Responding to the Strongest Case for Abortion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 січ 2025
- In the most recent episode of the Matt Fradd Show, we spent some time going over the best arguments given in support of the Pro-Choice position. "The Violinist Scenario" is once such argument:
Say you wake up in a strange hospital, attached to a stranger. The doctor tells you that he is a world-famous violinist and that you were abducted and stitched to him because you were the only one who was a medically suitable match to save his life.
Do you have the right to pull the plug? How does this scenario relate to the situation of Mother and Pre-Born Child? Stephanie and I discuss.
"The Matt Fradd Show" is the old name for "Pints with Aquinas" a philosophy podcast, for a more recent video check out Stephanie's closing remarks from her debate with an Pro-Choice Doctor: • Pro-Life Activist vs. ...
📌 Check out the Full Episode: • Stephanie Gray | The M...
📌 Stephanie's Website: loveunleashesl...
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd
🔴If you like this video, please consider subscribing and then hitting 🔔so UA-cam will be FORCED to let you know when we put out a new video. 😉
@Jen farmer
What I can't stand about her is that she is implying that because women have got a womb complete with the function, this means that all women are/should be just baby-making machines, full-stop. But she herself is a woman and so she is just putting "herself" down. Having a womb/ovaries inside a person's body is just "one" thing. We did not "ask" or particularly even "want" to have the womb. And also some women do not ask or want to be pregnant or go through a childbirth either. So therefore if we can relieve ourselves of this unwanted parasite and the suffering involved with it, then it's a good thing - definitely not a crime. Call it a "baby", a "child" or "human" or whatever - I dont give a flying flamingo. If it is not wanted and not needed in a person's life then it is just a [harmful] parasite which needs to be removed. End of.
@Jen farmer I dont understand why you're so upset. Fathers who refuse to pay child support and accept the responsibility of their actions are bad people and need somebody to show them the error of their ways...
Hi, could you link some info on the Professor she argued against? I think it would be best to engage in the content directly so as to think more critically of it.
Here's the best, the only pro-choice argument. No person has the right to use another person's body without sustained permission.
@@bigcityjunglecatenvisageth1422Please don't have kids.. They really don't deserve to be treated/seen as parasites.
I really like how humble she is and that she admits she’s been stumped before. A lot of people don’t do that, and it makes her a lot friendlier than the typical activist.
Yes, people on the left and right are truly guilty of that, glad she is being level headed.
@cinna banana in what regard is she not correct?
Kevin Tran They obviously made that claim and didn’t try supporting it because it’s feelings. If I ever claimed someone in a video was wrong, I would explain why I believed that.
Kevin Tran i can explain. Even if you assume the fetus is a human with equal rights and the uterus belongs to the next generation(which is nonsense in my opinion, u can’t claim a part of somebody’s body). The fetus still depends on bodily resources that aren’t the uterus like blood and can permanently effect the body.
Yeah. And immediately after, she says God himself talked to her to give her tips on how to "win" that random debate.. so humble.
I absolutely love the concept of “steelmanning”. Taking your opponents strongest argument, worded as well as possible and responding to that. I’ve always thought straw manning was such a weak and pathetic debating technique.
It’s a good way to show mastery of a topic
Strawman arguments are called fallacies for a reason.
I was explaining a different approach to debating when my husband said "yeah there's a word for that, it's called steelmanning, the opposite of strawman." I'm glad I'm not alone.
I love it as well, but we must be carefully not to mischaracterize the argument, which happens often.
@valcaron the strongest argument given that you believe that the fetus is alive
It’s a difficult subject. However I can’t begin to imagine how traumatic carrying the child of rape would be. I don’t think I’d be able to and I don’t think women in general should be forced to do so.
Ripping the child’s limbs apart to kill it without any pain medication and then reassembling and selling the body parts is not the answer to a violent rape crime.
@@gretchenmann453 I don't think that this is an accurate way to describe abortion, esoecially early abortions where the embryo has not developed any kind of capacity to feel pain.
It’s a terrible thing when someone is raped, but no matter how bad the situation, the baby is still an innocent life that should be protected and given the opportunity for life.
we can't just take the easy way out everytime. yes its much easier to abort your baby that you didn't want, but its also easier to kill that asshole that bullied you everyday in 7th grade. you cant kill your bully because murder is bad.. but why is it bad? its bad because you're taking the basic human rights away from someone. you take the basic human rights away from a fetus by killing it before it even had a chance to breathe. it isnt about pain, its about opportunity. your basic human rights are taken away when you're raped and thats really sad, but they arent taken away by caring for a baby inside your body and finding it a home.
Gretchen Mann That isn’t how abortion works.
I've never heard my thoughts formulated to an argument so well before. Thank you Stephanie and Matt
I like the way you went "heard" you went:
"THERE DANCE YOU NOW!! WOOHOO COW YAY!! TWINKLE STARS DRAWS!! THAT WAS SOJNNING?!?! OHHH DANCING JUMPING BEAN KITE LIGHTS ARE ON THE WAY!! YOU KNOW BETTER WERE BETTER!! THAT AN WAS A SNACK AND A CAR FOR EDGAR ALLEN POE!! THAT WAS CLOCKED FROM ALL THE WAY TO THE ANTLER DOME!! TWIN THE TWIN YAY!! COOKIES FOR AN ELMO OTHERWISE"
@@progenderrole1329 meds, now
Watching this made me realize I'd never actually heard an arguement about abortion before now that really went past 'my body my choice' or 'you're killing babies.' There's so much negatively charged energy around this whole thing from either side that it totally drowned out any actual conversation for me. I've always been pretty ambivalent about the topic and at the moment I still am, but this gave me a lot to think about.
but all this is built over the assumption that an embryo is a person. which is not by the way.
plus this video is exactly a “my body my choice” strawman vs a disguised “you’re killing babies” argument just embellished with a bit of ethics speculation.
basically the violinist argument is “my body my choice” and they dance around the premises a bit with the assumption that “you’re killing babies”. this is how religious pricks, anti science movements and conspiracy theorists argue. don’t fall for it
Well at the end of the day that's because that's really all ultimately what all arguments one way or another come down to despite how they are dressed up in language.
At the end of the day you are killing. The only possible circumstances where intentional killing is justified is when the results of not killing are of an equal or even greater coast. It is true such circumstances do occasionally arise, but they are vanishingly slim.
Anything else, to kill an innocent for any reason less than to _literally_ save another from life or the most grievous bodily harm is murder. Blood for convenience, one way or another.
@@Laotzu.Goldbug i disagree. an embryo isn’t a baby.
@@uncopino embryo, baby, fetus, hippopotamus, moyocellular agglomeration, call it whatever you want, the semantics are irrelevant. The only question is: "under what circumstances are willful killing justified, and does this situation meet them."
@@Laotzu.Goldbug define killing. see? you can’t escape semantics
The problem I have with this argument is the fact that in terms of law a woman can consent to sex without consenting to getting pregnant, an example of reproductive coercion is birth control sabotage, for example poking holes in condoms, this is still classed as sexual assault, so in the laws eyes you can consent to sex without consenting to pregnancy
There is always risk of getting pregnant even if you do not poke holes in a condom. That is no excuse. Acts have consecuences
When men have sex they consent to the consequences so women should too.
I don’t understand. How does that no consent to the risk of pregnancy?
@@dantecristero There are risks involved in driving as well, but I'm pretty sure cutting the brake lines and disabling the airbag is attempted murder.
@@dantecristero if you eat a free sample and get aids, are you gonna be upset? Guess not right? Since you consented to getting aids?
I disagree with much of the arguments in this video, but as someone on the left it is extremely refreshing to see those i disagree with lay out their arguments in a way that actually makes sense and isn’t completely psychotic. It allows an actual discussion, instead of two groups of people screaming at each other.
Would have assumed you liked psychopathic arguments if you were on the left.
100%. I don't agree with her position, her comparison between the violinist and the fetus, or even with her premise that fetuses are people, but I do agree she presents her arguments convincingly. She doesn't come off as a crazy person who didn't come to their opinion through rational thought or critical thinking.
Let it be known, that even though you disagree with much of the arguments in this video, you fail to present your own as a rebuttal. Very interesting. Looks like pro-life always wins over the pro-death crowd. Perhaps because the pro-death crowd have never truly thought through their "position"... (if you could call pro-death a position).
Agreed. I'm on the right and I really appreciate listening to anyone on the left or right make a very well thought out argument. Often times I see what kind of intelligence it takes to be able to make such a well thought out case. Then to contrast it with the intelligence of our society and politicians always leaves me staggered and with utter despair.
@@clearandfocused8882 So you just automatically assume this person has not thought through their position and then you intentionally positioned the discussed to be purely life vs. death (your pro death quip). How about you idk ... ask? Like a decent human being? Crazy I know but if you assume the worst from everyone that's a scary world I wouldn't want to live in.
Unfortunately this issue is much more complicated that people want to admit. There's also a completely rational law vs moral argument that is occurring and is much more complex that "all killing = murder". There's specific legal terminology and concepts to take into account.
When she talked about the argument that the uterus was made for another purpose and how the Holy Spirit spoke to her I started tearing down!!
As a soon to be mother, I see no other greater honor to carry A LIFE inside of me. It’s just an overwhelming feeling and I wish every woman would feel that . Praise Jesus!!
did you mean "tear up"😅? congrats on the incoming baby. I will pray a Hail Mary for you and your child.
@@aceraphael yes that’s what I meant. English is not my native language so I always mess up the expressions haha
@@schnitzel711 it's not mine either :)
@bulletanarchy6447 ah, I see you are back. get off the Internet for your own sake.
@@aceraphaelKells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day.
Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease
always interesting to hear actual points of argument rather then overly emotional people scream at one another. Some more than others.
Yeah. Prochoice myself, but this was really good. You could tell they were genuine and having a discussion in good faith.
Exactly what I thought as well. It’s inviting, wether I agree or not.
She doesn't have any actual points. She's sitting their trying to imitate an intelligent person for 20 minutes. I feel sorry for everyone who lost brain cells watching this.
@@hogannull7022 she made many points. The purpose of the uterus, the natural human progression, your moral obligation or lack thereof to care for someone, the disparity between fathers and mothers when you examine the aspect of child support, and more. Disagreeing is fine, and you don’t have to argue in a UA-cam comment section, but comments like yours do not promote a thoughtful and intellectual discussion, and only weaken your position.
@@hogannull7022
If you don’t think she made any points maybe you should watch it again
Wouldn’t her argument sort of fall apart when we consider that the uterus is not the only organ keeping the baby alive? Pregnancy doesn’t just utilize the uterus; it’s a phenomenon which affects the entirety of a woman’s body. Does that mean that the baby has a right to all of your organs, so long as it has a right to one of them?
I hadn't thought of this but good point! I also think there are issues with the idea that the uterus is for the use of the fetus. By that logic, tubal ligation, hysterectomy, or any choice that can affect fertility should be as immoral as abortion because they permanently deprive any future offspring of this use, which makes no sense.
Yeah, it’s not a great argument that the uterus is unique. A better argument is that there is a difference between killing and letting die. In the kidney example, refusal results in letting die. In the abortion example, the result is a killing.
I love different perspectives.
The uterus is unique that is houses a growing baby... The other organs are supporting not the primary places of growth. I know a woman with a partially missing liver who still carried a healthy pregnancy. My sister with poor functioning reproductive parts had a difficult (nearly impossible, thanks modern medicine) pregnancy.
Regarding the other options being immoral... They are preventive, not procedures that directly kill a developing life. Plan B and birth control are also preventative, and I wouldn't advocate against those measures.
God Bless!
A baby that has been born must have access to the entirety of your organs to stay a live too...if you didn’t exist to feed and care for them, they would die. Your organs support your life and the baby’s.
Also just because you CAN doesn't mean you should be OBLIGATED TO.
She’s the most articulate and patient pro-lifer I’ve ever seen
All the pro life women that I've encountered are patient. Pro-choice women that I've encountered were using all kinds of bad words.
Gosh, if she's your best, you guys are losing.
She literally admits she sees pregnancy as a punishment for women enjoying sex. XD
Regardless of consent, regardless of marital status, she admitted she sees pregnancy as a punishment befitting "the crime" of having sex. XD
So a married woman gets impregnated by her husband?
That's what that whore gets for enjoying her husband. Punished by pregnancy!
Is she happy to be pregnant?
Who cares- she is Punished. XD
She's off her rocker and you are too if you agree with her on that. XD
@@roshanmaharana people putting you down, disrespecting your opinions, and ignoring your lived experiences will do that to you
@@badger6882 So being treated rudely is an excuse to act rude? You're hearing yourself right?
@@eet212 It's not an excuse or permission, its an explanation. It's not her being hysterical or blinded by her own privilege, like others here are saying.
Really nice arguments. The professor could have refuted to that in a pregnancy you're not only lending the child the uterus but also your blood, it pumps you full of hormones and, in a lot of cases, changes your body forever.
And to me, this is the part of the issue that's often left out. The things you bring up here are what makes this a difficult choice. But the key here is choice.
again added more weight to the conversation but no way countered it. As long as it was for the baby. The violinist argument is based on a situation in which the body is not premade to do or comprehend.
@@ryanmars9552 well it kinda is. She specifically states in the violin argument that the body of the kidnapped person is the only one that could keep the violinist alive
@@ryanmars9552 well it kinda is. She specifically states in the violin argument that the body of the kidnapped person is the only one that could keep the violinist alive
the woman made the choice to have sex that led to pregnancy.... this example involved a kidnapping completely against the person in the example's will.
In regards to the altered violinist argument, it’s also important to remark that NOT donating a kidney or any organ its passive (and almost no passiveness is illegal), while aborting is active. It’s actively pursuing to end a life, instead of not doing enough to save a life. There’s a very clear and very big difference.
You're still not obligated to support someone if your life is at risk. If the two of us were dangling off a bridge with you holding on to my leg and my grip slipping, I wouldn't be jailed for kicking you off.
