The Important Abortion Argument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- Finally, we get to tackle someone trying to counter the violinist argument.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/...
Original Video: • Taking Down The Pro-Ab...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
That foetus is a stranger just as much as the violinist. Also, consent to sexual activity is not consent to pregnancy. Or is going for a walk consent to being run over? It's a definite possibility if we go for a walk around the neighbourhood. I'm orettu sure this person hasn't thought all the way through her arguments. Thanks prof stick.
Just like poking a lion isn't consent to getting eating alive
Why even go that far. What if instead of a violinist you were hooked up to a bunch of cells growing in a bag? The consent bit is just a version of "all sex except for procreation is wrong" mindset and the only difference between a gift and a curse is whether you want it or not.
You have a lot of very idiotic beliefs. You know where babies come from I hope?
Nobody is forcing anyone to get pregnant. Most of the time a woman gets pregnant due to her own shortsightedness. Make him wear a condom, take birth control pills, use another birth control device, get your tubes tied. There are many ways to make sure you don't get pregnant. Again there are no forced pregnancy. Even if a woman is raped there's no guarantee she'll get pregnant. You're argument is pathetic
@@dorkangel1076 Notice how she dodged the "punishment" question. The professionals at this have realized that they can't *say* things like that anymore. ut many of the non-professionals still say it, and I'm sure many of the pros think it.
Just once, it would be nice to hear someone working to give every person with a uterus the resources so nobody becomes pregnant unless they are intending to become pregnant and give birth. But that'll never happen because the same people who are forced birthers also don't want those same people to have access to contraception. And they also believe they 're all about freedom and liberty.
That sums things up pretty well.
While the idea has merit, it still puts the entire requirement for birth control on the woman. If technology made it possible, it'd be as viable an option for there to be an implant in men that a woman could turn off or on depending on whether they desired to get pregnant. WITH a failsafe for the man, too, of course. Ask Herschel about that.
@@justaguy6100 why should a woman decide wether or not a man can impregnate her? This is a very bad idea.
I'd prefer a world in which both sexes can equally decide freely if they want to start a new live, but even then the decission and burden of pregnancy would still lie fully with the woman. Because she has only the right to make decissions on her body and thus procreational ability, not that of anyone else.
@@hannajung7512 I noted the Herschel Berschel failsafe there, you had to read to the end. Yeah, the man has his own little switch too.
@@hannajung7512 AND it's just a thought game anyway. That sort of tech isn't on anyone's horizon as far as I know.
Hmm. Okay. Woman gives consent, woman takes consent away in the middle, if man doesn't stop its sexual assault. Its not "Oh, but she gave her consent in the beginning!" You can take consent away at any time, once its gone, its gone. Just because the woman gave consent to have sex, doesn't mean she can't take that consent away when she gets pregnant.
I knew her argument was going to be pretty much, "you chose to have sex and be pregnant" that's pretty much all the forced-birthers have 🙄
Forced birthers? Why am I forced to share this planet with you?
@@imperialmotoring3789 well I have no plans to go anywhere so feel free to leave if you want 😉
@@moosepocalypse6500 The murdered babies didn't plan on what happened to them.
Be careful what you wish for fool.
@@imperialmotoring3789 @Imperial Motoring careful starting to sound like a threat 😉 as for using the term forced-birther... It's more accurate that "pro-life" as they are typically anti public healthcare, anti social safety net, pro war, and pro death penalty... So the "pro-life" only applies until born it seems... Then you're on your own 🤔
@@imperialmotoring3789 I have no idea who you are, where you're at, and no intention to find out. It's the same for you about me. Until this comment, we were both totally ignorant to the existence of the other. How is that you're forced to SHARE this planet with someone you never knew existed until now? You're argument is like being mad that you have to "share" this planet with the extremophiles that eek out an existence at the bottom of the Pacific.
“But, you never FORCE someone to be a hero.” Best argument I’ve heard so far. Thanks again, Professor Stick. 👍
Yup, pretty much the difference between a volunteer and a conscript.
@@dorkangel1076 I like that comparison better
Can't force a hero, but you can stop a villain.
Actually it’s a terrible argument.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 no it's a very good argument because no one has the right to use another person's body you incompetent incel
Many of these new Republican laws don't even make exceptions for sexual assault, no choice necessary. Even making exceptions for the life of the mother forces doctors to put the woman's life at risk, before they can remove certain pregnancies.
In the case of "life of the mother" the child can be delivered and saved long with the woman. No need to kill the child first.
In the case of rape, ok I'll let you kill the baby, but we then must make it a Class X felony for any woman that is not raped and chooses to kill the baby.
No exception for rape or incest. They intend to force 12 year olds to have a child.
Okay, so if they made an exception for sexual assault victims would you be okay banning the millions of other simply convenient abortions?
this is kind of like saying consenting to drive on the road (getting a license to drive), is like consenting for other people to crash into you at over 60 miles an hour.
No. Purposely driving into a wall at 100 mph will have the intended result.
Just like a woman gifting her body to many men for the men's pleasure will result in her getting pregnant. It's not rocket science.
@@imperialmotoring3789 I won't even bother with how skewed that worldview is, youre mixing your intended effect and actual effects up.
@@vulpix9210 Dismembering little girls alive in the womb and calling it healthcare is "skewed", not my truth and facts.
@@imperialmotoring3789 Ok, so is letting a little girl die because she couldn't find a kidney donor. You don't forcibly take someones kidney. It may not fit into your fairytale worldview but bodily rights are rights.
@@vulpix9210 that situation applies to different aspects of pregnancy. letting the girl die and stabbing her to death are two different things. abortion is not letting nature (even of a misfortunate appeal) take its place, its actively seeking out the option. when you propose an analogy like that it just looks like some bastardized jigsaw killer plot as you arent arguing to prevent misfortune by acting, you are saying if you don't save the girl (have the baby) I will stop her heart (drug the fetus/cut it out). if preferring unborn children be less eagerly slain is a fairytale to you, then I despise you.
I just love the notion that doing something is consenting to the worst possible consequence happening. like I just consented to death by entering a car because I there's a chance I might end up in a car crash. Someone just lies mortally wounded after a freak car accident and no one helps them because they apparently consented to it
That's a terrible comparison. The purpose of a car isn't to crash it, but the purpose of sex is to procreate the next generation of a species
@@zencyn4682 I'm so sorry that any sex you've ever had in your life has been that terrible.
@@TheMightyPatapon wow, way to miss the point entirely
@@zencyn4682 Procreation has practically never been a purpose, much less the purpose, of any sex I've had. Sounds like you might as well just use a turkey baster from the way you make it seem.
@@TheMightyPatapon what did they say?
Not everyone who consents to sexual relations is willing to undergo pregnancy. This is especially true for teenagers or people with a low income level, and some people simply are not ready to care for children. Taking away the ability to control such a crucial part of someone's life can be devastating to people.
The only time consent for sexual relations AND pregnancy would happen is if its a couple who are actively trying to have a child. Even then, abortions can occur with wanted pregnancies due to a number of factors
The one thing those pro-birth charlatans refuse to accept is that we humans are creatures of sex! They think its just so easy to not have sex or that if you're poor you should not have sex or suffer the consequences. People have sex all the time, and almost always it is protected sex. At the very least when proper sex ed is taught and condoms are freely made available, there's more to list, but you get the idea. Come to think on it, claiming to be pro-life comes from a position of blinding privilege!
then don't have sex? It doesn't seem complicated.
@@robonator2945 Do you think those folks think it through? It it because they keep doing it without proper birth control knowledge that make abortion a necessity. That and shit like religion pressure, social pressure, poor income, or the most important reason: health issues. My teacher's kid couldn't survive doe to an illness, and the kid is literally killing his mother in her womb. She only have 2 options, to abort, or to die.
It's legitimately devastating for women to lose her child. But 90% of the time it happened because it must be done. Without law allow abortion with precise medical procedures. People will do abortion on their own, or move to another country just for it, both is more dangerous for the mother than to simply allow abortion.
The problem is not the abortion itself. The problem is everything that lead to it. Including lack of proper birth control education, health issues, inability to raise a kid, or just pressure from society or religion.
@@robonator2945 you don't have a clue what the word nuances mean, do you?
Siblings can refuse to partake in an allogeneic stem cell transplant, that might be a better example?
A judge can't force one sibling to sacrifice bone marrow to save another. Even if your negligence caused them to be injured.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 Allogeneic stem cell transplant is a blood cancer treatment.
@Imran Zakhaev Reproduction can also be used to imply copying. It's one word used for sexual intercourse. One type of sexual intercourse is when spermatozoa is injected into the vagina to becomes a zygote. There are many types of sexual intercourse that is not the type aforementioned. Apart from the male/male and female/female types there a many other types of female/male sexual intercourse. I don't know where you got the 99% from but I'd be happy to look at your citations.
The foetus does not "take" organs but it uses them and can damage them. You appear to miss the meaning of my statement and that is you can refuse to give a part your body to save another life.
Thinking laterally, people who refuse to minimise the risk of spreading a deadly viruses, and infect others who then die, are very concerned with their bodily autonomy and feedom.
The woman didn't respond to the question. Instead, she inserted a totally different scenario, a scenario she had an argument for, although not a good one. She clearly couldn't refute the kidney argument. Tricks. That's all they have.
What trick. Killing a baby is a trick to you?
'Tis what we call "strawman"
Last week I seriously injured my hand by putting it into a mixer and accidentally activating it while having my finger in it. It was totally stupid and I'm not proud of it. I was conducted to the hospital, and I felt shameful for monopolizing the time of the staff for my stupidty. But the nurses and doctor didn't make any remark, because the thing is people do stupid shit all the time and some end up in the hospital because of it. I think it made me realize how this "accepted risk" argument is really a dumb one. It is true that some couple become pregnant due to careless sexual behavior and this behavior can be considered stupid. But should they be denied healthcare because they "accepted the risk" ? What about the drunk driver in a car crash ? Should the hospital use an ethylo-test before they consider whether they should fix that person or not ? I guess we should also leave people who cause themselves self-injury to rot and die. Heck let's also leave people who practice dangerous sports to die if they are injured. Accepted risk should NEVER be a justification for denial of healthcare, for the simple reason that we can all behave stupidly or recklessly sometimes, and if it's not you someone you care about might. It is simply part of life.
