 137: 9
Exodus 12: 29
Luke 14 :26
Ezekiel 23: 20
Exodus 21: 7
@@nealjroberts4050 Do you thing they are able to realize it? 😀
Here's the interesting thing about Forrest
He's not exactly sure when life begins
He is sure that women should have the bodily autonomy to stab a fully-formed infant in the skull and deliver the full body without dusmemberment even though at that point in time you could deliver the child alive as there is no difference to the medical consequences to a woman getting an abortion at 39 plus weeks
He seems to be unaware that should you take a 1-month-old or one year old baby and place them in a room and walk away they're going to die, even though he stops arguing for bodily autonomy when it comes to men and women working jobs to earn money to pay child support
But the one thing Forest is 100% sure on is that there are souls and people are born in the wrong bodies and need hundreds of thousands of dollars of chemical castration and surgical intervention to fix God's mistakes, all of that despite the fact that according to the only research ever conducted thus far suggests that 80% of children if left alone without chemical castration and surgical intervention will desist from gender dysphoria by the time they exit puberty leaving 20% whom such interventions might help however if you intervene before puberty is over 100% of that cohort is suddenly at the highest suicidal ideation rate we have ever seen in all of human history
It's just amazing what medical facts Forest is unaware of and unsure of an absolutely 100% sure of and all of it just happens to match current thing dogma
And he adheres to it with an almost fanatical religious like zeal
You seem to be utterly irrational and hopeless ignorant. So I won't bother elaborating.
Yet you seem so sure about making nonsensical strawman arguments.
If you think there's only been one research thus far, it demonstrates either how willfully ignorant you are or how you don't care about discarding the truth for your ideology.
The thing about you is, you are talking ignorant crap.
Strawen, srawmen and more strawmen...
Not one real argument.
Pathetic
John 3 16 invites you to know God's love and promise. That knowledge is life-changing, both for the here and now and for the everlasting.
Other passages that show how much God "loves" us:
Psalm 137: 9
Exodus 12: 29
Luke 14 :26
Ezekiel 23: 20
Exodus 21: 7
Do you still want people to ignore those passages that suggest otherwise Libby? Or is cherry picking for your feels how you want people to see your version of Christianity?
So Dope to see Emma on AXP. 2 great Atheists!
You just refuse to learn, probably due to your massive desperation and foolishness. There are several laws of entropy and you keep mentioning the wrong one. I'm talking about the increasing, continuous disorder of matter over time that's observed in all systems. You're going to age/lose information every moment of every day, just like an engine wears/loses information every moment of every mile it works in your car. The sooner you learn that fact the better.
But just in case an educated person is going to read this, I'll explain it: If the world was ETERNAL, the usable energy would have been exhausted trillions of yrs ago - no matter how many universes you want to add to the equation, because of The Law of Entropy causes all matter to degrade over time to it's heat death end. If we had UNLIMITED TIME, this world would of already entered a dead state of heat death 900+ trillion yrs ago.
The 2nd law says the universe is running down. That means someone had to wind it up with an INITIAL SET AMOUNT of usable energy. So we’d have no energy today if the universe was eternal (infinite); it would of ran out a long time ago. Therefore, this FINITE UNIVERSE not only had a beginning by an INFINITE/ETERNAL/SUPERNATURAL entity, but this world also has an eventual end. If G0D allowed it, the sun & all stars would eventually burn out & the entire universe would totally decay into heat death and would then become cold, dark & motionless. Try to learn what I'm teaching here.
"Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
"There are several laws of entropy! 🤣Another aacount of some mentally ill troll.
@@sideboob6851 Q: So what did you do to pass the time while you were in prison?
A: Air hockey on a wet floor in the shower block using a block of soap for a puck.
For anyone wondering about the context, this is directed at me. I'm apparently refusing to learn because he can't figure out how the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply to open systems, and he's not willing to ask me.
@@Beacon80 They don't understand literally anything from science. Complete and utter ignorants. 😀True images of their bronze age god and authors of their "holy" book.
When Job had EVERYTHING, he worshipped.
When Job lost EVERYTHING, he worshipped.
Worship isn’t about your circumstances.
It’s about who God is!
"Abortion = murder" says the failed chiro-quacktor who also believes it is morally acceptable to slaughter live infants to punish the parents.
God made job lose everything, so screw him.
But why should I worship a God that objectifies women literally says that you can rape women. This God literally tells you that you will be eternally punished for something as stupid as not honoring your mother or father.
Speaking of who the g0d of the bible actually is, after the Job episode where g0d and Satan got together, had a wager, and Satan messed with Job big time just to amuse g0d, Satan went back to g0d and said, "That sure was fun, wasn't it? All those postulating skin lesions. emerods, dead livestock, and ten dead kids!!! I've got another really fun idea!"
"Since the scribes haven't penned the bible yet, how about you let me mess with their heads while they are writing that stuff down? I'll convince them that they have been inspired by "the Lord" while at the same time I'll do a bait'n'switch to supplant myself as you. Then we can see if the bible believers do what Job did and become total simps for "the Lord"! I will *LIE* to Eve in the garden, slaughter infants as collective punishment, arrange for human sacrifice, condone slavery, and get some bears to shred 42 boys just for being cheeky to an old man"
"I'll bet you I can make it so convincing that every bible believer will be a hard core apologist for all that nasty stuff and they will become staunch and devout defenders of the perpetrator of those foul and evil crimes! They will truly believe that I am you and you are me! Are we on??"
And g0d said, "let there be some fun!"
Come on NEPy, tell us about ENTROPY going BACKWARDS to CONCENTRATE energy and carbon in logs.
*Try to keep up!* 🤣
Don't Murder Your Children.
No one is murdering children, we are talking about abortions. Abortion doesn't hurt the fetus in any way. It just takes away a life it doesn't know it has and has no particular preference about.
What does "Don't murder your children " have to do with extracting a fetus?
Thanks for the advice, BB. What about other people's children. Is that ok?
We appreciate that you are posting the content of the post-it notes that you keep to remind you to behave. But none of us here have any problems behaving like a member of a society.
But I hope there are others near you who can keep a watch on you just in case you lose your post-its.
Don't be stupid.