I'll say that her point about the uterus being "for someone else" is interesting and I've never heard it before, but it's still not valid. If the uterus was truly the only thing being used I might agree, but it would be foolish to say that the only thing changing in a pregnant woman is the size and contents of her uterus. This argument quickly turns into "the purpose of an entire woman is to have children, so she has a legal obligation to have children"
I'm Pro life, but is it though? This seems like the trolley question
Here's where it boils down to for me. One cannot argue for fhe right to bodily autonomy while simultaneously denying that exact same right to another human being and not be a hypocrite.
@@erictopp7988 Nobody is saying that the mother needs to pursue her pregnancy even when her life is in danger. There are obviously cases where abortion is justified because the mother has life-threatening circumstances. That is not what is being argued.
Also, it wasn't your actions that caused the kidney to fail. But it was your actions that created the human life. All of these analogies try to take out the fact that this is a consequence of your own choices.
I'm not leftist, but I am pro-choice for personal reasons and I really liked this video. The points miss Gray made were logical and made sense nad her whole demeanor overall was very put-together and pleasant. However, I don't think that this is the strongest argument for pro-choice. I think the best one is the fact, that if abortions are banned, women will get them nonetheless. Better scenario, they travel abroad, but that is pretty expensive, so the majority of women who for one reason or the other feel the need to get abortion will have them performed in awful conditions by untrained people looking for "easy cash". Now by banning abortions, you may save some children, but those kids saved will be paid by increased death rate of women dying because of those illegal abortions. Is that the price you are willing to pay?
I will happily pay that price.
The law is broken everyday - homicide is banned but continues to happen nonetheless. Should we as a society just scrap all laws because the crimes they ban continue to happen?
@@gk5108 I honestly don't know where you got the information that 90-95% of women die during abortions, maybe if you count all the countries, bur if we are talking about the US, but my source (www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm) says, that in in 100 000 legal abortions, only 0.41 deaths, not percents, but deaths itselfs occured. This means that you would need more than 200 000 legal abortions to have 1 death, so I think your data is not correct. Regarding your arguement about WOMEN deciding to pay the price. The US has been through banning abortions and the government knows very well how it ended. Because of this, their decision to bann them again would be a conscious decision to let certain amount of people die. You could obviously argue that the amount of lives saved would be higher, but let's be real, of those unwanted children, many wouldn't live a happy life, if htey would live to see adulthood at all. Maybe the parents wouldn't be in a good financial situation, maybe they would decide to get rid of the baby themeselves. Also, abortion rates are higher in areas with increased gang violence, so if a child was born there, chances are it would be killed by someone else... You see, I think society in general is not prepared for an abortion ban. Do I think that abortions should be used as a form of anticonception? No, of course not, but I also don't think that the US social system is that good, that it would be able to provide for all the children that would suddenly become dependent on it.
@@gk5108 “And here is one truth: No matter what the law says, women will continue to get abortions. How do I know? Because in the relatively recent past, women would allow strangers to brutalize them, to poke knitting needles and wire hangers into their wombs, to thread catheters through their cervices and fill them with Lysol, or scalding-hot water, or lye. Women have been willing to risk death to get an abortion. When we made abortion legal, we decided we weren’t going to let that happen anymore. We were not going to let one more woman arrive at a hospital with her organs rotting inside of her. We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.” - Caitlin Flanagan
Firstly, far more babies are aborted right now, than women who would die from botched abortions if abortion was illegal. And if abortion should be allowed because of all these 'consent' arguments, then not paying child-support should also be allowed. So I don't exactly imagine there would be a net benefit, even ignoring the deaths of millions of fetuses. You'd just move the suffering from people who accidentally get pregnant and who don't want to be pregnant, onto single mothers.
From my perspective, I have always thought that the power of the violinist argument is not that it cannot be countered, it is that in countering it, you almost always have to argue how an unborn baby is uniquely different than a born human. Thus, it weakens the initial pro-life presupposition presented here. All her arguments seem to point to the fact that an unborn baby in the uterus is a unique and unrecreatable situation. it seems that would just strengthen those who argue that as the situation is unique...our laws can also be unique in how they govern that situation.
Wow. Great eloquence.
I don't follow, how would you have to argue that a unborn baby is uniquely different?
But that is what makes it weak. It entirely relies on conceding that the fetus doesn't have the same rights as humans who are past the fetus stage. But most pro-lifers don't concede that. It's just a convoluted argument that a fetus isn't a life with the same rights.
Not only that, the whole violinist and and consent argument also accidentally shows that men should be able to consent or not consent to a pregnancy, and so they should be allowed not to pay child support. So all the 'good' that pro-choice does for women would be undone by the fact men don't have to financially support mothers anymore.
I find it to be a terrible comparison. It doesnt hold too well imo. Simply because being kidnapped is not comparable to consensual sex.
Also, if the violonist was hooked up to you without his knowledge (if it wasnt his decision) he wouldnt be to blame for the situation which means you are both kinda stuck in a weird situation and both being taken advantage of. In this case id be encline to stay hooked to them unless there is a significant risk of death or injury to myself. If it’s their decision then no (you dont owe your abusers anything).
If you signed a contract and that getting hooked to that guy in case he needs it was one of the conditions for you to get your benefit then you couldnt say you have a say in the matter.
Wouldn't it be a false analogy since it suggests that all pregnancies are forced just like how the violinist was forced onto the person without their concent?
15:45 This counter-counter argument stumped me for years, but now I would argue that it's the definition of sexism.
The nature and purpose of an organ has no bearing on a person's ownership of that organ.
If we accept that the uterus is exempt from considerations of bodily autonomy, then we're accepting a world in which men have autonomy over their entire body, and women have autonomy over less than their entire body. That's an inherently unequal world, and it opens up a dangerous door.
Ah yes, if everything else fails, just label it sexism.
Jokes aside, this doesn't really counter the counter-counter argument as much as instead of reinforcing the idea that sexism is actually justified and equality not. Men and women are different, and only women have this body part, so it's justified that men have more bodily autonomy than women.
If you really want to counter the said counter-counter argument, it would be better to say why uterus's purpose to bear a child shouldn't hinder mother's ability to abort it.
Oh sexism you are the safe haven of gender ignorance. you cant make women and men biologically equal
@@jackwillson9797 nice catch to the counter counter counter argument but im gonna have to counter the counter you countered to counter the counter counter argument after you countered the counter counter counter argument from countering the counter counter argument. Simple answer because its alive and shouldnt be killed to save the mothers day to day living by stopping its altogether so actually managed to make a worse counter counter counter argument than her
@@jackwillson9797 Why does it matter what the uterus's purpose is? It's not yours or anyone else's uterus.
There's no argument there.
Men and women not having the same body parts doesn't mean sexism is justified or that one should have more bodily autonomy than the other.
When I had sex with my wife, I understood that for the next 9 months, if she became pregnant, that she is the one that is doing all the sacrifice and work and thus the decisions were hers. My responsibility is to support her. If I wanted a child it's on me to make sure I'm with a woman that wants one too and we're on the same page.
If I didn't, it was on me to make sure that didn't happen before even having sex.
It isn't up to me to control my wife and thays what would happen if we take away their rigjts to bodily autonomy.
@@dwo356
"Why does it matter what the uterus's purpose is? It's not yours or anyone else's uterus."
"Men and women not having the same body parts doesn't mean sexism is justified or that one should have more bodily autonomy than the other."
Because a child is living and concieved in the women's body, so while it is a separate body entity a pregnant woman doesn't have the autonomy to get rid of the child within - but not part of - the mother's body, for it's murdering a life. In that scenario a woman should have less autonomy than a male, for males can't possibly get pregnant.
As for how it matters? Well, not for me at least, would that matter either? No. I am talking about the logical fallacy in such counter-counter-counter-argument, regardless of whether or not it matters to me. The same way I could talk about some kid starving in Africa even though I won't be affected by it at all.
"When I had sex with my wife, I understood that for the next 9 months, if she became pregnant, that she is the one that is doing all the sacrifice and work and thus the decisions were hers."
You might need to clarify what you mean by "decisions". Because both you and your wife's rights stop where a human's life starts. And if it's abortion, it is not a feasible decision.
Also, it is also your choice to give the right to decide to her. Since you occupy 50% of the responsibility and rights to the child in the mother's womb, you simply gave it to her, it doesn't mean you don't have the right to decide in the first place.
"If I didn't, it was on me to make sure that didn't happen before even having sex."
And also on her to either not have sex or have valid contraceptives. You both have a 50/50 responsibility to prevent concieving a child and supporting a child, if it does come to that.
At around the 20 minute mark she says when deciding to save your child’s life by donating your kidney you have to factor in how it might harm your health or jeopardize your ability to care for your family. How is this different than when a pregnant woman’s health or ability to care for her family is in danger from pregnancy? Honestly interested in how that could be discussed. Even if my life were at risk equally in both situations, I would struggle far more to end the life of a child who may be experiencing pain and fear than the life of a fetus that cannot feel or comprehend the experience as a fully developed child could.
Really I don’t think this analogy holds up because every pregnancy is unique and complex. Generalizations made by either side will never be as valuable as careful consideration by medical professionals on a case by case basis.
Abortions performed to preserve the life or the health of the mother are so rare that they do not register statistically, according to Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood, who did more to promote and spread abortion on demand throughout the world than any other individual. In 1967 he commented, “Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal disease such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save the life.”
As far back as 1981, former Surgeon General of the United States Dr. C. Everett Koop said “The fact of the matter is that abortion as a necessity to save the life of the mother is so rare as to be nonexistent.”2 He was backed up by reformed abortionist Bernard Nathanson, who said not long after, “The situation where the mother’s life is at stake were she to continue a pregnancy is no longer a clinical reality. Given the state of modern medicine, we can now manage any pregnant woman with any medical affliction successfully, to the natural conclusion of the pregnancy: The birth of a healthy child.”
The Catholic Church makes exceptions where abortion is allowed if the life of the women and the child are at risk. In that case the abortions goal would be to save the women, not to kill the embryo, which is an unintended consequence which would have likely happend anyways if the abortion didn't happen. But this would be a rather rare event compared to most abortions that happen today.
With the kidney it's random, nobody caused it
With inception it was caused by 1 party if rape, by 2 if consensual
A more accurate analogy would be you put a gun to someone's kidney,
Does the law look kindly on you putting someone on life support
If you did pull the trigger, would the victim win damages and medical fees up to your ability to provide
So maybe you allow abortions to the same degree that your allow putting people in the hospital comatose on life support, with 30 years of rehabilitation ahead of them
All of the arguments are moot at some point,
What are the goals?
What methods work to achieve those goals?
We all want happy healthy free just society
We all want respect for all
We all want safety and protection for all
We all abhor rape
We all care about mothers fathers and children
We all feel sympathy and desire to help those in struggle
The question shouldn't be how can I get myself into the worst situation possible and choose between lesser evils
We should get as far away from bad situations as possible
How about debating alcohol in the abortion debate?
How many inceptions would be more thought out if people didn't get naked while drunk
How about abstinence, what if that was encouraged and taught in schools, 12 year olds shouldn't be told how to crash a car and handed extra airbags, without a lot of emphasis of how dangerous, life changing, expensive, difficult etc that crash could be
Yes I agree, kids mess around with things and some teaching is needed, but it sucks, first of all 2 year olds have questions, but you don't start or with pubic hair, explain functions as necessary so that kids don't think they're dieing etc, but focus a bunch on why and how,
You can explain every part of a car, where and how to add gas turn it on, but that doesn't explain why you want a car that's on with gas, explain that you can get places, do things, do errands, carry stuff etc
Intercourse is more than function it's a tool, that has many uses, relieve stress, bond, make babies etc. and like everything if used improperly can cause serious damage
Kids should have exercises going through what their life would look like if they got pregnant at various stages of life and various scenarios, they should visit teen pregnancy homes and prisons and visit dropouts paying child support,
They should also visit classmates of these kids that were parents before they were ready
They should visit and hear from parents that have tried to get pregnant, parents that have had miscarriages in all the bloody detail with all the tears
They should visit with would be parents that had abortions
They should visit with multigenerational happy families
Divorced families
Unmarried families
Abused and abusers
Addicts
Recovered addicts
Teaching people how a fire starts is necessary, but it is irresponsible to not teach fire safety, and no, handing a kid an Ikea fire pit and a gallon of gasoline does not cut it
Boys and girls should protect eachother, not egg eachother on to see jumps off the cliff first not knowing how shallow the water is and how few survive the fall
Kidney disease is an unintentional abnormality that humans are not meant to develop.
A fetus growing inside of a uterus is its intended purpose.
As for financial strain or increased stress, the woman is already pregnant. The child is already here. Im sure the person that got kidney disease wishes he could simply abort the disease, but it doesn't work like that. Because children are not a disease, instead of seeking to kill the child, plans to give up for adoption can be made.
@@illyrian9976 But we don't always know in advance which pregnancies will risk the mother's life. The act of childbirth itself comes with innumerable risks, many of which cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy prior to labor. Women with otherwise healthy pregnancies die in childbirth too. The point of the "pregnancy is dangerous" argument is not to say that we should only allow abortions in the case of life-threatening _pregnancy_ it is to point out that the entire act of pregnancy and childbirth is complicated, dangerous, and can often be harmful or life-threatening to the mother, and we should include that in our discussions about abortion because too many only want to talk about the harm to the fetus.
I remember this violinist argument from my ethics class in college. Even while discussing it in class I started to come to the right answer, though I didn’t flesh it out as well. I was already thinking, your child in your womb is way different than a stranger artificially attached to you.
It’s absolutely ridiculous; something a teenager might come up with. The glaring flaw, of course being the woman in the scenario was “kidnapped and against her will combined with the stranger.” We all know how pregnancy happens in the vast majority cases. I don’t understand how it’s considered “philosophy” to the the fatal flaw in this scenario. You really don’t have to be smart to see it.
@@matthewsmith1927 Actually it's quite easy to understand how this happens in their minds. They've separated pregnancy from sex. Our culture no longer looks at sex as the act of unity or of procreating anymore. Think of a scenario where its a boyfriend and a girlfriend rather than a hookup, they commit adultery because in their mind thats how they "express love with one another". They've completely removed the child out of the equation and only becomes an accidental byproduct. It's disgusting
@@matthewsmith1927 Philosophy studies logical fallacies. The volinist argument is readily examined in logic.