Yes, let's never offer medical services to our sports stars. They're actively engaging in an activity with a HIGH risk of injury. They've given up their right to care.
I think that (and your other points) are a good example
I hope your hand is healing nicely!
How did you turn on the mixer? I mean mine has 3 interlocks that can only be disabled when all the lids and parts are aligned correctly.
@@kelvin1316 Ok, I think you're aware of the concept of "analogy" right? This might just be humor and if so I hope you don't find my query too snarky, it's an honest question.
@@justaguy6100 I missed the 🤣 emoji off the end lol
@@kelvin1316 mixer is not a blender. Mixer refers to those sticks you use to blend things like soups in a pan. I was hacking meat with it and so I needed to clean it to blend more meat. Idk how I activated it after that, I think I knocked it on something. The stupid part is that I could have just used a fork. Learned my lesson.
If someone kidnaps you and then tells you that you need to save a violinist
1.) You have every right to press charges against the kidnapper
2.) You are not legally obligated to to help the violinist.
3.) how Fucking hell is that joke supposed to be funny 🤬
I'm glad you understand the argument. It *is* wrong to force someone to help someone else live! So can you see why forcing women to give birth is also wrong?
@@matthewgagnon9426 I've always been pro choice of course I do
@@lowesgameing2003 I know you being a homosexual is your choice but we are talking about killing babies here. Back to your fortnite kid.
The question is whether or not you would unplug yourself from the violinist and kill them regardless of how you arrived there. No where in the story does it state the violinist kidnapped you. In the case of pregnancy, the violinist is completely innocent and doesn't deserve to die.
Wow, her response is terrible and utterly ignores the primary issue. This shouldn't be surprising to me though.
Fun fact, if you consent to having sex, and during you no longer want to continue, then ask your partner to stop (ie revoke consent) and they do NOT... that is sexual assault, so yes consent can be revoked... also just say you drive a car.... do you "consent" to getting T-Boned by another car? Just because you decided to drive? No of course, not... you knew it was a possibility, but that doesn't mean you expected it to happen, or gave up your rights to that possibility.... nonsense.
If your newborn child requires a blood transfusion, don't know if that's a thing that can happen, but let's say it is. Your kid pops out and immediately needs an emergency transfusion, from you. You can say no. You're not legally obliged to do that. So why is pregnancy any different? If you consider a fetus as much of a human as a newborn baby, why should one be okay but not the other? Why are you fighting so hard to legally require people to keep their fetuses alive no matter what, but not babies? What does it matter if the baby is inside or out? Why are you trying to pass laws that require parents to keep their fetuses alive at all costs, but not after their kids are born? If your argument is that "the parents are supposed to take care of their kids, and they chose to have a kid when they had sex", why does that responsibility stop at birth? Why is it okay to demand a parent to literally sacrifice bodily autonomy before the baby is born but not after?
Because consistency was never their strong point
They only care about the fetus they could give a crap about what happens to babies kids etc because this is more about control over women than actually helping women because let’s just face it women are getting in positions of power and some men don’t like having to listen to a woman so they are doing this getting rid of abortion as a means to put us back in our place
I refuse to be forced to pay for the ukraine or for the 60 million illegals but they take my money by force anyway. Your argument is invalid.
@@imperialmotoring3789
Yeah, no.
Your money is no actual part of your body, and technically the tax money they use to help people wasn‘t yours to begin with, so your counter is invalid.
@@blacky_Ninja Makes sense. The ukraine does not belong to the ukranians bodies so technically Putin is not doing anything wrong. Are you an educator?
I'm baffled. It's probably the best prolife argument I ever heard yet still it relies so much on observers to not notice holes and flaws in it. It still boils down to "pregnancy is a miracle and we should apply to it magical thinking". There's a very good reason for prolife people to go to organizations of young and inexperienced people. It's because then they can rely on other side feeling pressured and not noticing issues with proposed argumentation. It happened even to me that prolifers simply cut the discussion and start calling me names once their flaws were exposed.
I heard more of 'a woman dared to have sex without planning to procreate! Burn the witch!'
So do you agree that abortion is murder or do you side with the murderers???
Brawo, brawo! Oczywiście, że musiał pojawić się w komentarzach siewca bezsensu i bełkotu! Ale jak te słowa brzmią? Wzniośle? Brzmią jakby czterolatek powtarzał coś, ale nie bardzo pamiętał o co chodzi...
Could you point out what parts make the "apeal to magic" so to say?
I'm not saying there aren't any, I just didn't catch any.
@@ivanljujic4128 to be more correct I probably should use 'special pleading' and not 'magical'. Some other folks mentioned analogy to traveling by a car: you don't consent to the possibility of a car accident. You assume that if one happens, people will try to mitigate its unwelcomed consequences. I also hate when people arbitrary assign meaning and value to entities, disregarding there's an actual causal chain between first-person subjective experiences and assigning meaning/value.
But in the end, what I've wrote is just an internet comment. I put effort into blogs and articles, not into comments :P
She is saying that consent cannot be removed? That is dumb and pro rape.
She is calling foetus a child to strawman the topic and it's still a stranger.
Also nicely admitting her argument is only about punishment, not caring about lives
@Imran Zakhaev Comparing pregnancy to consenting to jump from an airplane with friend and only one parachute? That is dumb and you should feel ashamed.
I, for one, appreciate you bringing such an well-thought out take on this topic Prof.
When she ignored the audience member's question and replaced it with the Violinist argument I was seething.
Having sex is not consent to pregnancy. Not even when you dismiss the problem of stealthing. What an idiotic argument. Also, her version of the violinist argument does not take the health risks to the hooked-up person into consideration.
Edit: The more I listen to her, the more I am sure I know which path to let the trolley go down.
Having sex is consenting to pregnancy is like saying someone consented on choking on food just because they ate.
Doing a lot of heroin is not consent to overdose is what you are saying. Sound advice.
Also, the fact she decided to use an analogy about a violinist just shows a Freudian slip regarding her supposed valuing of "all life".
The most ironic part of these people, is that they only value these "lives" up until the point of birth, because after that, it's no longer a precious life, it's a free loader, and needs to pick themselves up from their boot straps and get a job, and if they become e.g. a violinist, then they may regain their value.
@@themurmeli88 Whatever the analogy the fact remains that abortion is murder. Freud has been debunked for decades now in case you missed it.
@@themurmeli88 You were allowed to live AND you still want me to provide for you? No wonder you hate your mom. Maybe you can abort yourself since you are incapable of taking care of yourself without charity?
I don't consent to being in a car accident when I get into a car.. No more then a woman consents to getting pregnant when she has sex.
My go to argument is You don't consent to being robbed when someone knocks and you answer the door. You still didn't consent being robbed when you invited them inside either.
Hell, you can get in a car accident just walking down the street (ie getting hit by a car), which I guess represents sexual assault in this scenario
No but you chose to get into the car and knew that the risks were.
@@RossTheNinja But there's consequences in car accidents. You crash into someone's car, you pay. You kill someone in an accident you cause, you're jailed for manslaughter.
If the accountability stopped at "everyone knew the risk," then no one can be held accountable in a car accident because the victims "knew what the risks were."
Even in cases involving drunk drivers. You crash into someone and they die, that's ok, it isn't your fault because the person you killed "knew what the risks were."
See the problem?
@@RossTheNinja that does not mean you accept the accident. But that does not mean that you accept someone else physically assaulting you or physically harming you. If someone intentionally rammed you with their car that does not mean you accepted that.
i want to say, as someone who has their entire life, has wanted to be a mother, to have my own kid, and finally at nearly 30 getting pregnant by unknowingly treating my undiagnosed pcos... being pregnant suuucks; its not just 'giving up space in your womb' for 9 months, its the morning sickness, i have been perpetually motion sick since i got pregnant, i am un able to play most of my favorite games(like minecraft) cause moving at all makes my head spin so far around i have to lay down for an hour... headaches, muscle cramps, the inability to eat nearly anything; even at 6 months along i am rarely hungry, and when i am, i am really hungry, but by the time we get food/get food ready, i might no longer be hungry. i lost so much weight in the first 5 months my doctors were very concerned(i started at 312 and dropped to 300 by my 5 month ob appointment, which honestly is great i wish i could keep losing weight XD just isn't healthy for the baby) i'm used to being heavy and having a big stomach(i've always carried my fat like i was pregnant anyway) but thats not the case for all woman they have to go out of their way to buy new clothing, shoes, belly braces . we have to spend a ton going to doctors and getting blood tests... I JUST HAD TO SPEND 3 HOURS AT A BLOOD DRAW PLACE for a glucose test when the one i did just like a month ago came in WELL with in normal range! fucking obnoxious! and those drinks they give you are straight sugar and they BURN going down! take 12oz of Rum Chata and down it in less then 5 minuets it's basically that! and every blood draw they take like 7 vials for tests x.x luckily this one was spaced out with like 4 upfront and then one at each hour mark x.x that ontop of ALREADY being constantly dizzy to start with? NOT A FUN TIME... now i love my daughter already and i'm gonna go through all of this for her, i will go through labor or a c-section or how ever they end up delivering her(at 26 weeks along if something happened its more early delivery and see if we can get her through a nicu stay then an abortion x.x) but thats cause shes our daughter that me and my husband want and will love and can care for and afford. THATS NOT THE CASE FOR EVERYONE, going through all of this bs for a kid i would give up? fuck nah, not knowing what i know now about how much it SUUCKKKS to be pregnant. so no it's not JUST about us having to give up 'space' for 9 months ID RATHER BE ATTACHED TO THE VIOLINEST, sounds like theres not much in terms of side effects and i can extort the fuck out of the people who did it make em pay me 100k a month or more or i walk out, sounds like a great fuckin deal!