@@marccrotty8447 what logic? The logic that getting pregnant is conflated with being kidnapped against ones will? Lol. gtfo 😂
@@matthewsmith1927 -- It makes sense if you believe a woman is allowed to agree to have sex on the specific condition that she doesn't get pregnant.
Imagine a man and a woman agree to go bungee jumping together and the bungee cord breaks. They survive, but then six days later a complete stranger walks into the woman's apartment and starts living on her couch for the next nine months.
I feel like you've never willingly considered the idea that sex is an agreement between two people and "having a baby" is a completely unrelated agreement two people make on behalf of a third person who doesn't even exist yet.
I saw her at SEEK 2019! Went from ProChoice to Pro Life after her talk. She answered all the questions I had.
She's either dishonest or she's inept with logic. If you'd like to see how, see my other comment in the main thread.
Doesn’t logic follow truth? Therefore how can she be dishonest when speaking truth which are in fact facts.
@@jmgee6344 did you read my other comment that explains how her logic fails?
Berna L, I really felt great reading that a person changed their mind. It makes me really happy and hopeful for the future of really the world.
Peace
That's unfortunate
This woman has been given an unusually gifted and intelligent mind. I love when God’s servants use their gifts for their God-given intended purposes. God bless her ministry.
Neither she, nor the professor has read Hume then. The fact that the uterus can carry a fetus doesn't mean that it has the ethical end to carry it...
@@Andrew12217 I haven't watched it yet, but I get the point. Just because the earth hosts an ecosystem that supports humanity, doesn't mean the earth has an ethical end to keep humanity alive. In fact, we assume it doesn't. In that sense, Mother Nature is the cruelest of all.
But ethical or not, starving to death or being smashed in some geological cataclysm is rather pitiful. That's where empathy comes in. Letting the child live because that's what you'd want someone to do for you.
@@Gibeah that's when we go back to the violinist argument, the most commendable scenario is the one where someone endures 9 months (or even a lifetime), we usually hold saving a human life in high regard especially when it represents a sacrifice to do so. But to be so such sacrifice needs to be voluntary. Donating organs is commendable, forcing someone to give an organ... Not so much so. If we follow the guidelines that it's usually done arround the world for transfusion you can't use an unwilling person. A pregnancy necessary involves a transfusion from pregnant person to fetus. While it would be commendable to keep an unwanted pregnancy it falls under the umbrella of not consenting to an ongoing blood transfusion.
@@Andrew12217 what about the consent of the baby? i.e baby's in a caring society would have rights. the babylon system is full of sophistry. Save the babies from the babylon system.
@@boxingfan8274 again going back to the violinist argument. If the fetus is using the woman's body it's the ongoing consent of the women that's allowing the fetus to use it. Imagine you need a blood transfusion you need the consent of the one giving you blood, you can consent to be given but cannot force anyone to give consent to giving you blood. The fetus consent (if we asume to be capable of be given and a very specific response at that, we always asume the fetus never never denies ongoing care for this kind of scenarios) go as far as consent to continue using the woman's body but has no further claim than any other fully grown human being regardless of blood relationship.
She uses the story of the man and baby in a remote cabin in the woods with all the recourses and facilities to take care of the baby as a way of analogising the idea of a pregnant woman hosting a foetus in the womb to provide its basic needs.
Then she says that pro-choicers will say "Well if you have to help the unrelated baby in the cabin, shouldn't you have to help the violinist too because they're also unrelated"
She then states that it comes down to basic/ordinary needs vs extraordinary needs with the violinist having extraordinary needs.
But how are they comparable when the story about the baby in the cabin was just an analogy in the first place. In the analogy the baby had basic needs (formula, etc) but in reality it would need to be attached to a person just like the violinist....
Someone shed some light on this or tell me if I'm wrong because that point of the debate totally confused me... sorry for the ramblings
Yeah, I'm also unsure how she's distinguishing ordinary from extraordinary needs. At one point, she uses the Disney example, which is clearly extraordinary. But saying the violinist's need is also extraordinary doesn't follow. It is a need essential to their survival, just like the clothing, food, shelter is essential to the baby's survival.
She does later talk about things needed for normal human development, but I find that a pretty weak justification and a slippery slope at that.
The baby in the cabin doesnt need to be plugged into someone. I think she compared the basic needs between them to oppose them to « unnatural » needs.
She compares having to bear a child with taking care of a baby.
The child needs to be in a uterus in the first case and needs someone to feed/keep them clean in the second. No matter the circumstances, a fetus or a baby needs to be taken care of to survive. Whereas in a normal situation a child doesnt need to be cut up and have organs replaced and a man doesnt need to be plugged to another person to survive, making it exceptional.
The difference is that the body is not « made »(i dont believe in god, for me the body is shaped by adaptations) to give or receive transplants whereas the uterus is « made » to bear children and humans are « made » in a way that makes them need to grow in a uterus and be taken care of for sevral years. (Contrarily to reptiles which need eggs to grow and go live their life once they have hatched)
The argument there is that the violinist attached to another person is a born person, who if otherwise healthy, would not need to be attached at all as part of basic survival needs. The fetus, in the most normal of circumstances, does need to be attached as part of basic survival needs. The violinist needs to be attached for pathological (abnormal/unnatural) reasons, and that is therefore an extraordinary need. The fetus needs to be attached for physiologic (normal/natural) reasons, and that is therefore an ordinary need.
Here's what i think, in case of violinist, you have two choices:
1. stay and let them use your body
2. Unplug them and go have your own life
So you have freedom OR spending time and energy and mental power to save a person you don't know
In the van analogy your choices are:
1. Stay in the van and feed the baby
2. Stay in the van and not feed the baby
You see that in this case you're not given the choice of FREEDOM, you aren't given the option of leaving (you are kidnapped and stuck in a van and that implies that you can't just leave the baby) i think that's what TRICKS most people to saying " i would feed the baby"
So in the first analogy your options are extremely different while in the second one they are very much the same
It has nothing to do with BASIC NEEDS or SPECIAL SITUATIONS, it's the matter of the CHOICES you get
If given the option of FREEDOM in the van analogy, i think most people would prefer it to staying in the van for nine months
You’re right about the baby needing to be “attached” to a person just like the violinist. The key difference between the baby and the violinist lies in why they need support (ie, being plugged into another person). The violinist suffers from a pathology of illness in comparison to the baby who does not have any illness, but requires assistance as a consequence of its vulnerable state of early human development.
In the case of the violinist there is some illness which will kill them unless they’re attached to another person for 9 months. If they were a normal healthy adult they would never need this sort of support. This is extraordinary support.
In the case of the baby being hosted in the womb, the natural state of the baby fully depends on its mother’s nourishment in the womb for 9 months for growth and development. The baby could absolutely not survive on its own without this. Not because some illness would kill it, but because it would be depraved of what it needs to survive ordinarily. The baby naturally requires the nourishment from the womb. To deny it that would be to deny it basic necessities of survival. This is the ordinary support that she was referring to.
Good God.. am I the only one that would stay plugged in to the violinist? I would be destroyed by that situation if I unplugged him. I would just charge him an exorbitant amount of money for the privilege lol.
haha same
Yes, I couldn’t kill him...that would be awful!
The argument is that you aren't legally or morally responsible to do that if you so choose however I'm sure most people would choose to save another the violinist like you
Haha nice
@@ameanlimabean Actually, I think you are morally obligated to stay plugged in. You're not obliged to volunteer for that role, but if that's where you find yourself, you're bound. Which is a different moral question, but does also cut off the rapist exception.
This is well argued however, I have an issue with a couple of things here. First there is a link between procaution and responsibility for consequences, wherever the line is, one would usually argue that there is a certain level of procaution one might take such that a baseball going through a window is such a freak accindent one can not hold the people playing responsible. Second, the way rape is Charachterised. Rape is not just a stronger person attacking a weaker person, it is the invasion of the most intimate part of someones body, to allow start a process which then continues a take over of their body has a cruelty which while acknowledged (glibly) is not properly dealt with. Thirdly, the imposition of a "purpose" to a part of my body which I do not agree with. My uterus may have that particular capacity, it also has others such as hormone regulation. Your belief that your uterus exists for your potential offspring is absolutely fine, it is not sufficient to impose a legal obligation regarding mine. The physical toll and inherent risks of pregnancy are all grosly underplayed here, especially in regards to equating it to bottle feeding.
Something is also happening here with the notions of parental and community care. You argue that the rape victim has a perental responsibility to the child. However you then compare it to being in a cabin with a baby who is a stranger, where you therefore have a comunity obligation to care for the child. You also suggest that the rape victim does not continue to have a tie to the child, her obligation comes from her sole ability to provide care. A few questions arise if a baby concieved as a chld of rape is essentially being regarded as the responsibility of the comunity (which i would tend to agree with), if one consideres ensuring the child is born is a part of that responsibility (which I tend to disagree with). if another person could be chosen at random to carry the baby to term would it be acceptable to force them to do so? Why or why not. should the community be paying the rape victim the going rate of a surrogate, since she is acting as a surrogate on behalf of the community? If so is their faliure to do so reason enough that she can abort the pregnancy?
Your points are well explained but invalidated by the simple reason that participating in acts that result in statistically non-zero damages, it is not a “freak accident”. Swinging at a baseball (things known for going hundreds of feet when hit properly) by a non-expert lacking control of his/her strength and precision, within maybe dozens of feet of neighbors with windows fronting the area is not a recipe for a “freak accident” but damages due to reckless behavior that should be paid for by the person(s) doing the act.
Now, if little Timmy hit a ball and it bounced into the tailpipe of a moving car that happens to cause the ball to pop out of the tailpipe hundreds of yards away and knocking out a geriatric eating soup who happens to then die from drowning...
THAT is a freak accident. Your ignorance of consequences does not preclude you from paying for consequences you are directly responsible for by lacking the capacity to understand at the time. The indirect drowning death would be considered an accident, but breaking a window? That’s just you being a reckless asshole.
The problem with the rape argument is:
1) extremely hard to prove without documentation or supporting evidence, is abused by women no matter the truth, and the fact that modern women are so sexually active it would be hard to set a boundary between forced sex and an excuse to deflect from the guilt and consequences of risky behavior
2) Is extremely unlikely to be committed by a stranger (6-7% of rapes leading to pregnancy) to the victim, so would be relatively easy to known the rapist and place financial/legal burdens on them to care for the child and compensate the mother handsomely without requiring the mother to care for the child past birth. It is also likely that the 6-7% of pregnancies due to rape involved risky behaviors by the victim disregarding or understanding and accepting the risks of whatever actions they participated in leading up to the rape.
You come across very articulate yourself! I'd love to hear your response to the typical rape response from the pro life argument:
Rape accounts for 5% of pregnancies, of that 5% only 61.8% result in the mother choosing abortion meaning of all abortions only about 3% are rape related.
If pro-life supporters decided that rape was an appropriate cause for abortion, and conceded that 3%, would you be okay with banning the other 97%?
The pro-lifer expects you to say "no" then they're going to ask you for your reasons as to why the other 97% of abortions should be allowed and now you can't mention rape because they've already conceded that 3% of the argument.
A typical resource they would cite (among many):
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8765248/
@@bryceneuberger3460 As I mentioned in my post, around 97% are trackable children, so only 3%, which would probably be a few hundred to a few thousand children per year at most, would need to be accounted for. The mother would be compensated by the state until birth at which time she can choose to keep or leave the child. Additionally, an apparatus built dedicated to finding the father and enforcing a legal burden upon him to pay for the child’s raising via direct taxation or government payment plan as well as criminal punishments that match the severity if the crime. Possible castration vs prison term so that he can work and pay for the child. I have a feeling rape rates would go down if getting caught ends up with your balls being removed and being forced to pay for your children with no possibility to remove that burden via bankruptcy. Straight deduction from your pay check.
@@sdb-sj5qd Please correct me if I’m wrong here, but I just want to make sure I’m understanding here. Are you saying that someone who is sexually assaulted should be considered responsible, in part, for it?
@@ellieetra8205 I'm not the same person that made the comment, but my take on what that person said is this:
Someone I know had an affair. In fact, I know two separate couples that fit with this story. Now the marriage(s) had huge issues, real problems. If either person committing adultery had instead said "I'm done, I cannot take anymore!" we'd (those watching from the outside) have all understood. Instead, both individuals had affairs. In one couple it was a wife having the affair, in the other it was the husband. Now, the husband & wife that were the victims in these cases were not responsible for the choice that the wife and husband made to commit adultery. However, they do bear responsibility for the dage they inflicted on their spouses that made the situation ripe for the "other man"/"other woman" to swoop in and take advantage of the situation. And those two predators (because that's exactly what they are, in both cases) are still not responsible for the choice the adulterous spouses made, though they certainly bear some responsibility too.
I think this argument would only be involved in an extremely small number of cases, btw. And even if the woman was involved in "risky behavior" the man should bear the full, and I mean FULL, weight of criminal punishment, because risky behavior doesn't equal "hey, do whatever you want to me." Absolutely NO little slaps on the wrist, because like in murder, the woman will be forever scarred by his crime (with or without the addition of a pregnancy). In addition to criminal punishment, they should have to pay for the added consequences of having a child in the world, even if the woman gives the baby up for adoption.
And further, any woman found lying about it (unfortunately I know a woman who did...3 times 😡) should face the same criminal consequences, for making it harder for the rest of us.
Wow! This woman is very intelligent. This is by far the best argument against abortion I have ever heard.
hahahaha, you're kidding, right? This argument is like something you'd use to guilt your church friend into not getting an abortion, not a legitimate reasoning for enacting public policy
@@whitneyw.7919 Dismiss without pointing out any flaw; there is never any pro-choice argument that is consistent
@@whitneyw.7919 Which part? Coz she mentioned a lot😬
Hypothetical situations should not come into question. It's like saying what if you are carrying the next greatest president.
Sorry. That doesn't pass mustard.
@@ahampurushahasmi6040 the argument is nobody has the right to use anybody's body against their will. If you want to save a fetus you pout it in your body. But you are a monster to demand anyone stay pregnant. WHO clearly states forced pregnancy is a human rights violation. If you really think we want to stop elective abortions then we should castrate every single man. There is enough sperm to keep the human race going. So lets stop abortion before it happens by removing all sperm from sex. Or don't you like the idea of men having their body controlled by the government.
The dissonance here lies in the assumption that a human life is equal to a fetus, some people might concede to that but I assure you the vast majority of pro choice advocates will not. So unfortunately you will fail to convince the vast majority of pro choice people even if you derail this particular analogy, because most people never found it equivalent to begin with.
True. I don't think the video is attempting to persuade those types tho.
@@squidlytv but I feel like if you think that a fetus is equal to a fully grown human then you wouldn't agree with abortion anyway.
(to be clear on my stance, abortion is healthcare and fetuses don't have the same rights as babies seeing as they can't think, don't fully function and cause extreme amounts of pain to the mother during birth)
@@munchmoo6586 People are weird.
The fetus being considered a human life is the crux of the entire debate and it is indeed entirely subjective. That's why anti-choice people fight so hard to avoid that detail. They will debate every single other hypothetical, especially those that implicitly assert that a fetus is a human life, because they know that at the end of the day they are forcing their subjective, baseless belief onto everyone else.
The thing is, I have debated people who ACTUALLY ARGUED that even if the unborn child is equal in value to an adult human, then the mother should still have the right to abort. They do exist, as much as the idea boggles the mind. So this video is directed towards them, among others.
As for those who don't acknowledge that point, my argument towards them goes thusly: In order to argue that racism and sexism are inherently bad, you must first accept the premise that a human being has innate value, and that we can't just deprive people of that value by claiming that they are subhuman. The thing is, by that premise, WE don't get to decide what is and what isn't human. One way or another, that decision has already been made for us. That means that we don't get to decide whether an unborn child qualifies as a human or not. It is, or it isn't, and what WE think doesn't change reality.
And as for men paying child support, you nailed it dead on the head. Women should have a right to their body to choose whether or not they continue to carry a baby, and men should 100-percent have the right to opt out of fatherhood. Having a child together should be a contractual issue, not the sole decision of a single party
Agreed, it's confusing that the pro-choicers expect men to be obligated. People want to have their cake and eat it too, apparently. (also confusing because if abortions being legal was SO important to them, you'd think they'd be very willing to concede the male child support thing in order to get more men on board and greatly strengthen their movement. Just saying)
@@EB-bl6cc We do not all expect the men to be obligated. I am pro-choice and I've believed for years that the father should be allowed to relinquish responsibility. The only thing is that this should come with the caveat that the father is barred from participating in that childs life for so long as they refuse to pay child support. Potential all of the benefits, none of the costs type deal otherwise.
Except in rape cases. The rapist has then forfeited their right.
@@KilelSix I agree a 100%
The difference here being is that the father does not have to carry the child. This is an asymmetrical issue and it has an asymmetrical solution as a result. The father should be allowed to "abort" responsibility at the cost of being barred from having any impact in the child's life, but the mother should not be forced to carry to term just because they want to abort but the father does not.
I think the words "natural" and "normal" are somewhat misleading in terms of the argument, but I nonetheless greatly respect the willingness to engage with such strong arguments without resorting to strawmen
I wonder if she's one of those people that think all forms of medicine is evil too. They're obviously not natural...
What about that arguments that show that whether abortions are ethical or not, banning them will cause more harm than good?
This was all strawman because she clearly didn't even read the violinist paper argument
@@trafalgarla didn't read? She said she pondered that argument with another adult... She made it her essay or thesis to destroy that argument.
She destroyed that argument many, many times.
You, clearly didn't watch this video.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 😂😂🤣🤣
The violinist argument is the straw man, because it assumes a fetus is human. Most pro choice would not argue for late stage abortion because once you can define it as human, killing becomes immoral.
I don't like philosophical debates about real life because they turn something that will actually effect some people's lives into cute, little, nicely packaged ideas and then the philosophizers convince themselves that because they can think of a counter or an argument to a scenario, then that's what other people should adhere to or believe as well. As if they have found an answer for all based off of their safe, imaginary testing of their own morality. Why is that problematic? Two reasons: 1.) It leads them to portray anyone who doesn't agree with them as selfish for being concerned about their own life because they have already convinced themselves that they have the morally superior answer and 2.) They belittle the reality of the situation for someone who does actually have to go through it.
I personally think that if you aren't in a position to have to walk the walk, then stop all the talk, especially when you are talking to people who may actually have to walk the walk and you are just trying to convince others of what they should or shouldn't be doing, knowing that you are sitting in a place where you'll never actually have to follow through with your own sense of morality. It's really easy to tell yourself what you will or will not do, if you know you'll never have to follow through and that your decision on the subject will never really cost you anything.
In real life, pregnancy effects real women. Real pregnancy doesn't exist within the luxury of 15 minute spans of time, at the end of which you can put all the concerns away and tell yourself that you know what's best. Real pregnancy effects real people's outcomes.
These types of debates can have a place when it comes to your own life. They offer little to no value to anyone elses.
Instead of imagining fanciful situations to support your ideologies, how about you find a way to apply them to real life? How about we focus on better child welfare for the children that are born and placed into foster homes or given up for adoption, or how to help the poverty rates of single parent households, or how to better prevent accidental pregnancies from occurring, etc?
These types of debates pretty much just focus on telling you what is or isn't moral and then the participants wash their hands of all the realities that surround the subject. Maybe time and effort could be better focused elsewhere.
Maybe we should collectively raise the bar for calling ourselves pro-life? Maybe it should be less about people's thoughts on morality and more about the actions taken to actually support the stance that life matters? Maybe force yourself to put your money where your mouth is and not simply stop at deciding yes or no to a question.
Kinda agree and disagree. I do think more should be done… but for most people, it is their philosophical opinions that actually motivate them to help others.
@@jessegrove5456 I agree with you. Personal philosophical questions can motivate people to help. I think that answering yes or no is just step 1 to a series of steps that need to occur to actually promote a good life for the both the mother and child. I've noticed that a lot of times, like in this video, people just stop at step 1 and I don't think that that's very helpful to the real life application of the decision.
@@katherinepierce2300 glad we agree. Have a good day!
The analogy of the kidney's purpose not to sustain the life of another individual, but a womb is, feels like a weak rebuttal. The womb produces a potentially life giving egg each month, does that mean that if the woman "neglects" to get the egg inseminated she is essentially inducing an abortion? Just because something has a purpose, does not mean that purpose has to be utilised at every opportunity.
Right - she's appealing to "the womb exists 'for this purpose'"... But that does not at all imply there is any moral imperative for the owner of the womb to actually use it in that way.
So to say that your offspring have a "claim" / "right" to it because of this is a non-sequitur / appeal-to-nature fallacy.
That is a very stupid argument. A woman can only safely produce a small number of children throughout the course of her life. There is no way that they would ever be able to survive being pregnant constantly from age 12-60. An unused egg is not an “abortion” because it’s only 1/2 of the required material. The same goes for sperm cells.
No is arguing that. That's a straw man. But that is its purpose tho is to give and bare life. No one is saying is comiting genocide from masterbation.
But you do choose to have sex and not use protection. Sex is not a necessity for you to live.
Yeah I agree, she just gave away the perfect rebuttal to the pro-life position, and gave no good answer. Her rebuttal basically says I have a biological mandate to have children, and should be legally compelled to fulfill that mandate.
@@Perroden She literally claims that god told her that the uterus is meant for making babies so not only is it not a straw man she practically is admitting that being anti-choice is an attempt to force her religion on others. Also, consenting to sex is not consenting to becoming pregnant. That fact is also something they glossed over in the video talking about "risk" instead.
The thing is, no matter how many arguments anyone makes in this video, there is NO other law that inhibits on Body Autonomy. If my best friend was dying and in desperate need for a blood transfusion, and I happened to be the only compatible donor, there's no law that states a Doctor can shove a needle into my veins without my consent even if it's essentially at no harm to me. And even if I GAVE consent, I can rescind that consent at literally any moment I wish, the transfusion could be 99% done but legally I can change my mind last minute and deny that last 1%. Would it make me a bad person to deny that consent and leave my friend to die? Maybe. But would it be illegal or otherwise charge me with murder? No. Because that's how Body Autonomy works. Legally regardless of any consequence, you cannot force a person to undergo bodily changes they don't consent to. If I die in front of a person in desperate need for a kidney transplant, they literally cannot even take my fresh kidney without my express written consent beforehand. But a pregnant woman? Oh sure nothing wrong with forcing her to have a child she likely never wanted in the first place, can't afford to raise and no one will adopt if she puts them in foster care. Nothing else matters in this argument because the fact is, it's a constitutional right for a woman to have this choice, and you're desperately trying to take it away based on your OWN values and decisions.
I'm pro choice, I just also like playing devils advocate, I think it helps strengthed opinions and arguments
But these arguments arnt entirely the same.
A closer argument would be to say you go under surgery for a rare disease, the problem is it has a chance to make it where you can no longer use your arm, if you dont get the surgery you just struggle to sleep.
You decide you want to take the risk for better sleep, you end up losing your arm, now you are angry at the doctors and demand they put your arm back on, but they donated it to a new patient who needed it.
Which at that point is it even YOUR arm?
You gave permission for sex and went all the way threw with it knowing what could happen and that you could regret it similar to your arm, now you are pregnant. Is it still even your body or is it the childs?
At that point you actively knew what could happen and that you might regret it, yet decided to get the procedure done. The "worst" possible outcome happened and now you want the decision to be reversed
In this situation another's life is drastically effected by you reversing the procedure, do you still maintain the rights to that arm/ body when you willingly knew the risks and went threw with it anyways?
@@dratrav How is removing a body part and surgically attaching it to another person the same as a cluster of cells that develops inside one's own body without any outside intervention?
You don't have to separate a woman's womb from her in order for a fetus to grow, in fact if you did that it would die.
@@dratrav the thing is, not everyone who wants an abortion gives permission to sex, so this analogy wouldn't work.
@@dratrav Tell us you think every woman wants sex regardless of the answer to the question without telling us you're a rapist.
@@dratrav making abortions illegal would put rape victims in a bad spot
the video lowkey lost me the moment they started talkinga bout how the victim of sexual assault that got pregnant is now obligated because it's your blood. like there's not enough legislation or support to tell the woman to carry it to term and change her entire lifestyle due to someone's misgreavances.
More instances where a woman's body is controlled by a man.
Plus the assaulter shouldn't be allowed to reproduce.
there are no victims of sexual assault seeking abortion
it's a made up strawman by eugenisists
There is absolutely no evidence for the abortionists claims that the majority of abortions are because of rape or incest
They seem to conflate moral and legal obligations
(Especially the lady, the guy is much more neutral in tone)
There's no reason I should be legally obligated to take care
Of someone who is essentially a parasite.
They talk about this subject as if waking up pregnant without your knowledge
Is equivalent to consenting to getting pregnant
Or even just give some food to a child.
A 9 month long encumbrance that forces someone to change their lifestyle
And sometimes even severely risks death
Is not something to be taken lightly,
Especially when it involves being a victim of illegal and traumatic events.
@Bullet Anarchy if someone didn't consent to it,
That means it is an invasive parasite.
Just because someone ate something that they didn't know was poisoned
Does not mean they consented to being poisoned.
Auto-immune diseases are natural too,
But I never hear people say they want one of those
Yet when it pops out a child nobody wants to take care of it's suddenly immoral to go to a doctor.
If you wanna go through the birthing process be my guest,
But don't force it on those more vulnerable than you.
Hi. Doctor here with some interest in moral philosophy. Stephanie's arguments have a few issues:
1. There is general disregard for scale of obligations or "punishments". In arguments made here, Stephanie appears to use various examples - paying for a broken window, feeding a helpless infant in a cabin, etc. - as analogues to demonstrate her moral position as (self-)evident. I'd argue this is conveniently ignoring the reality of scale in the issue discussed. Pregnancy, even beyond the substantial initial obligation of 9 months of time, health conditions, etc., causes lifelong changes to a woman's body and has demonstrated ties to lifelong decrease in income and socioeconomic status, inflicting lifelong harms to both the woman and any other children she may have. Since she references our current legal body as evidence, it is worth noting that this is already baked into that framework. If you break a window playing baseball, you may be required to pay some amount towards replacement, but you are certainly not expected to wash a new window as long as it’s in place or otherwise have an obligation without clear finite end. We don’t give a life sentence to acts which do not deserve one. There are clearly competing interests and moral values in this debate, and in discussion, it is if anything MORE important to consider duties/obligations on balance.
2. Her base assumption that women hold some culpability because they engage in acts they KNOW to cause pregnancy is inherently flawed. Leaving aside the already-presented point that sex and pregnancy is generally divorced in modern culture, I would argue that the state of sexual education in the US especially is such that there exist a great many people, men and women, who are not adequately informed of potential consequences to make a rational decision they can be held culpable for, especially in a lifelong way. In the thought experiment of the violinist, even if the kidnapped victim had expressed themselves as a great music lover/member of the society and therefore had some theoretical increased risk of abduction, it would not change that person’s moral right to disconnect themselves from the violinist. The person surely might have greater internal conflict/consideration about the decision, but it is far from a moral absolute as would be necessary to justifiably legislate around this.
3. There are a few references to referring to “basic or ordinary” vs “extraordinary” needs around 12:30 and 20:00. This is entirely arbitrary and poor ground for a moral framework. It is easily argued that carrying a baby to term is extraordinary in itself and that doing this is an extraordinary act/commitment - one which, as referenced in (1) has lifelong implications for both the mother and any other children she cares for. I’ve personally seen/cared for women who would unfortunately be unable to feed their other kids if they were to have another. By Stephanie’s reasoning at the end of the video, this ought to identify carrying a child to term as an extraordinary act which ought not to have a moral/legal duty attached.