YESSSS. Exactly, a woman could go through hell to see her daughter's smile. Only with the part that's her daughter. If some asshole just drug her and knock her up, then she's is not going through hell for something she doesn't want.
There's no way I'm even going to try to read a whole block of text like that.
Try splitting long posts into some sort of paragraph!
From the first couple of Ines though...
Yes, some women really suffer during pregnancy - which is a very good argument in favour of abortion.
I assume, since you say that you have always wanted to be a mother, that you intend to see this pregnancy through? I would also assume that you will then probably want to not go through it all again and will want to stick with having just the one child?
But what if you somehow get pregnant again despite using birth control to try and prevent this? Would you feel obligated to go through with another pregnancy? Or do you think that it is reasonable to allow women the choice to have an abortion?
@Obscure Inception wow your silly response would have been answered if you had read my whole comment :D if you didn't wanna read the whole thing maybe don't fucking open your mouth? If I get pregnant again with my husband's child I will likely go ahead with it at that point one of us is having themselfs sterilized, honestly highly considering just going a historectomy(I probably spelled it wrong) cause fuck periods! Their worse then being pregnant! Do I think I would keep a child if one of the meth heads around here raped me? Honestly probably fucking not! That sounds like absolute torture and hell, I honestly can't even tell what side your trying to argue, like if your for choice then I my comment should have very obviously said to you that while I am making a choice woman go through more then simply giving space so it isn't some easy answer and they should be able to chose, if your against it then you must either be a big fan of watching people suffer or your a foster parent with 20 kids in your house from homes that had them regardless of their will, want, or ability to care for them; some people shouldn't be parents, and some of those some know it, why force it on them? Honestly wish my mom had never had kids, I hate being alive, everyday is misery and pain I didn't ask for! Why force children to be alive? Maybe they don't want to be alive? I didn't give my concent to being born, that shit was forced on me, literally. Sure I find things in life to not just off myself over, but I've been depressed at least since I was 10. If I could sue my mom over giving me life I would, cause it's never been fun for me it's always been a struggle day to day, unable to function like a normal person because my mom decided to have kids and then decided we were to much work and ignored us unless it was to intimidat, scream, cuss at, or ensure we weren't having fun, never taught us how to do chores or why they were important just told us to do them and threaten us that if they aren't done we'd be sorry! And no I'm not gonna split my shit into paragraphs that's way to much fucking work for a UA-cam comment. But the one thing I'm sure about is I'm going to do everything I can to make my daughter's life better then mine, I am Making a selfish decision to bring her into this ces pool of a world because I want kids, she doesn't owe me anything for being born or raising her and doing things that are the bare fucking minimum for a parent to do to ensure their kid isn't taken by cps, I know people are just so noble when they do that, they should be Givin fuckin medals, congrats you kept this alive for 18 years, fuck it's needs, wants, mental state, or emotional needs, but it's alive! I fucking loath people who act like bringing a kid into the world is some ultimate scarface that the child should owe them for forever, no, keeping a pregnancy is the easy choice it's the one where you don't have to really think about it and you can justify it to yourself under some 'I'm so high and mighty' moral code, once the kid comes out? Fuck em! They should be greatful to be on this earth, but what happens when mom is a drug addict who'd rather by meth and keep her drug dealer boyfriend(not any of her children's father) what then? What happens to the kids? Oh that's right they get thrown into foster care living on the governments dime which is something you people also hate. Think I'm making this story up? I'm not that's the situation of 3 very innocent children I know who stayed with our neighbor as fosters for a year, mom got clean enough to get them back, set back all the progress they made in fostercare then got caught using again by the oldest, and when cps came to take them again she threatened to kill the girls to keep cps from taking them! Such a wonderful mother don't you think? She should definitely have more kids if she gets pregnant again! Maybe she'll get clean for this one! Or she'll continue to be a druggy have a baby who will be born addicted to meth and be fucked up the rest of its life! But it should definitely get the chance to have a horrible life full of sadness struggle and knowing it's mother loves drugs more then it right? Are you regretting challenging a pregnant lady to this fight yet? Cause I'm more then happy to spend another 30 minuets offering you reasons why your a fucking idiot to think woman should be forced to have children they don't want when they could easily solve the problem before the zygote becomes anything close to a baby! But I'll stop here for now since it's 230am and all your idiocy is doing is making me more mad 🙃
@@manahakume9870
If you want people to read your whole comments:
STOP POSTING HUGE BLOCKS OF TEXT WITHOUT BREAKING THEM INTO PARAGRAPHS.
You are wasting your time typing because virtually no one is even going to try wading through posts like these,
Poooooor little princess.
Consent to intimacy is not consent to pregnancy!
This guy really just said that consent isn't a thing in the real world.
As you can see, he is not playing with a full deck of cards.
@@imranzakhaev3779 you don't get to tell me what to do with my own body incel
The violinist argument also doesn't account for the fact that not only are pregnancies inherently dangerous to the mother but ALL pregnancies permanently change the mother's body. It's not the same as just being hooked up for 9 months and afterwards you go away perfectly normal just like you were before.
I just got an ad for anti-abortion on this video... I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
It seems to me this woman's argument in regards to revoking consent by the simple fact that maybe a woman did consent, intend even, to become pregnant but her circumstance changes.
Lost job/income, lost spouse/family support, her own wellbeing, terminal prognosis for the child, a life long debilitating condition that might not be afforded.
Woman can decide to get an abortion for a number of reasons, and we all may not agree on whether all or any of them are justified. But these few examples here would certainly be grounds to revoke consent.
And I'm sorry but, going through with it and giving up for adoption is not a valid response. There are already too many kids in those systems waiting for adoption and it would appear none of the masses who make that argument are out there adopting kids to solve that.
There are already too many illegals crawling over the border.
Do you support aborting them all? I mean there are s lot of them.
@@imperialmotoring3789 That is not even remotely close to a comparable scenario and a false dichotomy. The options aren't let them over or abort them as we can deny them entry, return them or process them to no longer be illegal. There's also the options of combating the lies being told by human traffickers telling these people to leave their homes for the US, telling them our borders are open to everyone.
Nice try though ... /s
Add an ectopic pregnancy scenario into this mix and this person's argument becomes even more psychotic. It's the perfect example of what happens when you really take the fetus is a life to the ultimate extreme. You put woman into dangerous medical situations that can kill them. The same can be extended for women that develop pre-eclampsis or eclampsis. These situations can drastically reduce the quality of women even after they deliver the fetus. In addition, other people have pre-existing conditions, such as cystic fibrosis, where pregnancy can dramatically reduce their life-span. The arguments made in the anti-abortion crowd always make the assumption that pregnancy is somehow a benign process. It's not and it never has been.
If they feel women should be sacrificed for the life of a fetus then maybe we should consider put women on sacrificial alters because that’s exactly what they are doing
Let's keep it to normal healthy pregnancies, which is 99.9 percent of pregnancies.
Maybe think before you gift yourself freely to a man with a guitar or a nice car.
@@imperialmotoring3789 "gift yourself"? Women aren't objects; they don't give themselves away when they enter into a relationship with a man. They don't give up their autonomy. Your statement implies that their only worthwhile aspect is their ability to have sex with men. That's just gross, misogynistic thinking.
Many anti-abortionists absolutely see getting pregnant as a punishment for having sex. I used to be one of them, in fact. Of course now I've completely changed my mind
Then be s homosexual. Duh!
@@imperialmotoring3789 Or does oral sex.
@@somik-i3x I'll take a hummer. Are you local?
@@imranzakhaev3779 Having sex isn't just about reproduction. You can have sex for fun and not consenting to have a pregnancy.
@@imranzakhaev3779 Dude, I have protection with my girlfriend, you didn't had to be a dick about it. I had an actual sexual education and you should try to expand it to more people.
On your argument about stealthing ... yeah, she cleared up that in case of sexual assault that consent to risk of pregnancy was not given ... stealthing - at least in my eyes - is a form of sexual assault. So in cases where everything about the sexual activity was consentual and a pregnancy happened, there is an argument to be made that the person who willingly caused the other human being to be in a state where it had to be hooked up to another human being for 9 months to survive could have a moral obligation to make sure the other human being survives. This argument would require extreme consistency in the "you HAVE to take responsibility for your actions"-department, which a large part of the anti abortion crowd does not have since many of them do not even want to take responsibility for their own stance and blame it on god ... who according to the bible even allowed men to force abortion onto their wives if they suspected them of cheating.
For me personally ... I am morally opposed to abortion and likely always will be ... with the only exceptions being sexual assault / rape victims (includes stealthing) and risks to the mother's life. Still I have come to be pro abortion rights ... reason? Burden of proof.
If I put the burden of proof on the rape victim I would have to accept that a lot of rape victims who are unable to prove their victim status within a really, really short amount of time would have to carry their rapists' children to term ... and even if they can prove their victim status by the time they get through the legal system it might be too late for an abortion ...
But if they do not have the burden of proof pregnant women can just claim to be a rape victim and get the abortion anyway, so why not just make it legal?
Instead of focusing on bans so much us who oppose abortion morally should strive to reduce the amount of unwanted pregnancies through proper sex ed and making contraceptives easily available for as many people as possible. Also we should advocate for better social security for those who choose to carry their unintended child to term. But nah, those so called pro lifers just suck at being anti abortion as a shitton of them want "AbStInEnCe oNlY" and consider social security programs to be "CoMmUnIsT" X_x
I appreciate you going that route even though you're against it. I was SA-ed (and thankfully didn't get pregnant), and I can't imagine having to go through proving all that. I already waited too long to report at all because I was traumatized and confused and hurt. Add a baby into a mix and that I would have had to coparent with that bastard for the rest of our lives and that sounds like pure hell
Comment for the algorithm god, but yeah, I'll forever find anti-abortion/pro-life arguments to be mostly idiotic at best, good video as usual.