4. The uterus as a dedicated organ for fertility and therefore owed to an unborn child is an interesting argument. I’d argue the problem with this is that the uterus itself can only be regarded as part of a moral entity, not an independent one. It does not function outside a the mother’s body and its use necessitates obligation from the mother and every part of the mother (including her kidneys). The uterus’s status/purpose is also insufficient reason for this to be taken automatically as an obligation. Consider that food itself is meant to be eaten and to sustain the body, yet we do not consider it a moral duty to give our excess food away to be eaten by another, regardless of whether they require it to survive. It is considered our belonging (and therefore a part of us as a moral entity, if you will) and therefore its use can only be with the assent of the person who has it to begin with.
Some of how this is read is obviously going to hit/miss based on the reader's fundamental assumptions and honestly most people engaged in this debate aren't going to come at it from an angle of logical reasoning. I'd generally argue that, in face of moral uncertainty and in light of our tradition of valuing personal liberty/autonomy, it seems exceptionally heavy-handed to legislate a requirement to carry to term. Overall though, I trust myself and mothers I speak with/care for to make a moral judgment without the interference of men I've never met at some state house.
I appreciate the well-articulated and thoughtful response. Here are my thoughts:
1) While the scale may be different, the underlying point is the same. That’s the way analogies work. They illustrate a point with simpler, easier-to-understand situations. That point being, there are consequences to your actions. Yes, breaking a window will result in a one-time fee. Obviously, pregnancy will entail much more. That’s simply the name of the game: those long-term obligations ARE the potential consequences of having sex. Perhaps you will return to normal like most healthy women after 6-12 months. Perhaps you’ll have saggier skin or darker moles. Or perhaps you will develop complications or have unforeseen side-effects. All terrible, unfortunate circumstances. But ultimately, no moral inconvenience justifies moral evil. None of those justify murdering the baby.
2) Indeed, there are many who don’t truly understand what they are getting themselves into with sex. But her base claims are not inherently flawed. Bringing back the baseball analogy, perhaps the batter didn’t *know* the full potential consequences of playing in the street. Perhaps they weren’t educated enough. That still does not remove accountability for their actions. Ignorance doesn’t shield you from consequences. In the US, ignorance from the law is not an acceptable defense. In any case, it certainly does not justify abortion.
3) I agree, Stephanie did not elaborate on her definitions which is unfortunate. But it seems the important functional distinction is between obligation for mere sustainment of life, and anything more. With pregnancy, the bare minimum is sustaining the baby’s life. That may come with unwanted duties or (as you pointed out), maybe worse things like destitution. But as stated previously, those are consequences of having sex that should have been considered. There are welfare programs, and adoption is always an option.
4) The original argument was that the uterus cannot be used for a child, because it is a part of the mother’s body, just like a kidney. Stephany argued that the kidney functions in the mother, for the mother. In contrast, the uterus functions in the mother, for the child. In this hypothetical, pregnancy has already occurred. So whether or not the existence of the uterus is reason to get pregnant (or as you say, be “obligated”) is beside the point. By very nature of pregnancy, the mother is going to be involved heavily, whether she wants to or not. Most of it will be passive functions that occur naturally, so no conscious effort is required on her part.
As for the food… it IS a moral duty to offer excess food for another’s survival! If it is within your means, and you are able, you are obligated to give what is required to sustain human life. If a starving child was next to you, by your logic, we aren’t morally obligated to give them leftover pizza!? It doesn’t matter if it belongs to you. If the issue is consent, then that has already been addressed before: having sex entails responsibility for the consequences. You can’t consent to the action, and not consent to the effect.
From a purely logical standpoint, there is no discussion. Abortion is murder, and carrying to term is the morally correct decision. Of course in reality, this is much more emotionally charged, especially with rape cases. But if we value personal liberty and autonomy, we ought to consider the personal liberty and autonomy of not just the mother, but the child as well, because they are as much a person as everyone else. There may be men you never met at a statehouse passing these laws, but those men aren’t the ones making the moral judgements - the people are.
@@kennylee6499 because the gasoline is literally 9/11 liquid
@@kennylee6499Kells and windmills and dumdum gomez doorknobs and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the high school chemistry lab table while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that all in the different room across the hall you go in and sit down one day.
Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and when it's a bit dark at six in the morning on the bus you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease
16:50 so if a fetus can claim the "right" of your uterus exclusively because it happened to fill the bioloical function of carrying a fetus, does that also mean that a potential mate has the right to use someones vaginal canal, against their will, as sex/birthing is its biological function?
I honestly cannot understand how such an objectifying argument can stump anyone.
This is where ordinary/extraordinary needs come in. Ordinarily, a fetus *needs* a uterus to live, therefore, according to Stephanie's argument, a mother has an obligation to provide that ordinary care to her unborn offspring.
There is no case where a potential mate will die without access to a vaginal canal.
@@IndianJokarDanceGarden but their genetic material will die, which in nature is almost the same thing.
@@kat4923 That’s some “Life begins at ejaculation” garbage if I’ve ever heard it. Reading a biology textbook will tell you that that’s not how things work.
What is the argument objectifying? It's the naturalist fallacy.
I can digest meat, so I should eat meat...
@@IndianJokarDanceGarden But a fetus needs a penis to exist. Therefore, a woman who doesn't allow penises in her vagina are not allowing fetuses to exist. Sick people need a doctor to live. It is ordinary for doctors to provide care. Are doctors and hospitals allowed to not treat people? Is healthcare a human right? Appeals to "ordinary" has the same weaknesses as the appeals to "natural" arguments.
I don't really think that taking an argument which concedes the point that a fetus is a person with the same rights as any other person can be considered "steel-manning", because it ignores the most compelling arguments for pro-choice.
A lot of the arguments presented here seem to be weak because they rely on the premise that what is natural determines what is moral. I think if you took this moral framework to its logical conclusion, there's absolutely no way that the people making this argument would even agree with it.
Also, these arguments kind of imply that a hysterectomy would be a valid way of terminating a pregnancy. After all, in this moral framework, the fetus only has the right to a uterus, since that was made for it, but it has no right to the body that supports the uterus (this also dodges the weird framework of morality where "attacking" is what makes an action wrong). To get around this, you could take this moral framework to its logical conclusion, and say that humans are organisms, and the entire body's purpose is to reproduce, so therefore natural morality dictates that we should rebuild society to foster the greatest amount of human reproduction possible.
But morality is a non-objective social construct that is completely divorced from biology or what is "natural". The uterus's biological function has no bearing on what society values as "moral".
very nice wording and argument and i very much agree 👌🏼
It's also natural for some mice mothers to eat their young, and panda mothers to abandon the weaker of two cubs then only raise one, and leave the other to die. But I don't see pro-life people arguing these things to happen because they're "natural", thus their argument of morality being what is "natural" falls apart. You worded your comment very well btw, I agree completely.
Let's also consider the natural "purpose" of miscarriage, which medical literature refers to as "spontaneous abortion." It's estimated that half of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion, usually without a woman being aware she was pregnant, due to the body rejecting a nonviable fetus. Rejecting fetuses is a normal, natural, and incredibly common process of the body.
The "it's not a person" argument is not a very compelling argument, because it's an incredibly weak argument pulled apart with two simple questions: What makes a person? What are rights?
"A fetus isn't a person because it's a collection of cells" - So is every person.
"A fetus isn't a person because it's unable to survive on its own" - So is everyone with an autoimmune disease or on dialysis.
"A fetus isn't a person because it's incapable of reason" - Therefore neither are the comatose.
"A fetus isn't a person because it's incapable of communication" - See above.
These and other arguments make the "a fetus is not a person" argument very weak, because inevitably no matter what qualifiers are placed upon it you can find a living breathing person who has the same problems.
As a side tangent: The "A fetus isn't a person because it has no [organ]" argument requires admitting that a fetus IS a person in the future. So it's an argument on what the time limit for an abortion is, not whether or not the fetus is allowed to be aborted at all.
"A fetus isn't afforded rights because it's not human" - So are fetuses under animal rights then? Or property rights?
"A fetus isn't afforded rights because it's part of the mother" - So which one of the conjoined twins has rights?
"A fetus isn't afforded rights because it hasn't been born yet" - By necessity capitulates to the idea that the fetus is a human being. Just not one with rights.
There are further arguments, but once we get into the nitty-gritty of rights we need to clarify all possible rights, and at what line we're fine with robbing people of their rights.
In the end, the point has to be conceded one way or another: Either the fetus is a person with rights and therefore we can discuss the ramifications of compulsion to carry to term, or the fetus is not a person and therefore we can discuss the ramifications of robbed potential. In either case, arguing "a fetus is a person" vs "a fetus is not a person" is a nonstarter that does not allow room for discussion.
@@ZeroNumerous it doesn't matter whether a fetus is a person or not, it matters that the pregnant person can freely exercise their bodily autonomy.
I feel you were so close to the point when talking about the kidney analogy when you mentioned having to consider whether giving your kidney would cause you health complications or impact your ability to provide for your family. Pregnancy can and often does have severe medical consequences that last well beyond the duration of the pregnancy and can potentially be life-threatening. In many cases, the pregnant person is unable to work for much of their pregnancy, thereby putting their family through undue financial hardship. In the worst cases, the pregnant person may actually die as a direct result of pregnancy or childbirth. So by requiring people to continue with unwanted pregnancies, you are requiring them to take on the same or even greater level of risk as compared to donating a kidney.
This is incorrect, at least for the USA. Maternal mortality is very rare, and happens at lower rates than kidney donor mortality, i.e. 23.8 out of 100,000 vs 3 out of 10,000 for kidney donors
@@johntippin and as regards complications? Inability to work, long-term side effects, the overwhelming changes that happen to pregnant bodies and of which many are permanent? If death is the only outcome you feel is severe enough to care about then it's possible we place fundamentally different values on human life.
@@johntippin The US has a much larger maternal mortality rate than every other developed nation, specifically for black and indigenous women. Even if it were 1 per 1,000,000, a woman should have a choice if she wants to take that risk.
If I recall, she did already stipulate medical consequences in her argument. Extraordinary circumstances have no moral obligation. The fact of it is that there might be a struggle to provide, but there would be no moral consequences if there weren't. That (at least in her mind) isn't an extraordinary circumstance. That's a regular part of raising a child. It's why she didn't get onto that point, because you could always put the kid up for adoption. If it's finances DURING pregnancy that we're talking about, I agree to the extent that it's not reasonable to expect a pregnant woman to work as hard as she may need to in order to provide. The part I think conservatives need to concede is that entertaining the morals of support means that society at large may be responsible for helping support those within it. By doing so they may have to shoulder the responsibility of financially supporting THE WOMEN BIRTHING THE NEXT GENERATION. It's an important thing to get figured out and dealt with.
BUT I'm no activist or policy maker, I'm just a guy on the internet. It's not my job to figure out and fix things, it's my job to be irrational and angry on the internet, so uhhhhhh HOW DARE YOU FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T IMPACT MY OWN LIFE IN ANY MEANINGFUL WAY WRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
You cant work during a kidney transpl. Either. Its about the time afterwards
I’d never heard that uterus argument before. But it is truly eye-opening.
Not just in the context of the debate on abortion, but in the context of life and the “preordained” role of a woman.
A lot of her arguments are based on the idea that going down to one kidney has absolutely zero risks for the one donating a kidney, when in fact, it alters your life expectancy quite a bit and health risks become more likely.
I do not see how any of the arguments are dependent on that, or if they are, how that is significant. It would just mean she needed a better example
Pregnancy has long term and permanent health consequences too. Death. Abdominal adhesions. Rectovaginal fistula. Permanent skeletal damage. Chronic pain. Heart disease. Diabetes. Stroke. Mental health problems. Permanent physical brain alterations. Anemia. Chronic hypertension. Incontinence. Vaginal prolapse. Chloasma. Facial and body skin discoloration and disfigurement. Increased shoe size. Fallen arches causing permanent foot pain. Carpal tunnel syndrome. Skin tags. Heart burn. Bladder dropping. Rectocele where the rectum herniates into the vagina. Tooth loss. Varicose veins. Hemorrhoids.
Pregnancy is absolutely heroic. This isn't a routine part of a normal life, this is heroically putting your life on the line.
She seems to do the opposite. She says kidney removal requires you to contemplate mortality and current obligation to parenthood to living children. As far as I see, child birth in the US has a higher mortality rate so I don't understand her acting like pregnancy doesn't cause death let alone health affects. That women she talks about who was assaulted apparently isnt going above and beyong "giving the basic needs that are already there" to the child. She's sacrificing her health and body
I’m sorry the baseball analogy she uses arguing that there’s inherent risk in allowing children to play baseball in a neighborhood. It’s kind of a shallow argument. You can accept the risk and deal with the consequences of that risk. With the analogy that may be fixing the window or paying your neighbor to have it fixed. With sex pregnancy is a risk that you accept, and if it happens you can just deal with it the best way you can. Narrowing it down to only allowing birth is like your neighbor saying he doesn’t want a paid hired hand to fix it, he wants YOU specifically to fix it. If you don’t know how to fix a window her argument would allow for the neighbor to say “well you should’ve thought of that before you allowed them to play baseball”. Consequences can have more than one way of accepting and dealing with risk
Just because the consequences are different in each scenario doesn’t change the fact that people need to accept that there are consequences for their a actions.
@@_Sloppyham Ausaini makes a really good point. I don't think the issue is that people don't accept consequences. Pro-choice people do - the consequence being in their chosen label. The "choice" that is generally referred to is an abortion, which is a potential consequence of sex. What Ausaini has pointed out is that the pro-birth crowd only find one specific consequence - birthing a child - to their liking and want to force others to only be allowed that one, even though others exist.
@@Lithic32 thank you, exactly
@@_Sloppyham simply put, sometimes the consequences are an abortion and the emotional turmoil that goes with it.
That's exactly it, many pro life people just don't like how others choose to take responsibility.