IDK feels like the goal posts keep getting shifted Professor Stick. We can't argue only on the least likely thing, like the violinist example. No matter how you end up with a child unless a complication actually threatens the life of the mother it's killing a human being. Even then it's still killing one human being for another. Life isn't fair and if you do anything fact is bad things can happen. Get in a car, cross a street, go about your business an unfortunate event can change your life. So if someone takes advantage of you, like your example of stealthing, it's not the child's fault but the father's. Let's be honest about this, most people don't get abortions because their life is at risk. Just their way of life is at risk.
Nobody has the right to end another life. Not even a mother. And unless you can provide proof that those cells are not alive... its murder. Idc how underdeveloped the person is.
One day it's an underdeveloped fetus next itll be little timmy with down syndrome because he doesn't seem to be alive like you and me
Yes, yes, and yes to professor stick!
Professor Stick, the problem with pro-lifers, to me, is first, they think pro-choice women make the decision lightly. Two, they consider human life sacred. That is why I loved George Carlins whole routine about it. I don't think it is. If I have to lose a child, I sure as hell would rather it be before it was born and known as an individual to me. Regardless, I mostly object to the government making it illegal. But , to be honest, I'm not sure I'd save a strange, (to me), tiny infant over say, my beloved dog, unless maybe my dog was old. I can't be sure. I'd risk my life for a kid that was 2 or 3, for sure. Probably even choose that kid over my dog. But the majority of those who are pro life, are because they think it is murder, and are religious. But they are also the same who sanctioned drafting young men to fight in war. Sending them to kill or be killed. Not in defense of our life, but of our principles!!👍💙💖🥰✌
Regarding the first point, I've seen people think women have orgasm from abortion or that they get pregnant and abort later to have bigger breasts 🤦
"Barack Obama said" and her voice starts quivering 😂 oh I wish to see more pushback, I bet she's gonna cry
Another aspect to this debate is that the government is regulating a bodily function . Which is the only system in our body that gets this special treatment for some reason . There are no laws regulating the respiratory system , or the circulatory system so why are we legislating the reproductive system ?
I assume the counter-argument would be "because other systems don't create a new human person, that's why we don't regulate male reproductive systems for example".
And then it goes back to the "is the fetus alive, a person, a human life? Should it be protected, does it have rights over another's body?" questions, which are the main points being debated.
So to the question "why make an exception", the answer is "because this system, unlike others, has direct effect on another one's life".
@@ivanljujic4128 not alone it doesn't . It needs two gor it to create a human.
Also define life. A zygote isn't a 9 month year old fetus . So the line is arbitrary .
@@mihaimoldo Not on it's own, no, but compared to other systems, like respiratory, digestion, or nervous system, the reproductive system is by far the most "related/connected" to creating another life.
Even if you say "well, you need a full healthy body to carry a child" the counter argument is just "then the entire body should be legistalted during pregnancy".
Which then leads back to talk about rights, whether one should be forced to give up their body for the life of another, etc.
That violinist argument is needlessly complex to make a point.
Also, it's incredibly sad to hear a woman arguing against abortion.
She is literally arguing against her own rights and safety.
She clearly has no idea what the goal of "pro-life" really is.
Interesting comeback from the anti-abortionist. In talking of the woman "consenting to a behaviour" and "consequences" that sounds helluva judgmental, and the woman putting the argument is right; pregnancy here is being presented as a punishment for a woman daring to have a healthy sex life.
I would add that stealthing is effectively sexual assault, as it is a non-consential sexual act. Apart from that, however, condoms can and do split. Indeed, no method of birth control is 100% effective, but if a couple use birth control, then that in itself is a clear indication that the woman does not consent to becoming pregnant, and should not be forced to carry and give birth to a child she never intended to have in the first place.
This all boils down to the question of why do people have rights. Why are there some rights but not other rights? Pro-choicers want us to have a right to abortion and pro-lifers think we should not have that right. Why do we have a right to disconnect from the violinist? Why do we have a right to keep our kidneys? When we disagree about what rights people should have, what facts should we look to in order to settle this dispute? If some alien came down from space and asked us to explain the concept of rights, what would we say to explain it?
Well the thing is the bodily autonomy is never challenged when dealing with men's bodies. Bodily autonomy works just fine for them when asked to wear a mask.
To those forced birthers who say s&x is consent to pregnancy: is riding in a car consent to being in a car accident? Do you not have the right to medical treatment, since you consented to an activity that could result in an accident?
Two discussion points - there are many more -
If they're "pro-life" for something that isn't actually a viable piece of organic matter, why are they pro-death for adult (and barely teen children) people accused of crime - even when their actual guilt is in question?
If they want those who do the 'abortion" procedures to be considered child killers and prosecuted, why aren't they condemning their "god' that they admit "kills" many times as many "children" - a woman has a miscarraige and loses the "baby"'- "it's an act of god"; a "baby" is delivered still-born - "an act of god"; a "child" is delivered with genetic damage,, or other issues, that mean it can't live outside the womb - "an act of god"; missing or deformed limbs - "an act of god". Sometimes they mix it up a little with "god moves in mysterious ways', or "it's all part of god's plan", or similar drivel.
I hate this argument that "You consented to having sex so you consented to having a baby". First of all, there are women who DIDN'T consent to sex. Or couldn't consent because they are ten years old. You don't get to make the consent argument as long as you continue to defend the belief that a man has the right to force a woman to have a baby.
Second of all, you did NOT consent to having an embryo implant in your fallopian tubes. You did not consent to your child developing without a brain. You did not consent to your child dying in the womb. And you did not consent to being killed because your pregnancy went wrong. No one should be expected to consent to that. Every woman should have the right to proper medical care if being pregnant endangers her life, and she should be confident that the doctors aren't going to let her die because "you consented to have sex, so you deserve to die".
I’m pro-life personally but I do not fault people for wanted an abortion, especially if both parents involve consent and have had time to consult either family or trusted friends.
With that said. Abortion as it is practiced is an INDUSTRY. The clinics literally give no quarter to women who are vulnerable and on the fence, I’ve been there to see and hear it. The truth is, many special interests fund abortion and make it an issue for the government instead of one for the market.
Why? Because the amount of profit they can get from selling fetus tissue. Some estimates range from 1k to 4k. In some instances these interests seek later term abortion legalization because the amount of harvesting is increased. The fetal tissue is used to source stem cells that are ground up into cultures that can produce more for weeks.
Like I said, I do not want any law banning abortion. I see this as a personal choice especially for the woman who is pregnant. But that same woman won’t get any of the benefit from the process other than an abortion. Meanwhile the clinic makes thousands. If the free market was not interfered with then women can sell their fetuses and profit. Of course this probably would turn off most people and it is rightfully monstrous. However if only the clinic and special interest make money then it’s OK? Guess out of sight, is out of mind…
Saying consenting to sex is the same as consenting to pregnancy is like saying crossing the street is consenting to being hit by a bus
I have used a very similar analogy many times with them and they _always_ claim the analogy doesn't work... but they can never give coherent, rational reasons _why_ it doesn't work. Ever.
@Excuse me but staying home is consent to an arsonist destroying your house with you inside
@Imran Zakhaev
"When you commit to an action you do it knowing the possible outcomes and consequences. You take measures to favor the outcome you want, and precautions to prevent the ones you don't want. So in your analogy, you can't commit to the "action" WITHOUT knowing one of the possible and obvious outcomes for which the ACTION was created and has evolved for millions of years. What you actually meant to say is "I want to do this, gonna risk it in the name of my own narcissistic hedonistic way of life and I'm going to sacrifice my own money, time and a new living human being if it gets in the way of my pleasure". This lame tired excuse you keep using is trash as your own family and education. HOW can you justify now knowing or not expecting to say the least for the REPRODUCTION ORGANS not to REPRODUCE when you REPRODUCE? Mate... have some accountability..."
*We get it, women don't want to sleep with you.*
"There is no law against adultery either... or many other inmoral things. What is a universally bad thing?"
*What is immoral, specifically, about hedonism? What is immoral, specifically, about adultery?*
*There are no "universally bad things." How bad something is is always relative and subjective. Always.*
A problem with the “if you consent to X, then you thereby consent to the possible/probable/likely consequences of X” principle is that it leads to innumerable absurd implications/commitments. If I drive a car, I do so knowing that one possible outcome (and a not entirely unlikely one) is that I’ll get into a fatal accident. Does that mean that by consenting to drive in the road with other drivers I’m thereby consenting to dying in an accident? I understand that dying in a car accident is less likely than getting pregnant after unprotected sex, it the principle still applies.
1:15 Interesting that she switches the girl's question to "The Violinist Argument". I'm not convinced it's exactly the same, but let's make it *really* analogous to how she views women who get pregnant (consent to sex == consent to pregnancy):
Suppose, instead of getting kidnapped, one day the hospital calls you and says after looking thru medical record, they've found that hooking you up to the violinist for 9 months is the only way to save his life, and ask you to volunteer. Being a *really* nice person, you consent. Then, 6 weeks later, you realize you *can't* do this. You tell the doctors you want unhooked. What are the doctors going to do? Sure, they may try to convince you to stick it out, but if you insist, they *will* unhook you. Because consent is revocable.
So, even if we accept her dubious claim that consent to sex is de facto consent to pregnancy, that consent is till revocable.
My argument is much simpler: Even if a fetus is a human, even if it's alive, even if you consent to the pregnancy, you can still choose to kill the fetus because the benefit that the woman get from killing it far outweighs the negatives experienced by the unconscious and undeveloped (very young) fetus. Do you think the fetus remembers anything going on in the womb? No. So if you want to kill it, do it as early as possible.
A simple reason I am pro-choice is because I value the time and freedom of conscious women much more than the right of unconscious fetuses that aren't yet born. If you don't kill the fetus, the woman will have to undergo pregnancy, experience psychological suffering, lose time and lose money raising the child. That's a huge punishment. It cannot be understated. If pro-lifers don't think it's a punishment, they must adopt the child once it comes out or they must shutup.
I use the word "kill" because I want it to be blunt and direct. That's how to end all the pro-life arguments. I think all the analogies are pointless. The crux of the issue is about what you value more: freedom of a living person or right of a human that isn't yet born. When you point it out like this, most pro-lifers wouldn't have any response. How is it possible that someone value the right of an unconscious undeveloped human more than freedom of a living woman? Maybe they think someone must take responsibilities or must be punished for doing unprotective sex? Why?
If I consent to driving my car, does that mean I automatically consent to being in a horrible accident?
Am I the only one who sees a double standard in the manner we treat the consent to pregnancy between men and women?
Why is stealthing not ok, but sperm theft is?
Why can a woman decide against pregnancy but a man cannot withdraw financial responsibility for a child he doesn't want?
God this has always been the stupidest argument.
You aren't comparing remotely similar thingsm once the child is born..... It needs support. It will get it one way or another.
I highly doubt you're in favor of taxpayers picking up the tab for a father who just doesn't want to provide the support for a child he fathered...... Are you?
@Excuse me but
No...... No they are not. Please outline what legal and philosophical principles are the same.
I outlined my reasoning..... Please don't just handwaive it away without even explaining your reasoning.
@Excuse me but
Well to address your last question first. Unless I misunderstand, she agreed to pay the child support willingly right? If your question is "should women be forced to pay child support for children" then yes I do agree in the current system they should.
I think a great argument is to be had about governmental social support for single parents. And if we lived in such a system there may be an argument foe giving up financial responsibility for a child. But I can't imagine us getting to such a system (at least in america) so the thought experiment is wholly theoretical.
I mean I think there is value in children already born, in that they are a human life as we all agree it, and will eventually grow up to be the future of our race.
I just disagree there us connective tissue between the concept of a woman's right to bodily autonomy and a parents responsibility to financially support a child (in this system)
@Excuse me but
I apologize if you don't think I addressed your points.
Obviously I don't agree with your position and reasoning, because the pro-choice abortion stance I recognize is based solely on bodily autonomy.
Bodily autonomy is a human right.
I don't see a philosophical link between the reproductive rights of women (that start and end with pregnancy) and thus conflation with..... What the ability for a parent to give up their parental rights? A woman's reproductive rights does not have any relation to choosing to be a parent of a already born human.
A woman who has has a child cannot decide to abandon the child in a ditch, you have to transfer custodial responsibility to another consenting entity. That already happens for both sees.
So again I believe you are connecting two completely different concepts. And honestly it must be exhausting for women to have a completely female based issue (abortion rights) and people can't help but find a way to wedge male issues into it.
Again to restate, I have no problem with anyone opting out of parental rights when appropriate, and if we ever, as a society, create a way to make sure that could happen without a child losing support I'm all for it. But this issue is removed from actual reproductive rights.
@Excuse me but
And I feel you haven't addressed anythingbi brought up..... Going so far as to almost word for word restate my points as if they are novel concepts.
You aren't looking to engage in dialogue honestly
So pardon my frustration when I say we are done here, you haven't proven your claim despite being really wordy about it.
I won't question your motivation for attempting to muddy this conversation with an unrelated topic but I'm sure you have one.
"Moral obligation" is all you need to hear to discardthe arguement. My morals are not your morals and vice versa. I'm not morally obligated to anything, and neither is a woman that never intended to be pregnant. If something happens that threatens intent, you are within right to reclaim intent.
Even WITH the arguement, like you said here, an abortion is exactly the same as unhooking yourself from the violinist. Both of them WILL die without aide from the person that is being forced into a situation and both are FULLY dependent upon the person being forced.
Even in accidents like a torn condom, consenting to immediately prior decisions does not equate to agreeing and consenting to a revoked full autonomy
There's only one real argument deciding the abortion argument in my opinion. Would you take away women's rights to make sure hypothetical you as a fetus were born? This is neither a logical argument nor a moral argument.
I wouldn't have even known that I existed yet, so yeah if my mom had wanted to abort me, then fine. My brother was almost aborted. I'm glad he's here but I wouldn't have known him to be thankful for his existence at all. I've had a "niece" aborted and I have a nephew that wasn't. Again, I'm glad that I have my nephew but that's only because I got to meet him
No, I would not! :)
Wow, imagine if we all thought like Professor stick. Imagine how dystopian we would all be. "We think too much but feel too little".
Weeeel, if woman chose to have sex and thus get pregnant and now have the obligation to have the baby, does that mean the father is hold to the same standards? Of course they are also advocating for all the fathers to care for they baby, at least financialy, even if they never married the mother and it was just one-night thing, right? Right????
I must mention that their analogy is lacking the points of the risk to the mothers life and future health, as well as the nine month time limit. As her decision to keep the pregnancy will impact a good chunk of her life in multiple ways. It’s a poor analogy……
Her argument ending at 2:50 so every Person who suffers injuries from driving a car and getting into an accident should suffer and only get healthcare to not die?
Because they did an activity that is known to have it as an outcome?
That's fucked up.
Abortion saved my life. When I was17 iwent to military duty and my female instructor got pregnant from me. I was in no condition to raise a child. I was a child myself. She aborted the child and so we both could have a career and a life.
How can woman be against choice? I know, it's small detail but still...
Main one is religion
Even ignoring the stealthing portion of the condom, the fact that people have still gotten pregnant while using a condom and pills is possible, so you can still have a woman pregnant with both her and the father having consented to sexual activity but neither desiring to having a child from such activity. But here they are with the supposed consequences of their actions.
What part of "This thing is not 100% effective" don't you understand?
If you use something that says this on the label expecting it to work 100% of the time, it's 100% your fault if something happens.
So, according to this woman, everyone who is mangled or killed in a traffic collision has consented to be crippled for life (or even die) because they drove in a car... Or walked down the sidewalk beside a street where cars drive? Or lived in a house that a plane crashed into? I guess everyone in Florida (and many other places) is consenting to have their home destroyed because that's where hurricanes hit land?
Trump said "pregnancy is inconvenient for employers" and fired women who got pregnant and refused to abort
@@Excusemebut123 and it wouldn't have to be that way if we had paid paternity leave.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has paid paternity leave. The Congo! One of the least developed nations on the planet does workers rights better than US!
@@Excusemebut123 i could say pro abortion is anti human seeing as having babies is basically the reason you exist
@@camwyn256 they have paternity leave and that somehow makes them better at workers rights? Pffft 😅
@@MrHarding51 that and required minimum leave, overtime pay, minimum wage, and retirement, all mandated.
So, yes. They do Worker's Rights better than US
@@MrHarding51 do you support Trump? Because he was openly pro-abortion until 2015. Not pro-choice, pro-abortion. He fired women, including in 2019 from his administration, who got pregnant and refused to abort.
If consent to have sex is consent to pregnancy, should we consider people who engage in unprotected sex and get an ST(D/I < sorry I have no idea which is the "correct" letter these days!) to have consented to it and not give them the medication to cure/manage it?
"Being kidnapped to save a violinist" does not imply prior consent, the argument is invalid.
Abortion is a valid medical procedure, a general ban will result in rich people getting them somewhere else and poor people resorting to illegal back street clinics without oversight or support in case of problems.
I don't understand the pro-lifer's modification to the violinist's dilemma; by her logic, everyone should be required to sacrifice a kidney to any close family member.
The world doesn't work like that; families don't always get along, and arguably, you know the brother you hate better than a clump of cells growing inside you.
Also that would open up to other problems. Who is considered family? How far removed can you be to demand an organ from someone? How would they be punished for denying it? How much risk do they have to take or can they just be forced even it the operation kills them?
Also, why just your family? Doesn't everyone deserve that?
@@evem6154 given the context of what she was saying, I assume she meant immediate blood relative; sibling, patent or child. But it doesn't matter; you shouldn't be required to give up part of your body to make someone else healthy.
That road leads to one healthy person being cut up so their organs can save five sick people.
@Imran Zakhaev What would be the point? I wouldn't know those people in that timeline. If you're going to troll, at least make your comments intelligent.
Jobs and careers have known risks associated with them. So by accepting and consenting to a job that means you also consent to the known risks and hazards, yes. So she is also saying that you also consent to being seriously injured if such a risk were to happen. Wtf!!! Uhm just NO.
Or a closer example to the actual topic of consenting to sex allegedly means you are consenting to being pregnant. Does this also mean knowing that foreplay can lead to sex. So by consenting to foreplay that means you are also consenting to sex? Uhm NO NO NO! Sorry but consenting to one thing does not mean you are consenting to everything and to all possible outcomes.
5:54 surely, aborting the foetus is just a case of unplugging the umbilical cord!
1) A fetus is not a stranger. It’s a biological relative of the woman.
2) The woman’s actions put the fetus in its dependent position. You can’t put someone in a dependent position and then abandon him and wash your hands of the consequences.
3) People are responsible for the obvious and natural consequences of their actions. You can’t push a person out the window and say “I didn’t know gravity would make him fall to his death!” Pregnancy is a natural and obvious consequence of sex. It’s happened literally billions of times.
4) Once pregnancy begins, the woman has already begun “rescuing” the fetus. So abortion is not merely refusing to rescue (which would also be horrible in your example of refusing a kidney to your own child). The fetus is removed from a safe place and dismembered. If you commence rescue, you are responsible if you then abandon the rescue or do it incompetently (for example, you move a crash victim and therefore cause him to bleed out).
5) I have no problem requiring kidney donations between parents and children. You’d have to be seriously psychopathic not to do that.
Can we please stop with the violinist analogy? It's too specific in irrelevant details and too vague in relevant ones.
Someone shouldn't be forced to wear a medical device for the benefit of others? Gee Professor Stick, you don't say.
Wait... If consenting to having sex isn't a consent to the risk of pregnancy, why are fathers required by law to pay child support? That's the argument I hear most often for why fathers have to pay child support for children they didn't want.
I'm not saying fathers *shouldn't* pay child support, I'm just curious what would the argument be there. I'm also not pro-life and I'm not trying to find a "gotcha", I'm genuinely curious as to what the arguments are and how it all works.