Great video, but I have a few counter arguments:
1) by your logic about a women consenting to sex, but not to being plugged into the violinist, does that mean that if the violinist situation WAS CONSENSUAL, would she lose the right to unplug him?
2) What do you define as an extraordinary nerd vs ordinary need. If an ordinary need is the basic things a child needs to survive, then why would the parent not be obligated to plug into his dying child? In both cases, “unplugging” the child would lead to their deaths. You could say that one situation is natural and one isn’t, but to me, that isn’t a valuable argument. Both situations are the same in terms of what they do to the parent caring for the child.
3) yes, the uterus is made for children. However, having a fetus in your uterus has affects across your entire body and mind. While uncommon, trauma, mental health issues, and even death are all potential outcomes of child birth. Does the baby get to lay claim to my mind, then? If a baby is owed my uterus, does that mean that I, someone who doesn’t want children, has a moral obligation to go have sex and get pregnant?
Hope to start a nice discussion?
1) I would argue that yes, it does remove that right. By consenting to be attached to the violinist, you have understood the possible consequences, just as sex should be. Consensual sex without protection is the exact same, by having unprotected sex you have understood the potential consequences.
2) The difference here is that the parent, by having sex, has already surrendered her organ to the child. She cannot take back what she already gave, just like giving the kidney and then a few weeks later taking it back. although the 'why' sounds obvious, it's because there is a big difference between giving to someone (by voluntarily giving the kidney, or by voluntarily giving the uterus through sex [which the mother is not obligated to do]) and taking something away (removing the kidney after giving it, or removing the kid from the uterus after giving it [which the mother is obligated to do]).
3) This is a good point. Just because the uterus is made for the baby, doesn't mean the baby gets to take it in the first place. But again, we arrive at the fact that the mother through consensual sex has already surrendered the organ, and so the baby does now lay claim to the organ. Also, remember that unprotected sex is a risk. The mother must understand all the consequences before having sex.
This is the theme in all the arguments that you made, and raises a good point about the pro-choice stance. You have to first consider, that in 95% of cases, the mother has, with knowledge of consequences, decided to have sex. Society has separated sex with pregnancy, and it's not a good thing. If sex had a 95% chance of yielding a baby, I don't think we would be debating at all. The risk is the problem. When the mother takes the risk of unprotected sex, there are consequences she has to accept.
3) The baby doesn't magically show up in the woman's uterus. We all know how babies are made so let's act accordingly. I agree with you on this point when it comes to rape though.
I one hundred percent agree with you on all your points. If I choose to hook up to the violinist to help keep them alive I am also able to unhook myself at anytime. I am under no obligation to continue to be plugged in for any amount of time past what I want. It's my body, it doesn't become there's because I utter the word yes.
@@puzzLEGO
So, I’m kind of taking this discussion in a new direction.
I agree that on a MORAL level, if the sex was consensual and the pregnancy is not of unusual danger to the mother (ie fallopian pregnancy or other situations like it), then yes, getting in an abortion is a morally wrong thing to do.
However, from a LEGAL level, I think making it illegal is a dangerous president to set because
A) it’s not always easy to prove that sex was consensual or not and
B) every woman in this situation is going to be different. There are some things like a teenager getting pregnant, a mental or physical condition affecting the mother which doesn’t make getting abortion as simple as “I just don’t want this baby.”
Like I said, if we are arguing morality, I agree. If we are arguing legislation, then I think the situation changes.
@@mintyblue3819 Exactly, it may be morally wrong but it’s her right.
There is a difference between responsibility and fault I had a very messed up childhood which caused me to become the messed up adult which was not my fault that was my parent's fault but as soon as I realized that I was messed up it became my responsibility to heal and become a better person especially now that I'm a parent I can't just screw my child up and say oh well it's not my fault
We are responsible for ourselves and our behaviors. No one else. Yes we can have sucky parents and yes they can really screw us up. But we must work to overcome our issues the very best we can. We owe it to ourselves, to our children and to God Almighty.
May I ask, from what I know in this moment: The legalization of abortions causes access to safe abortions, and from what I have read, in opposition to the period where it was illegal, life is saved total (mother and child) due to this. If the goal is to save total life, is it morally justifiable to aid and educate the health risks and effects of abortion (not done enough), along with providing healthcare and birth control (to prevent the necessity of abortion itself)? If the goal is less abortion, preventative measures seem to be needed within that argument, and prevention past "don't have sex", recognizing our realities rather than our societal aspirations (Our opinions vs how the world is, and how legislation should cause the best outcome for current situations while, hypothetically, you push for a mental societal shift towards "don't have sex, and if you do and get pregnant you aren't allowed to get an abortion (which you could still attempt unsafely)", which you could then legislate). The points she made are well thought out and appreciated! But the argument that safe and legal abortions cause less death (woman and fetus) total seems to hold from what I'm aware of. Please be civil in any responses, I am genuinely curious and would like any philosophy to push back on this or substantiated articles depicting statistics that disprove this premise. :)
aptly put, I agree
yesss
"Don't have sex" is still the best birth control. It's entirely disingenuous to compare proper usage of birth control to entire abandonment of abstinence. Compare bests with bests and worsts with worsts.
Michael Sorensen but just like he said, we have to face realities rather than societal aspirations. sure on paper abstinence is 100% effective, but in reality people do have sex and we have to write the law accordingly.
In most cases abortion is a vanity affair meaning carrying the child to term would not harm the mother or the child, so abortion is saving a life it is ending one. In cases where pregnancy or birth is actually life threatening it's a different story.
The uterus argument falls apart when you think about all the other ways pregnancy affects your body, if only your uterus was affected by pregnancy the argument might hold weight but that obviously isn't the case, you're giving your entire body up for 9 months, likely longer, when carrying a child. That isn't even to mention the long term complications often associated with pregnancy and giving birth.
actually no, because the same and/or similar effects occur after any organ donation. So it still comes down to what the fact that the uterus is there solely to incubate an unborn child.
Thank you. Why does she say something like "with a kidney you have to contemplate your mortality and your current responsibility as a parent" uhh is that a fucking joke? Lol apparently Nephrectomy (kidney removal) has a mortality rate of 0.9% while pregnancy in the US has a mortality rate of 0.02% in 2020. I think we should really focus on our health care system and our mortality rates which are very high compared to other 1st world countries before we blame women for considering such things. Imagine you had to decide to stop taking a life saving medicine or treatment to carry your baby safely or go through a risky pregnancy, leaving your living family and babies behind. People say "that never happens" but it does and it's fucking horrifying
@@Grace17524 im sorry but pregnancy in the US does not have a mortality rate of 28.3%, it is actually 0.02% (28.3 death per 100,000) according to cdc.gov
@@finnchristensenkraft1771 For now. Don't expect it to stay low if abortion is banned. We're already seeing cases of miscarriage going untreated in Texas because doctors are afraid of legal action being taken against them.
not to mention, the analogy was never about "what x organ was made for" it's about "who's the owner of x organ", hence bodily autonomy. Saying that the uterus is solely for another being, while true, is irrelevant and introduces something for the sake of the counter argument. Shame on the philosophy" professor" and god, they both are bad at this.
Let me spare you 20 minutes.
The real premise of this video is not the "violinist argument" but happens at 30 seconds in:
"So, moving beyond the idea that abortion supporters will say 'the embryo isn't a person', what is happening is some abortion supporters are saying ''the embryo is a person, is equal to you and me "
After this we have 20 minutes of philosophical nose picking about an argument that doesn't work without considering embryo a person. So for all the talk about "steelmanning" and "aquinasing" the argument before dismantling it, we just nonchalantly handwave the actual root of the topic by saying "some people think this".
It's like if I said: "moving beyond the idea that some people will say "the Earth is round", what is happening is some some people are saying 'the Earth is flat' ", to start explaining why we are at the center of the universe.
The reason it's moved past is because there's simply no discussion to have if it isn't moved past.
Person A: "The embryo is a person."
Person B: "The embryo is not a person."
Person A: "I believe you are wrong, as an embryo is the basis of a person."
Person B: "I believe you are wrong, as an embryo is not a full person."
That's it. There's no discussion to be had past that. It's an unnegotiable impasse where neither side can present any argument to convince the opposition.
@@ZeroNumerous Then this would show that we ourselves need to study further and come to a more sound conclusion on just what a "person" is.
@@Whodjathink well I suppose there is evidence that each side can give to another about the topic that might not change the others mind but will reinforce their opinion such as that a fetus has a heartbeat and can kick legs. Just an example
@@Whodjathink there is no way to study that. It is a strictly philosophical and ethical topic because the construct "personhood" is not clearly definable.
thanks for saving me the time mate!!
I’ve heard her uterine function argument before and really like it. However, there are a couple points to her overall argument to make it stronger and/correct it. Firstly, we absolutely *do* have a moral obligation to save someone’s life if 1. we’re the only one that can help them and, 2. if not rendering the aid will result in their death.
The moral obligation is more apparent if you look at a related situation: You’re hiking along a secluded forest path along a river and come across another hiker who fell into the water and is now visibly struggling to stay afloat and appears to be drowning. You are the only other person nearby. Do you have an obligation to risk your own life and jump into the river to save the drowning stranger? Or is it morally acceptable to keep walking and leave the stranger to fend for themselves? The correct answer, regardless of the other person being a stranger, your best friend, or your child, is to at least attempt to render aid and help save them from drowning. They are another human so we have the moral obligation to help save them from imminent death. Also, physical proximity, or whether or not they’re homeless, has no bearing on our moral obligation to help. I.e., should I donate an extra $200 to a charity that provides malaria nets to children and therefore prevent 20 kids from getting that horrible disease or should I spend that money on a date with my wife? Just because those kids are somewhere else in the world and are legally strangers doesn’t relieve me of a moral obligation to help them or save their lives if I can.
Finally, arguing from legal grounds is also seriously flawed. Plenty of examples can be shown of acts throughout history that are legal permitted but morally wrong. The opposite is also true: something may be legally prohibited but is morally right, like helping hide a Jewish family from Nazis. So I would definitely avoid using the “I have to help my own child because I’m forced to legally but have no legal obligation to help a stranger” argument.
"When terrible things happen, it doesn't give the victim license to do just anything they want in response."
Thank you. Absolutely. Failure to understand this point is what allows criminals to be set free to commit more crime and riots to be permitted without consequence to the rioters.
I have a real story example of that.
A man tried to kill another man in a bar, he pulled out a knife.
The other man, feeling his life was in danger, pulled out a gun and shot 2 shots at the attacker, effectively disarming him.
Then, after the attacker was on the ground, he shot another shot into his head killing him.
The court ruled that the man was guilty of murder.
Why? You may ask.
Well because the first 2 shots were, indeed, self defense, but the moment that attacker was no longer a threat, the self defense part stops. The last bullet through the head wasn't self defense, as the attacker was not capable in any way, shape or form of hurting the victim at that point.
This is why Christians need to be held to account for the hundreds of millions of people they've killed
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 name me a person that did than and I'll raise up against them.
But you can't blame people for things other people did purely based on religion.
@@jozokrstanovic9040 Read history. Millions did
@@zhengfuukusheng9238 okay. Now tell me why should I be held responsible for what they did?
Tell me which country you're from and I'll probably be able to name you couple of heinous crimes your country did. Should we punish you for that?
To quote Monsoon from MGR
"How easy it is to ignore the loss of life, when it suits your own convience."
Tell that to the Drone Masters, CIA, DOD, Big Pharma & other multinational corporations - for starters.
& all the hawks in Congress & elsewhere.
100%
Are you illustrating your ideology with a villain's monologue?
@@willmathis8645 yes, yes I am
@Bullet Anarchy does that automatically invalidate my point?
What about if the pregnancy constitutes a risk to the mother's life? Or if due to existing conditions the child is at a significantly increased risk of severe deformities or complications?
Then it would be "self defence"
Let's add another layer. What if the woman is only 13 years old, the pregnancy is the result of being violently raped by her own father, and genetic defects can be seen in the initial ultrasound?
I wouldn't exactly consider myself pro choice, but I do feel like there are certain circumstances where abortion has an acceptable place.
I don't think that abortion should be used in the same manner as birth control, but I do feel like unwanted children often grow up to be unwanted adults.
I think it would be awful to be raped and then see the rapist every time you look into your child's eyes. I think that therapy should be required prior to an abortion where alternatives are explained and potential psychological outcomes are explained as well.
I think anything beyond the first trimester should be illegal unless it is a medical emergency where neither the child nor parent would survive.
I think there should be a limit to the amount of non-rape, non-medical abortions allowed where you are required to sign a Sterilization statement after the 3rd one and be sterilized at the completion of the abortion because obviously you don't want any kids or aren't responsible enough to have any if you are treating them like birth control pills...
I'm pretty sure both sides probably aren't satisfied with my ideas...
See that’s the thing, yes it would be basically a mercy kill and tbh I’m pro-life but i would let this happen. However the situation in that argument is very rare in comparison to the rest and can’t speak for the rest of the abortions that happen. Saying what happens to a few doesn’t let the rest be ok
@@kraziecatclady nobody uses an abortion as a birth control method, it is always a very traumatic experience for the people who undergo it, so don't think people chose it lightly. Furthermore in most countries where abortion is legal, it is indeed illegal after the first trimester, i believe, so no worries there. And seriously sterilisation?? Are you kidding me? That is absolutely ridiculous and is a GRAVE violation of human rights.
@@Darkstarsangel I know more than one person who have had more than 7 abortions. At what point should the line be drawn? One of them stopped having abortions when she couldn't afford to have an 8th abortion and they found cervical cancer during a doctor's check up which they actually told her could have been a result of having so many abortions.
This is the most thought out anti-abortion argument I've heard. Although I disagree, it's so refreshing to see people willing to examine their beliefs and hear out the other side
which part do you disagree with?
Disagree in what way?? If u dont mind sharing.
@@randomchannelname24 that consenting to sex is also consenting to abortion. That’s like saying consenting to lawfully driving is also consenting to run a person over in the case of an accident.
bro whyyyy. How can you think it's okay to kill innocent children?