The thing is, if a child exists, that child has rights. Child support is the right of an existing underage person.
But I do agree with not being forced to be a parent. No one should be. Most child support is not paid anyway. Let's just make it easy to sign away parental rights. The child support would a fixed amount paid for the government.
@@evem6154 Both of those make so much sense. Thanks a lot for your time and the explanation!
You should respond to Chapter 15 of Scott Klusendorf's book "The Case for Life"
Many more arguments that are written in a more eloquent way than someone can do so whilst speaking to an audience.
I have a question. With the logic that no person should be forced to sacrifice any part of their body for anyone else. Then where does the line go in abortion? As you said, assuming that at the moment of inception they are a human, then when does aborting become bad?
Surely with that logic you can argue to be allowed to abort at any part of the pregnancy?
She basically just admitted it is nothing but feelings that she has for her argument.
It’s not the same thing. Stealting is called rape, so that’s not consent. If people want to get pregnant, there is nothing wrong with the child, it’s not endangering the mother, you really need to explain what changed. The bar isn't and shouldn't be under the floor.
Not forcing people, there many occasions that people are forced to take responsibility for their actions. Don't make people stupid by setting the bar too low.
Deleted past comment due to a troll (sorry for the honest commenters there).
Anyway scenario is not the same as not saving someone doesn't equal killing someone.
Not giving a guy your liver is not the same as terminating a foetus, the reason most people don't care/ are pro abortion (myself included) is because we deem a foetus to not ethically be a human being before a certain time limit. So advocating for an argument with no time limit (0:20) will alienate a lot of moderate pro abortionists.
My favorite arguments relate to animal personhood.
I don't think humans fit the traits we have determined are necessary for animal personhood (including a certain degree of self-awareness) before they're already a few months old.
If we revised our definition of personhood to include the unborn a few months before they come out, we'd suddenly have a LOT more person's rights issues on our hands concerning the way we already treat various other animals that would suddenly find they fit the criterion.
Are you calling blacks animals????
@@imperialmotoring3789
...all humans are animals. They are also all mammals. They are also all Great Apes.
@@Diviance Sure they are. Can you please put an adult on the phone little child? thanks.
@@imperialmotoring3789 Pathetic troll is pathetic.
@@imperialmotoring3789 Imperial Motoring if the word “child” didn’t exist :
Bla blah, i don’t want to listen to common sense you little ch- uhh um you uhhhhhhhhhh uhhhhhhhhmm you uhhhhhhhh…
Given my identity as an atheist and love of all things science, I have long appreciated your input on creationism, anti-intellectualism, anti-science attitudes and religious overreach. However, this is the territory of medicine, and medicine relies on certain ethical principles, some of which, as a med student, I think must be steamrolled in order to allow an abortion to take place. With all this talk of transplanted kidneys, I think there are some things worth saying from a medical perspective.
First off, informed consent. Say you need to be undergo open heart surgery. Beforehand, you as the patient are briefed about everything that could go wrong during and after, including every single way it can impact your quality of life for the for the next few months and the rate of survival within specific timeframes. When you sign your consent form, after being told of the risks, you have consented to an intervention that could leave you dead on the operating table, killing you faster than what it was meant to fix. If you come out of it alive, you have to live with the fact that, as a result of a procedure to which you consented, you now have to abstain from driving for the next few months, because you can do some serious damage to your recently cut open rib cage as you try to pull a hand brake. So yes, provided that you know what can happen, you have taken responsibility for the possible outcomes of what you do. In this case, sex leading to pregnancy. Did you do it unprotected? There's a certain percentage risk. Did you use contraception, or a combination? While the percentage risk is certainly lower, it is never 0.
The kidney transplant argument is a bit faulty. Indeed, no government will force you to donate a kidney. However, being pregnant is not analogous to the act of donating a kidney. For the purposes of my argument, pregnancy is a state where someone's health is compromised (in this case, because they are basically sharing it with someone else). Therefore, pregnancy is more analogous to having a missing kidney. This makes the act of donating the kidney actually analogous to consensual sex, and, by extension, organ harvesting is analogous to rape. Now, no matter how the organ recipient got a kidney, whether legally or illegally, I'm quite sure no one would say that the donor, who is missing a kidney and therefore in a state of compromised health, can just decide that they need their kidney back to restore their health, consequently leaving the recipient for dead. This is why the violinist argument is a better pro-choice argument than the kidney transplant argument, because despite how contrived it is, the violinist argument at least doesn't have "abortion is inexcusable, even in the case of rape" as one of its logical conclusions (seriously, this is vile. I'd much rather be wrong about this); in the violinist argument, unhooking yourself from him to preserve your health is letting him die, while getting your kidney back from someone who only has that kidney is an active act of killing.
Speaking of the violinist argument, the reason we find it reasonable to unhook one's self from the violinist is because of a difference between ordinary and extraordinary care. To give a basic idea, imagine a late stage cancer patient. The usual protocols to which they are ethically entitled (ordinary care) have not worked, so with some intervention, they might get access to experimental medication as a last ditch effort (extraordinary care). For the violinist, being hooked up to someone for 9 months is extraordinary care. For a foetus, they cannot exist otherwise, making it analogous to ordinary care (I believe. Anyone with a better grasp of bioethics, please weigh in). At least, I think this same concept can be applied in favour of abortion of unviable foetuses, i.e. those with fatal abnormalities or mutations, such as anencephaly. (Again, I admit I don't have a terrific grasp of this concept, take this whole paragraph with a grain of salt)
I write this with utmost respect. I used to lean towards these pro-choice arguments, and though my education has made me see that they are flawed, I take no joy in the prospect of telling someone that they are morally obligated to risk their health for someone over the course of 9 months. If it were up to me, this debate would be solved by the invention of technology that allows a conceptus to develop independent of the mother, but we just aren't there yet. I empathise with people in these difficult situations, but I personally think my empathy would be more ethically channeled towards helping build and sustain a social safety net that helps, rather than punishes, people shouldering the weight of an unplanned pregnancy, and for children born of those pregnancies to have as fair a life as possible. I am European, so I understand how I may sound unreasonable, and as though I'm living in lala land, to Americans who have to contend with right wing fearmongering, the likes of which would make McCarthy proud.
But what about women who did not consent to sex? Why is the argument always about women who chose to have sex and got pregnant when they don't want to allow any reason to abort a pregnancy?
Even if the woman consented to both, if it turns out she might die giving birth they choose the fetus over the woman. Even if it has no chance of survival itself.
The violinist argument is terrible, not because the idea behind it has a problem but because the details are so messy, unnecessarily so. How is it relevant that the violinist is a great musician? Why get randomly kidnapped? Afaik more often than not unwanted pregnancies happen due to negligence or accidents in consensual encounters rather than rape. Why are you being kidnapped by an agent? It should be an automatic process, something that happens in nature naturally. You're actually stuck in place for 9 months unable to even stand up, that could actually be worse than being pregnant! Such a badly formed hypothetical.
My better alternative. What if I a complete stranger on the other side of the planet was dying, and the only way to save me was to hook you up to a machine that fed off your blood for one second and that would save my life from a very painful death. It would be super convenient, the machine would materialize from thin air next to you, do everything automatically, cause you no pain and would disappear immediately, it wouldn't even make a sound, it could be invisible too if you want. Would the bodily autonomy argument work there too?
Honestly, I would not want to live in a society where someone can morally and legally refuse such negligible burden to save someone's life (that life could be yours too). People get thrown in jail for not paying taxes, and I bet you're ok with that (I am). No way you'd draw the line at a 1 second long inconvenience at best... right? Now, assuming you're ok with a society that punishes people who don't want to partake in that 1 second inconvenience. If I were to gradually increase the inconvenience to reach the level of an average pregnancy, with its health risks, pains and opportunity costs while simultaneously reduce the suffering of the dying person will endure (I'm not convinced fetuses suffer in early abortions). Where would you draw the line? Cause you have to draw a line, even if it's super fuzzy. If you decide to draw a line rather than die on the hill then... bodily autonomy is dead and instead you make a value judgement based on the amount of suffering. Now you're fucked, cause you can't win any arguments easily, it's all opinions now and people will do whatever they want. And that's how most things in morality works, it's all fuzzy lines and grey areas. I just can't stand when people pretend that abortion is perfectly ok due to some easy moral arguments that makes it all clear cut.. it's not. That's life. Personally I'm pro abortion for utilitarian reasons, I just think society is overall much better with it being allowed. Bodily autonomy is just one piece of the puzzle, and not the nail in the coffin.
So what if...
You get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, hit another vehicle/pedestrian, and there is a 100% chance the person dies, unless you (the drunk driver, and only person with a viable organ, for whatever reason) donates a kidney. Should you THEN be legally obligated to donate a kidney? Would you be morally obligated to do so?
In other words, your actions were the direct result of another person's potential death. -- I think this is the fundamental difference in the analogy.
All that being said, I don't know the answer. I have always been pro-choice (but that's mostly out of pure selfishness) and still am pro-choice. But I'm open to having my mind changed --- assuming pro life can give a compelling argument.
I doubt this woman would be okay with telling a woman she was obligated to finish having sex because she agreed to get naked with a guy. I'm willing to bet she thinks sexual consent should be able to be withdrawn...why does that stop applying when it becomes MORE life-changing???
I'm not so sure about that. Quite a few anti-choicers are also in favor of marital rape, even women.
Ok now, if you advocate for the right of abortion without any consequences, you may also advocate for the right to give up paternity.
If you want equal and sexual responsability in pregnancy, advocate for that too. Otherwise you Just give the power to women to decide what is human, who diserve to live, and who is condemned to work unwillingly for 3 lives instead of Just himself And to endure consequences that woman can avoid by right.
No we don't have to do that. That is your responsibility to make your case, not mine. Typical mysogynistic view,. when discussing the rights of women and their health , men should be given a right as well because it isn't fair if we have equal rights.