@@nitishsreeram2511 Can you rephrase this? It isn’t clear to me what the first line means, and by extension the metaphor.
It's kind-of weird how these counter-arguments and examples keep coming back to just nine months. Being a mother carries on for the entire remainder of your existence; it's not just about the nine months of pregnancy and pain of childbirth.
Like, if we had the technology to safely teleport a fetus out of one uterus and implant into a surrogate, would everyone there suddenly turn around? Would all these people be willing to raise a child and forever be their mother if we could magically skip past the childbirth and pregnancy?
I'd honestly like to see how people react to that idea.
I'm assuming pro life people agree with the whole giving your baby away for adoption. They're just against the abortion part. Secondly as she made the argument that part of sex is accepting the risk that comes with it
@@singhatishkumar that's just another pain point for me. There are soooo many orphans already and the suicide rate for orphans is another sad story. How sadistic are these people?
@@GodEmperorZenca "The child will kill themselves so we should just kill them anyway"?
"There are too many orphans so we should just kill this child"?
I hope you aren't making these arguments, but I felt I should rephrase those arguments for you. It's hard to proclaim someone is sadistic for wanting a child to live while simultaneously stating that the child should be killed.
@@GodEmperorZenca I mean for pro choice people their solution is abortion and to the pro life people, they say that family is the smallest unit type stuff and we should have sex only in committed relationships(at least I hope it's their argument)
To me both of these are fair arguments
(Not a fan of abortion or to have it as a solution unless necessary but that's just me)
@@GodEmperorZenca The suicide rate for orphans is alarming. However, killing them before they're even born is even worse
I really like how she speaks and how she explains things. But for the example of playing baseball and breaking windows, you don't make yourself or your neighbour live with the broken window forever. You fix it. An action you consented to had an undesired consequence but that doesn't necessarily mean that you have to live with the consequence. For example, you go skating and fall and break your leg despite being very careful and wearing pads. No one expects you to continue living with a broken leg.
I could argue that if you played baseball next to an expensive object, you could end up in dept for the rest of your life, or at least several months.
Additionally, a baby doesn't have to be permanant either, the option of adoption exists. And even without adoption they are no longer your resposibility once they are 18 years of age, or even less when considering emancipation of minors.
The baseball example may seem a bit extreme as putting you in dept for the rest of your life, but like they mentioned there are other comparable senarios like driving on the highway. And in that context it becomes much more likely that an accident with an expensive car or building could have you in dept for life, or crippling somone with a car and getting sued for pain and suffering and other damages. And even sticking with the baseball example, if a child broke a simple window while playing baseball, the cost of replacement could easily take over a year to pay back for a child that can't hold a proper job, if they were held resposible for paying that by the parents.
Which just goes to prove how weak the pro -life argument is too, and how psychotically controlling, misogynistic and authoritarian it is.
@@SakuraMoonflower no, the "fixing it" in this instance would be adoption. No one's forcing you to live with the child. You consented to an action that had a bad consequence, you owned up to said consequence and after that trusted yourself to not make such mistake again.
Agreed Parmida, and while it doesn't disprove her argument entirely, your comment is exactly the reason why you can't lean on analogies to prove you're right. Good 'catch!' 😄
The same goes for pregnant women. Nobody is telling them that they have to become mothers. People are just saying that they cannot have their child killed. They can give birth and put their baby up for adoption, where nearly 2 million couples in America are on waitlists to adopt.
I love the argument of brining up the double standard of how no one bats an eye at men who have to pay child support after having a quickie.
And of course, parents have a far greater duty of care to your child than to a random other person.
I am pro choice and i would argue that if the man was given no say in the matter of if the fetus should be aborted or not or given a chance to waive his rights away before it was birthed that he is not obligated legally or morally to be financially responsible. The mother will need financial assistance but I also believe in strong social safety nets as well.
@@pizzamess I agree
@@pizzamess That’s a really interesting point tbh. Waiving away all rights on exchange for no financial responsibility.
But I mean ... The father can just surrender their parental rights. No claim in the child, and they don't have to pay child support.
@Anja Martinez I kind of agree with this. That would also save lives since the number one cause of death in pregnant woman is homicide.
Wow. I am impressed, and so late to this. Great testimony, great arguments, God bless, Ave Maria! Thank you very much.
20TH boooooster!!
*vaccine existing* is to *20th booster*
AS
*running stop signs* is to *T-bone accident*
AS
*showing up around 3 every night* is to *barely showing up ever*
*Poor Ling Ling*
Some people would pull the plug on such a great Musician.
Never thought I'd see a TwoSet Violin reference here.
@@errolsmith1463 I clicked on the vid just to find which twosetters are pro life Lmao
Twoset fan here - Im not pro life but I’m here to see the argument :)
what if that embryo would grow up to be hitler? I dont care what that embryo may or may not become. The bottom line is the person in whose body the embryo resides, can decide what they want to do with their body and what is in their body.
+vuuspalding
Thats right, prolifers love to say "me, a wonderful person, would not be here if I am aborted" ... what stupid argument is that, any aborted fetus can equally grow up to become a scumbag, murderer, evil person.. thats not an argument at all ... they should try asking an infant starved to death due to poverty if they would prefer to be born to a parents who is more ready to care for them ...
My issue with much of the justification used on the pro-life side here is that it relies on appeals to legality in an ethical discussion. To say that a man who had no knowledge of a pregnancy, no say in a child being brought to term, and no chance to absolve himself of parental responsibility, the way the mother has, is legally obligated to support the child and/or the mother, is not the same thing as explaining *why* that ought to be the case, and so stating that the same "moral" obligation should be placed on pregnant women is meaningless.
Something similar can be said of the way they handle the kidney transplant variation, the appeal to the idea of ordinary vs extraordinary needs is very limited here - it fails to account for the fact that pregnancy and childbirth tax the body in ways beyond simply filling a uterus, it increases the demand on nutrition, the kidneys, the liver, the pancreas, etc. The ordinary function of each of those taxed organs is not to support the development cycle of a foetus, it is to sustain the life of the principal organism. Anything beyond this is superfluous, and so should not be a moral (and certainly not be a legal) obligation imposed on a pregnant woman.
@@0scarWalsh yes indeed it was a disgusting grasp at straws to justify stripping women of their bodily autonomy for their made up concept of morals.
@@asksalottle220 It's a rhetorical exercise, this video is not something to get emotionally worked up over. Better to save that emotion for campaigning/protesting for the rights you think people deserve, not for UA-cam comments.
@@0scarWalsh the woman praised Jesus, as she believed god gave her an argument to justify stripping a woman of her autonomy. Idk what you think this video is outside of a talking points workshop.
@@0scarWalsh keep that attitude when it's riots post reversal of a "super precident" every one of those fucks swore they respected and understood as THE Law. I fully endorse any destruction that comes of it frankly.
She's the most wellspoken pro-life activist I've listened to. Great listen even if I dont agree.
Kudos to you, Hunter, for complimenting the speaker even if you do not agree. I hope that you get to experience whatever is necessary so your mind, heart, and soul will be open to seeing the child's perspective.
@@cherylsvoboda4094 This is the correct response to Hunter. The other Hunter in this comment section said a similar thing and now he has 46 replies mostly people trying to drag him into an argument about abortion and the rest is others arguing about abortion.
So yes, Hunter, great for you to respect others' positions. Quite admirable from both sides
Anti-abortion activist. Not pro-life.
@@bulletprooftiger1879 Anti-abortion is known as pro-life
@@cherylsvoboda4094 kinda disrespectful but ok
The greatest flaw of the violinist argument to me is that it removes the causual element of the issue. Had the subject of the inquiry been responsible for the violinist's peril, I would find it more accurate.
I believe that is intentional as a means of strengthening the argument for abortion in cases of rape. In that case the woman would be involved in the person's peril but realistically it was out of her control.
but if you accidentally got in a car accident with the violinist, and you caused them to need the medical treatment, that still should not give them the legal right to use your body without consent.
@@rossalanmiller that's what I struggle with. My father was the result of rape, so I do not feel quite right saying "Yes, my grandmother should have had the right to kill you." In the famous violinist argument, the couple made a choice that resulted in a child. They directly instigated the situation, so it would not be moral to kill the child, or "unattach", for an inconvenience you made. But as pro-life as I am in cases of rape, I struggle to justify it using the same logic. The woman didn't have a choice.
The violinist argument can be played with a little to shed light on the prioritisation of values and how they play out in various circumstances.
For instance, if a person knowingly chose to be hooked up to the violinist, but after one week or month of discomfort and inconvenience, decides they don't want to do the whole 9 months, then what's permissable to do?
Or what if it's not just for 9 months, but you are financially and legally responsible for providing for the violinist, who will awaken amnesiac but gradually relearn how to be an adult over the course of 18 years?
Or what if the patient was never a violinist to "save", but a newly discovered species who can be elevated to humanlike intelligence, but only by receiving human blood regularly, and you have no way to know whether that being will be good or bad to humankind, but you will be held responsible for what they do (at least socially) forever?
@@davinriedstra3928 The issue with this all is that the whole argument stems from the violinist being tied to some random stranger. Instead it's not a random stranger, but your child, your offspring who is a part of you and yet a separate being themselves. So the question is, do parents have a moral obligation to care for their children?
I would like to hear her address two rare, but real, scenarios:
1. Where the pregnancy threatens the life of the expectant mother. Pre-eclampsia, hemorrhage from placental abruption and ectopic pregnancy are three conditions that come to mind.
2. Where the fetus has a lethal anomaly, like renal agenesis, thanatophoric dwarfism, anencephaly, etc. I have seen all of these conditions, having spent over 20 years performing sonography in high-risk pregnancies. It is a forgone conclusion in these cases, that death is inevitable, usually immediately after delivery. Does a woman have an obligation to sustain a fetus that is destined to succumb to its condition essentially as soon as it is born.
Last, her point of view, obviously, is that human life begins at conception. There are many others who have different definitions of the beginning of human life: at birth, or at the point when fetal viability can occur outside the uterus (whatever that means). These are philosophical and religious tenets, and as strongly held by some as she holds to hers. We, as a society, will never come to a consensus, let alone a unanimous understanding, of when human life begins. Because one’s definition is based, to a large degree, on that individual’s religious belief system, then, I think it is fair to ask, does the state have the right to ban abortion based on the religious belief system held by a majority of legislators. That is to say, can the state impose the religious belief system on to society, as a whole? In the U.S., does that violate the 1st amendment?
Agree completely. The only thing is the last point: many will argue their stance on abortion has more to do with their own moral compass than being inherently religious. Thank you for sharing :))
Agree completely. The only thing is the last point: many will argue their stance on abortion has more to do with their own moral compass than being inherently religious. Thank you for sharing :))
It isnt a religious belief that life begins at conception. Basic biology and science says that.
@@authorjoannawhite Like I said, there will never be a unanimous understanding of the definition. Besides, I used the term, "human life", to differentiate from any collection of living cells or tissues. In other words, when is the conceptus believed to be a "human being".
@@authorjoannawhite That depends on what you define as life. Cellular life, for sure, but that would mean that you're basically committing genocide all the time since millions of cells get destroyed within your body.
However, the much more meaningful term for life is independent life, i.e. when a life is such that it can be taken care of by "anyone". Like an elderly person does not cease to be alive just because they are too frail to take care of themselves. Neither is a mentally handicapped person any less alive because they require someone to assist them in getting fed and going to the doctor, etc.
A fetus of a certain age can survive outside the womb and at that point "anyone" (even if it is a medical professional, but one whose name is not important) can take care of them. But prior to the instant, there is only one person on Earth who can take care of that and their name is very important. Up until that point, there is no "life", because the "life" of the fetus is indistinguishable from that of the mother. If the mother got shot in the head, the fetus would die without any chance of saving it. It is thus not "alive" as an independent creature.
If that professor was actually up all night trying to counter her uterus argument, then he has no business teaching philosophy. Carrying a baby requires much more than a uterus. A full term pregnancy has consequences for your ENTIRE body. For instance, I went into heart failure my first pregnancy. My son needed an emergency c section and almost didn't make it. I've had to have 2 open heart surgeries and I now live with a pace maker and subcutaneous defibrillator.
This is the thing that I really don't like about this subject.
With consent the situation is entirely within normal human process and the baby's rights should take precedence.
but in the case of no consent the mother is actually put at risk in many ways, health and wealth are impacted, it also damages her marriage prospects as well, it's absolutely life changing.
I hate that one side wants to justify absolute murder and the other wants to completely ignore non-consentual situations.
I like the point you're making here, Carol.
I’m sorry you went through that.
Hard question you don’t have to answer here, but I’m curious: was your son worth it?
@Bullet Anarchy murder means the stopping of someones existence from continuing that is premeditated so yeah it is
great job youve just added more weight to the argument but in no way countered it. As long as it was for the baby.
13:20 Another twist: You want to give your kid the kidney but you find out you're pregnant and you donating the kidney would end that pregnancy (I'm no doctor so idk if that's completely realistic but for argument's sake let's assume it is).
It essentially boils down to choosing which one of your kids gets to live but if you're legally obligated to keep the baby that means you're not even allowed to make the choice, is that fair?
edit: By the way, assuming the fetus is person with all the same rights as you at any point in the pregnancy is huge concession, that's usually the main point of the argument as many people think abortion should be legal early on but it's really difficult to decide where exactly you wanna draw the line.
Well, using her logic she wouldn’t have the choice. Again her uterus is for the baby, and her kidney is not meant for her already born kid. In this instance I would say that the limitations of her anatomy makes the choice for her.
@@chrisblanc663 Yes but from a ethical standpoint don't you think a mother should be able to make that decision regardless of how difficult it might be? Also if you think about that scenario it seems like forcing a "survival of the fittest" type choice by prioritizing the potentially healthy child over the sick one and I'm under the impression most people frown upon that kinda thing. So as much as I like her logic on this if you look it at it from a very human perspective it's a bit hard to agree, I'm usually not a fan of bringing in the "emotional impact" type arguments but in a case this severe I think it holds some weight... what do you think would be more mentally devastating, to lose a child in early pregnancy or to lose a child that you raised and known for years? This is actually pretty similar to certain variations of the trolley problem, those are some pretty damn difficult decisions to make and I'm glad that those type of scenarios are next to impossible in real life... it is an interesting discussion though.