@@robinhood20253
Why shouldn't men be allowed to get a "paper abortion" if the woman unilaterally makes the decision to keep the baby? Just give them a reasonable timeframe for it during the pregnancy and a legal thing they need to go through and let them go if they want. If the woman decides to keep it, she should be willing to also forsake financial support from the other party if they don't.
@@Diviance I didn't say I disagreed with you or was against the idea. I just said that in the discussion of women's bodily autonomy and right to terminate unwanted pregnancies, women are not required to make deals or negotiate right for right.
@@robinhood20253
I don't disagree with that. It is two separate discussions and it shouldn't be a "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" type situation.
@@robinhood20253 then men are neither required to negotiate right. For equality sake
Not only that. I would lose my « body autonomy » as soon as I Jeez. My genetical make up is not mine anymore the moment i impregnate someone and i should be responsible for a woman’s choice.
And that’s the issue. Ok we should abort the baby if the women health is in danger, but most of abortion are for confort nowadays. It’s safe, legal, but not rare as promised.
By her argument, it's morally wrong to call the ambulance and fire rescue for a car crash. When you climbed into that car, you cobsented to dying in a crash. You may not WANT to die, but you're engaging in a behavior that can lead to that. Ditto for choking on foid, being struck by lightning, drowning in a pool, being bitten by a rattlesnake, being shot to death, etc.
I'm against abortion except for medical reasons or r*** because I see getting an abortion for any other reason as just being lazy. Sure a woman is not legally required to not have an abortion but if I see a man get stabbed I'm also not legally required to call 911 it's just make me a bad person. Also when the child is born no one said you have to keep the kid. There are plenty of homosexual and infertile couples that whould happily adopt your baby.
Well don't have an abortion then, problem solved.
That you for addressing this wedge issue. I have my own hopefully well thought out opinion, and I can see both sides. I very much appreciate that the violinist argument is a bad metaphor if the sex was consensual. My favorite point you made was that consent can be revoked, even if that has consequences.
Then that's a dead violinist?
My parents as well as quite a few of my extended relatives are disturbingly conservative and religious and just a few days ago my father was telling me about how disgusting and disturbing it was that stem cell research was being done using two-week-old embryos to harvest stem cells to which he then clarified that he thinks of that microscopic speck of cells as a full baby and that what they were doing was murder and that they were wicked for trying to play god by killing babies in order to reduce the suffering and death of older people. That is the level of derangement that one achieves when they refuse to listen to anyone other than people that reaffirm the same beliefs and opinions they've had for the last 40+ years. At this point I can only consider it willful ignorance.
While you aren’t legally forced to donate your kidney to save a life, it is still selfish not to do so unless you medically can not able to donate without risk of dying.
When it comes to pregnancy, ideally we would want the mother to brave the hardships for the sake of the child, but we can’t achieve ideals.
Let us explore a different scenario: aborting based on gender and abortion based on health complication. The former is more immoral than the latter, but in any case it is indifferent to the law.
Long story short: morality isn’t something legally mandatory and needed to be forced, but morality is something that should be encouraged.
I would say the ideal situation for a pregnancy would be the ability to safely remove the fetus and incubate it in an artificial womb, with the "mother" forsaking all parental rights and responsibilities in doing so.
@@Diviance That is an alternative I was contemplating. Hopefully such technology will come.
Aren't everyone strangers until we meet them?
And impregnate them?
Also things like condoms are not 100% perfect (ignoring stealthing) so they could do everything right and the woman still ends up pregnant. Even things like the pill isn't perfect.
what are the three things?
2:30 - I'm pro-choice, but I think she makes a point which you failed to adequately address. If I knowingly risk putting another person ("person" for the sake of argument) into a situation where they will die without the use of my body... well, surely I've done something wrong? Surely I'm at least partially responsible if they die? Now, I think we both agree that even in a situation like this, the government still cannot force me to donate my body to save the other person's life, but I could certainly entertain the idea that the government should still punish me for playing Russian Roulette with another person's life in this way. If I knowingly risk putting another person in a position to die... I imagine the government would be will within its rights to punish me if indeed the person dies, even if the government cannot force me to save their life at the last minute. That is the point I think this woman was making, and that is the point which I don't think you adequately addressed: even if the government cannot force you to give up your body, it's at least plausible that the government can still punish you for risking putting another person ("person") into that deadly situation in the first place.
As a concrete example: if I choose to text while driving, and I run over the violinist with my car as a result, we might agree that the government cannot force me to save his life by using my body, but I think it's at least plausible to suggest that the government can still punish me for my actions: I've just committed involuntary manslaughter with extra steps. Again, this is all assuming that a fetus is a person, which I don't believe.
So just to boil it down to a more adequate comparison (one that doesn't have such a presupposition of fault or judgment)
By this logic would a parent be charged with manslaughter for not donating a kidney to their child?
What if the woman was forced to carry the child to term and the doctors knew it would die when it is born if it didn't receive a transplant/transfusion from the father? If he denies it should he be prosecuted? If not what has changed in the 20 seconds between pre-birth and post-birth?
@@robertcarsten4050 - I think the sticking point is: to what extent should you have "known better" than to put another person's life in danger? What level of life-or-death risk did you choose to place on another person without their consent? Did you know ahead of time that your baby would need a kidney right away, or was it a freak statistical thing which, realistically, no one could have anticipated? If it was a freak statistical thing, if you didn't know it ahead of time, then it's hard to argue that you did anything wrong by creating this baby, just as Hitler's parents couldn't have known having a 4th child would lead to the Holocaust, so we don't hold them accountable in any meaningful way. But, if you DID know it ahead of time, if you knew that your baby would die without your body, which you knew you would not donate, but you had the baby anyway... well, that just sounds like murder with extra steps. It's kind of like if I got a pet tiger, but then I refused to feed it meat, and it died as a result; that's entirely "my fault", I should have known better, I might as well have shot it in the head frankly.
Again, I think the difference is: to what extent should you have "known better" than to put another person's life in danger (again, assuming fetus = person)? What level of life-or-death risk did you choose to place on another person without their consent? How risky is it, for example, to drive through the snow with summer tires? How risky is it to literally play Russian Roulette with someone else's head while they're asleep? To what extent is it "your fault" that the other person is now dying? Surely, if you kill someone because you were driving through the snow on summer tires, you're less blameworthy for their death than if you had literally played Russian Roulette with their head while they were asleep. In both cases, you did kill someone, and you should have known better than to do what you were doing, and the government has a role to punish you... but in the latter case, you REALLY should have known better, holy shit, straight to jail, do not pass Go, life in prison... not so with the snow tires thing.
So, how much should a mother have "known better" than to risk putting another person (fetus) in a position where it would die without her body, which she knew she would not provide? Well... that's a good question. Honestly, I don't know, it's a tough question, and I think you are absolutely right to push back on my argument in this way. But... even if the degree to which she "should have known better" is on-par with the snow driver from above... that's still pretty bad IMO.
@@Venaloid
You answer my question first, not just hand wave it away and then propose a ridiculous equivalency
Please try and he honest (we both know you can't)
@@robertcarsten4050 - Christ dude, I'm just trying to reason through the actual issue. You'd think someone who subscribes to Stick would appreciate that. If you read my reply, you will see that I did answer your question, but let me be more direct:
*"By this logic would a parent be charged with manslaughter for not donating a kidney to their child?"* - IT DEPENDS. If the parent knew, before creating the child, that the child would die without a kidney from them (the parent), then yes, it's just like if I adopted a child knowing that I couldn't provide its basic necessities and it died as a result. If instead the child's need of a kidney was a freak statistical thing, then no, because the parent didn't set the child up the die, so to speak.
It's a lot like how, according to the Genesis creation story, it's clear that God set up Adam and Eve for failure, which is why I would argue that sin and death are actually God's fault in that story. If you put someone in a situation where you know they will die/sin/whatever, then that's your fault when it happens.
*"What if the woman was forced to carry the child to term and the doctors knew it would die when it is born if it didn't receive a transplant/transfusion from the father? If he denies it should he be prosecuted?"* - IT DEPENDS. Did the father know, before risking creating the fetus (fetus = person for the sake of argument), that any child he creates would die immediately? If yes, if he knew this, then yes, he should be prosecuted, just like if I played Russian Roulette with a stranger while they were asleep.
@@Venaloid
Okah no you didn't answer my question.
Because first off what could the comment "if they knew the child would die without a kidney before they created it" even mean.
And the answer to the question in reality is NO. Not "it depends", the answer is no
I'm sorry you don't have the honesty to just answer the question
*I absolutely hate the "argument" that "unplugging someone is not the same as actively killing them".* The ONLY difference is that in one case you're able to lie to yourself about what you did!
Scenarios 1) Consider a person in a hospital bed with a box on their chest, with a cord going back to the wall socket. You are told the box is a complicated pacemaker, and without power, their heart stops, and they die. If you were to unplug it, you wouldn't be killing them, you'd be "letting them die naturally".
Scenario 2) Exactly the same as 1, except the box contains a spring loaded syringe full of poison, held back by an electrical, and if you unplug it, it will cause the poison to be injected into their heart. In this case, unplugging IS killing them by injecting poison.
Scenario 3) Same as 1 and 2, except you don't know what the box does, only that unplugging it results in the death of the patient. So what now? Is it "letting them die naturally" or "killing them with poison"?
It doesn't matter! You made a decision about what you would do, then followed through on that decision, and a person dies. You did that. It was your choice to do that. You are responsible.
I'm gonna leave a short one here:
If we go by the data available to us the entities which actually have Rights are the ones with the "attribute of Personhood"
(ability of True Speech [Why Koko (Probably) Couldn't Talk (Sorry) | The Deep Dive] - Soup Emporium)
which means that Rights are not exclusively human for arbitrary reasons.
Rights are part of The Law; The Law is NOT a human invention, but it's extrapolated from First Principles via the use of Logic (an example is the "Law of non-contradiction"; more about this can be asked in future comments).
Altho humans have right because of their hardware's abilities, not all humans do have them and ALL humans don't have them their entire life because of simple, obvious and undeniable factors:
>developing human fetuses lack True-Speech for a while, maybe until the babbling stage (but that's unsure because I do not have data about when T-S is acquired and I personally can not do research).
>catastrophic brain damage can leave a person "less than human", which worst case is the Vegetative State.
These are the reason why even tho an individual may be human they'd lack Rights.
No, sleeping does not rob one of their Rights.
Sleep is a physiological need of the human organism to persist, to stay alive. If you shake a sleeping person they will wake up because the brain still works perfectly fine during sleep.
The difference between SLEEP, DEVELOPMENT and CATASTROPHIC BRAIN DAMAGE is that Sleep is a temporary and expected status of the Person, while the others are EITHER:
>DEVELOPMENT: lack of Personhood due to the fact it has not reached that status yet. To clam that "stealing the CHANCE of an individual to reach personhood is a crime" is literally saying that when you murder anybody you did not just murder them, but their probable children, and the children of their children and so on. This is NOT and argument.
>CATASTROPHIC BRAIN DAMAGE: where once there was a person now there is no more. This is a state even worse then Alzheimer Disease.
It does not matter if it still has a human face, it does not matter if the heart beats or if the skin is warm, that CATASTROPHIC BRAIN DAMAGE made the individual less then other humans because they're no longer People.
*here someone may try to start a grammar war*
If you REALLY wanna say "people=humans" and/or "murder= voluntary killing of innocent human" then I will just have to say "no, even in fiction we already use these words to describe the same things in human-like, non-human entities. Yes, it IS fiction, but the words are still constantly used the same".
Now, as closure:
It does not matter what I think about it. Maybe someone could think that I am an heartless bastard, but it's not like that, I'd protect to save a young human even if it wasn't mine just because of how I was born.
Our ACTUAL Rights found in The Law give us the ability to abort a developing human, that's a fact.
The problem may rise in the Mentality and Mental Health of individuals when the idea that Abortion may be used as Contraceptive instead than a Last Resolution to a bad situation.
I do not know how to word it, but I believe that anyone who reads it may naturally understand what I mean.
Disgusting people with terrible fetishes or twisted brains will always exist because of chance, but the important thing is that the bulk of the human population remains healthy in the mind.
I'm not entirely comfortable with abortion but I really don't want to see a black market. I'm just old enough to remember those days.
What I believe would be the perfect response to her being ok with "unplugging" as being ok but abortion being actively killing: The doctor goes in and first unplugs, disconnects or however you want to describe it, the umbilical cord then removes the deceased clump of cells. There we go, just unplugged, just like she thinks is ok. Somehow I think that bunch of cells will stop living some short time after that and then they simply remove the dead cells, satisfies her issue and achieves the desired by everybody who's actually involved's needs too. Of course we could just do it the same way they've been doing it where it's got no senses or feelings and is just a bunch of cells with maybe some creature like characteristics but effectively is just a bunch of cells.
Next on the anti abortion peoples agenda: Wart removal, how dare they simply kill off a large group of human cells like that?
Or, Cancer: They shouldn't be allowed to remove that cancer, it's part of the human.
Almost guaranteed she's basing most of her objections on religious grounds, the rest on jealousy because she can't get anyone to even try and get her pregnant.
Arghhhh! Damn! I write as things come up so wrote that about unplugging the umbilical then restarted the video just in time to hear you say pretty much the same thing, sorry. I'll leave it just to show how " great minds think alike" and even some dumb ones too lol.
Sexual consent =/= pregnancy consent...
If pregnancy was the result of overwhelming numbers of copulation this argument *might* have some limited merit. Since most sex does not result in pregnancy, the reasonable assumption is that you won't be pregnant after sex. That being said sex doesn't assume automatic pregnancy thereby it is not a consent to pregnancy.
Driving can result in a death due to crash, therefore you should just assume you'll be killed getting behind the wheel. That also means there is no need for insurance or road rules since the inevitable outcome is understood to be death. This argument is absurd and no different than claiming sexual consent is pregnancy consent.
@Imran Zakhaev And? There's no anti-abortion laws that make abortions okay if you took precautions. And if you end up in a car accident you are still given assistance.
@Imran Zakhaev because no one has ever gotten pregnant while taking precautions? How much precaution is enough precaution in your mind? Who gets to set the legal precident of how much precaution is enough?
The simple fact of the matter is that pregnancy is NOT the expected outcome of the act of intercourse. It's well below 50% of the outcome. Now, if you want to make the argument that sex should be treated like a gun, always assume the gun is loaded, and always assume pregnancy will occur with every sexual interaction, despite any applied safety employed. That's still be problematic in my eyes, but it can at least be a foundation for a discussion.
Regardless of any arguments to that point, you still won't convince me that agreement to sex is agreement to pregnancy. At best its an acceptance of the risk of pregnancy. And if you want to argue that it is, then the reverse would hold true as well, no consent to sex means no concent to pregnancy which means abortion would be a reasonable resolution in the case of rape or incest and any law making it illegal would be wrong.
@Imran Zakhaev according to a survey done by channel mum of 1194 couples, it took an average of 78 sexual interactions before one resulted in pregnancy. That is a far cry from your proposed 0.00001% or whatever. It's not a shock to most adults that most of the times you have sex you will not see a pregnancy as an end result. So yes, facts are convenient to prove you're right, when you are right. No shock there either.
@Imran Zakhaev
So, by your logic, since driving can result in an accident... you therefore _consent_ to me intentionally causing a crash with you.
@Imran Zakhaev oh, youre still here? You're persistent, I'll give you that.
But you're still wrong. You have failed to show how all of your fake percentages prove that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. Trying to prove me wrong by saying effectively the same thing I just did doesn't help you. Yes, using protection fails, far more often than that obsurd percentage you pulled out of your turd factory. But either way, using protection, or not, still doesn't equate to consent to pregnancy. My point was, and still is that performing any act doesn't come with an explicit agreement to all possible outcomes, however likely or unlikely. If they did, there would be no such thing as a legal waiver indeminfying a product/service company from being responsible for bodily injury when partaking of potentially risky products and services. If thus concept is too difficult for you to understand champ, that's fine we can't be good at everything. You keep trying slugger, someday you'll be a real boy!
I get how people can bring up the courage to get an abortion, but how do the doctors bring up the courage and will to perform one?
It is a part of their job.
Abortion is the recommended treatment and care for many pregnant related conditions. I guess it comes down to do you value the life of your patient, one with family, friends, hopes, dreams and their health and safety of do you consider her as simply a brood mare for bringing more humans into a world where 3.1 million children die of starvation each year. Both parties claim to value life, one values the lives of women the other values controlling women's lives.
@Imran Zakhaev now now. Calling people names is a sign of intellectual immaturity. If women do not have bodily autonomy, let's make that a law across the board. Men should not either. Men should be forced to have vasectomies at birth. It is far safer than abortion or pregnancy and it is reversible. That solution is far superior to the abortion ban plan. What's your thoughts on that ?
@@imranzakhaev3779
"you demented psycho"
That is *IRONIC,* coming from you!
the way i see it. if you willingly have sex then you are in essence. agreeing to the posibility of having a child. if you dont want to have a kid outside of sexual assault. then the answer is to not have sex. you, the potential mother. have the option to say no, and when you engage in this activity, you are fully aware of the consequences. and yet people still do it and are confused when they get pregnant. its not the fault of the child that you made a bad decision in life. that unique child has only one chance at life. and cutting it short will never sit right with me. im not a religious person nor do i think that child was put there by god as I dont believe in such fairy tales. I believe its entirely the fault of the woman. (outside of sexual assault) you made the choice to be hooked up for 9 months. the mental gymnastics you take to tell yourself you are right is mind boggling to me. yes I still think abortion should be allowed in cases where the mother is unable to give birth due to a medical condition or in the case of an underage child getting pregnant. / instances of sexual assault. I dont understand why we cant agree on middle ground. its either NO abortion or kill as many babies as your heart desires. why cant we find middle ground??
@@Excusemebut123 I stated that the woman is entirely at fault for getting pregnant. (outside of instances of sexual assaults obviously) this is not an opinion. this is a fact. if you cant come to terms with reality then there is no room to debate.
the function of sex is to reproduce. by reproducing you are accomplishing the goal you set for yourself by having sex. its literally the outcome you wanted.
@@Excusemebut123 I never said it was bad. Or a punishment. Only the result of an action that you willingly partook in. I think producing children is a beautiful thing. it's literally the end goal as a human to pass on your genes to the next generation. if you think it's a punishment. Then the simple answer is to not have sex.
@@Excusemebut123 it's not motivated in any way shape or form to any religious ideologies or ideals. As I already stated. I'm not religious. I find people who believe in religion tend to be the most detached from reality.
As far as having sex for pleasure. Which is what I assume you are referencing. It's not the function of sex. It's not meant to be used for self enjoyment. Pleasure is simply a byproduct of the process. it feels good, Because it's evolutions way of telling you that it's good to have children.
@@Excusemebut123 I'm going to have to agree to disagree since I know how these debates go. They never truly find middle ground. my way of thinking and your way of thinking will never align. And that's ok. That's what makes the human mind so unique and so special. unlike wild animals we have unique independent thoughts and ideals. And I find that to be beautiful.
@@Excusemebut123 your way of looking at it is subjective and open to interpretation, it can't be studied or tested. It's opinionated. And does not hold up to scrutiny.
My method of looking at it doesn't involve feelings or opinions. It's simply based on the function and goal of reproduction. Which is too have children / offspring.
science doesn't care about feelings. and I seriously hated that I have to explain this to so many people. But enough of this. Have a great day
I had the opposite happen to me...
I was having sex with a prostitute then realised it was all fealing a lot more than it should!
took my man bit out out and yes the condom was no where to be seen! I don't think she was stealthing me! But to this day I still wonder where that condom went...?!?!
I did actualy ask, and she let me check.... it wasn't inside her or anywhere in the car!
‘religious’ thoughts and appropriate should apply only to them