I have to agree here. I have had several discussions on this topic, and to a person the pro-abortion individual has argued that passage through the birth canal transforms a clump of cells into a human with rights. They hold this firmly as a value choice, and no amount of discussion allows progress beyond this point. Unless this is codified into law, there is no way to resolve it on moral or ethical grounds. One lady even said, with absolutely no hint of remorse, "It's only a human life if I agree it is a life. Otherwise, it is a parasite and I have every right to kill it." As long as people firmly believe *THEY* have the right to decide this, then anything is on the table. Slavery? OK. Genocide? Fine. It all comes down to circumstance and what I decide is a human life. Only when you accept there is a higher law to which everyone must defer does the problem resolve itself.
In that case I would say that both children require the kidney, since giving it to the sick child would kill the unborn. Even if it does not take the kidney from the mother away, but that it also does not with the uterus. So in that case the mother would have the ability to choose, but that doesn't help the "pro choice" side.
Or it gets clearer when you say they both extraordinarily would require the siblings life. The kidney is just the physical token for that. The same could be applied, if the pregnancy would end the mothers life.
A common complaint against Thomson is that consenting to sex entails a moral obligation for the consequences, and the woman in Thomson's hypothetical didn't consent to being hooked up to the violinist.
But this begs the ethical question since the argument against Thompson is that there are always moral obligations to every action a person takes when that person understands the consequences.
For example, suppose Suzie is born into a society that declared that if Suzie used the restroom, then Suzie would have to pay a fine.
Naturally, Suzie uses the restroom at least once a day.
Suzie refuses to pay the fine, however.
She's correct when she argues that it's natural to use the restroom, it's unhealthy not to, and the fact that society has made such a rule is arbitrary and carries no force outside of some members of its decision-making body declaring the restroom-rule and their ability to enforce it.
The same is true of the "Responsibility Argument" against Thompson.
That a consequence of having sex, in the woman's case, is possible pregnancy doesn't imply that a woman who has sex and understands that she could become pregnant as a result, has any obligations for her doing so.
The woman only becomes pregnant, nothing else is clear and certainly not argued.
Thomson's argument isn't defeated by claiming a woman is responsible for pregnancy because unlike the violinist, she chose to have sex.
Abortion, after all, might be exactly how a woman is being responsible in becoming pregnant.
The counter begins with the conclusion that there just is some sort of responsibility a woman has to a fetus, and then begs that question in arguing against Thomson.
That responsibility, they say, is to carry on with the pregnancy to its natural end.
That's the gist.
Whether Suzie uses the restroom or whether she has sex and knows and understands the consequences of either, no implication is entailed that there are or should be any consequences for which she is responsible.
To be clear, the consequence of sex, call it C, is not the ethical obligations that obtain from C, call it C*.
That is, the consequence of having sex is possible pregnancy C, but having sex and becoming pregnant does not entail a consequence of moral obligation C*.
The question is only about C*, and it begs the question then of why Thomson is (and others are) mistaken about the scope of her argument.
It's certainly clear that Suzie can rightly not consent to (and can even disagree there are) obligations of consequences from doing either, be they using the restroom or having sex or becoming pregnant.
The "Responsibility Argument" represents a grand mutatis mutandis, question-begging notwithstanding.
Nothing more.
Stephanie Gray is one of the smartest and best pro-lifers out there. She is awesome. Thanks for having her on the show. You're doing great work sir and helping me out a lot.
But her "uterus is for making babies" argument is like saying if a person has put some coffee beans in a coffee making machine, he/she MUST MUST NEVER press the stop button just because the machine's function is for making coffee ...uhh, thats ridiculous.
She still has not provided any arguments to why just because you have an ongoing process means you must never stop or reverse the process ..
Ultimately the argument still go back to the issue of personhood, whether an unborn fetus can be regarded as equitable to a born person with all the same rights.
@@88feji I would argue that a woman whose life is in danger due to something like an ectopic pregnancy that would be a justifiable situation to have an abortion, mainly because if the pregnancy continued the mother would likely die resulting in the death of both the child and the mother... doctors must save as many lives as possible given the situation.
Otherwise you cannot reverse a person. Life is a continuum. Once a new life has begun, to end it through willed premeditated choice is considered murder in most circumstances.
When did you become a person 88feji? I would argue when your unique strand of DNA was formed when your moms ovum met with your dads sperm and became fertilized. Once that strand of DNA is joined it has all the biological information necessary for a new human to develop. Your eye colour, your hair colour, many aspects of what make you you that are rooted in biology. To end that is to end another growing human being (whether they are an embryo, fetus, or labelled otherwise).
Personhood... I would argue that having ones own unique strand of DNA is what makes one human different from another.. a human fetus although dependant on a mother for food, shelter, etc... is not an extension of the mother. Connected to the mother but not the mother. This separateness I would warrant the to the initiation of rights for the unborn child.
@@88feji I think the difference is that a cup of coffee isn't a living innocent human being so it will be quite alright to press the stop button. Her uterus is for someone elses body argument is for people who call the baby parasitic or who say the baby doesn't belong there or is violating the woman's body etc.
She always says why. She says it is wrong to "stop" the process via an abortion because an innocent unborn human being is killed directly and intentionally.
Well yes, that is the main issue at hand. If the unborn is not human, then abortion shouldn't be controversial and women should be able to get abortions at any time for any reason. BUT, if the unborn is a human being, it changes everything. How we treat the most vulnerable humans in our society matters. Also says a lot about us as a society.
What are your thoughts?
@Qwerty actually the pro life stance is a push to grant an unborn child MORE rights than a born one. No born human has a right to use someone else's body against their will.
@@gabrielmorales2842 plants are vulnerable too. The immorality of an action has nothing to do with vulnerability. Is aborting a fetus more immoral than killing a teenager?
4:46 Forced vs Consent
6:15 “Birth Control”
7:27 “I didn’t consent to this pregnancy” - no need to pay child support? wrong
8:48 Responsibility to your creation
10:21 Duty to help vulnerable
14:41 Prayer For Help 15:04 The Uterus
15:49 What is the Nature and Purpose of The Uterus?
17:07 Parent-Child
Uterus is in the woman's body For The Child 18:02
18:20 Basic Care
thanks time stamp guy
Consent to a pregnancy is a real thing. It's considered assault to take a man's sperm without permission just as it is to ghost a condom on a woman. Sex isn't always reproductive and it's been like that since the dawn of humanity
Here's a couple more approaches to the kidney comparison that I came up with:
1) Since the child is already using the uterus, it's less akin to the question of "should the law compel you to donate a kidney?" and more something like "after donating your kidney, should you have the right to forcibly take it back?"
2) There's a significant difference between action and inaction - it's unreasonable to demand action from an individual to save someone's life, but it isn't unreasonable to demand that they don't take action which would end someone's life.
(I should clarify - I didn't come up with these just now as a result of watching the video, I've been using these for quite some time. I've also used the 'purpose of the uterus' one once or twice, but the wording of "it's exists more for the child than it does for the mother" is nice to have in mind) :)
Yes but what really matters is the consequence not if its caused by inaction or action because caring for a child and being pregnant is hard and is active
I totally agree that there is a difference between action and inaction. In the kidney example, if no action is taken, the child simply dies, hence why it is not necessary to take that action to save the child. However, when it comes to abortion, if no action is taken, the child will be born and live, thus it is immoral to take the action and abort the child.
That’s unreasonable. People have the right to take others life. Otherwise cops and soldiers wouldn’t be able to do their jobs. Doctors too.
I do think a pro choice argument to that could be that the mother is constantly giving though. I don’t think it would be as big of an issue if the next generation stayed to it’s size, because it would not give the mother too many side effects. However, it continues to take, whether it be blood or sugar in the blood, causing an array of health complications, etc. The main issue, I think, that would stem from this, is that even if you have your kidney once, that’s great. But one does not just lend the space in the uterus. An expecting mother continuously gives. Their uterus, their blood, their nutrients, their experience without birthing pains, their physiological changes outside the uterus period.
“The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts--a child--as a competitor, an intrusion and an inconvenience.” Mother Terressa.
“Mother Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.” - Christopher Hitchens
@@angiek1827 There is no cure for poverty, only a way to alleviate it. Jesus said "the poor will always be with you." compulsory reproduction?? i know many women who have chosen not to have children. don't know where you got the view it is compulsory or even Hitchen's got the view. He was into sub-sourcism, i am into Master-sourcism. we are worlds apart.
@Bullet Anarchy how has Christianity pitted woman against their children, it teaches woman to love their children including babies in the womb.
@Bullet Anarchy do you know the 10 Commandments, which one do you think relates to abortion? i also believe God is a God of forgiveness to those who are truly repentant. [n.b aborted baby goes to heaven. ]
@Bullet Anarchy thou shalt not murder is a great teaching. of course when a police officer shoots a terrorist dead, they have killed the terrorist but not murdered them.
The argument fails at stating the fact that at the end of the nine months, the procedure could end up costing one of both of their lives, or could permanently traumatise them for their life afterwards, this doesn’t feel like a sound argument
It being a 'real' argument isn't dependent on addressing all possible points of contention, but rather giving the ones they brought up a fair shot. Expecting a 20 minute snapshot of a longer interview to include all points of contention isn't reasonable
@@Unselfless for the purpose of determining the best way to vote on legislature regarding abortion, I'd argue that if there is a common enough case where abortion is advisable (i.e. the health of the mother is at risk), then it should at least be legal and accessible.
Of the number of doctors who are willing to perform abortions, they do have evidence-based clinical criteria that limits who is permitted to have an abortion and under what conditions.
@@davinriedstra3928 Doctors don't determine what is human, in the same way that a plummer doesn't determine what a toilet is. According to biology, at conception, you have a unique human life that has as much potential as anyone. Doctors are to do no harm, but the vast majority of abortions are not done out of medical necessity. They're done out of personal convenience
@@Unselfless You say "Doctors don't determine what is human," but then say, "according to biology." Who do you think determines what biological organisms should be called? Granted, there are colloquial definitions that are based in centuries of common use, but terms like "human" get more specific definitions thanks to doctors. Academics more than surgeons, maybe, but doctors no less.
I draw a pretty thick line between what a pair of coupled haploid cells who've just met is (a blastocyst - the undifferentiated stem of cells that have no awareness, no face, and nothing in common with an adult human other than a chromosomal blueprint), and a fetus at the end of the first trimester.
I just also draw an equally thick line between that same fetus and a teenager, for instance. If you don't that's fine. My argument in favour of abortion being legal, is for the sake of women in the cases you call the minority.
It's on the same ethical level that I'd rather see a guilty man walk free than an innocent man imprisoned.
It varies by state, but the median for health complications leading to abortions is about 1-7%. Rape is almost under 1%. The vast numbers for people having abortions is either no reason given or economic, not being ready, gets in the way of life and so on. I remember one of my moms friends got an abortion because the baby would interfere with a planned vacation to Florida. In essence the arguement addresses the majority, but not the minority.
I think their point was very valid up until they started talking about inherent personal responsibility for the rape victim. They even addressed how cruel that idea was, and then started pulling it apart. At first they were making a solid analogy "If you consented to sex, then you consented to the possibility of pregnancy", and then they went on and tried to compare giving a baby a bottle to going through extreme pain. If you take notice, this is where they have to fall back on religious beliefs/moral beliefs. Some inherent responsibility to a person simply because their DNA is based off of yours is the proposal involved. It's sorta ludicrous once you break it down.
“What makes rape wrong? It’s a vulnerable party being attacked by a stronger party.”
“What makes abortion wrong? It’s a vulnerable party being attacked by a stronger party.”
These statements do little to validate the experience of sexual assault survivors. In fact, they work to minimize the reality of the harm caused by sexual assault.
Huh, now that's a thought. I think the purpose of the kidnapping scenario was to break the argument "In no case can rape establish a moral duty upon the victim" or "In no case can an offense establish a moral duty upon the victim", then from there it could be differentiated? I dunno. Like, what if that random newborn needed your uterus. Surely that'd be beyond expected. But then again, you had a mother, used her uterus, and had no choice to not use hers. Does something horrible happening to you give you the right to end another's life?
Anyway, I've got bedtime so I'll stop short of fully hashing out whether I perfectly like her argument. I still believe it's gravely damaging for any abortions outside of rape, I'm just not settled for all cases. Secularly speaking.
Thanks for the mental fodder!
@@Alphack3r I think they were either lying about steel manning the position or were just horrible at it. Obviously the primary issue presented isn't that you were secretly strapped to a person, it's that they're _siphoning your blood_ into them for the next nine months. If your son with the baseball accidentally hit someone walking by they didn't see, could you imagine forcing him to _siphon his blood to that person_ for the next nine months?? I want to believe they're arguing in good faith but this is stretching it.
@@irmb7464 "These statements do little to validate the experience of sexual assault survivors. In fact, they work to minimize the reality of the harm caused by sexual assault."
Exactly.
If the only argument here is "two wrongs don't make a right", then they're not going to convince people. If anything, that argument can be flipped from a double-victimization of two people (the woman, then the child) into a double-victimization of one person (the woman). That is, the rapist victimizes the rape victim in the act of rape, and then the rapist victimizes her again via the law forcing her to carry the rapist's child to term. That is an incredibly hard sell - even for a very virtuous woman who sees the value of any life - because this enables rapists to twice-abuse the virtues of others. It enables bad actors to do terrible things on the backs of the good.
Without jumping to enforcement gradations (e.g., whether or not the state would prevent women from aborting even in the first few weeks following a rape), I'd be interested in hearing if they have a more developed argument than this "two wrongs" logic. I realize it's already a rare situation, but there has to be a better argument.
@@irmb7464 10:38 She specifically stated that she was not down playing the seriousness of sexual assault. She said it immediately after making the comparison. Your argument completely ignores this as though you paused the video the moment she said it and complained about it before hearing all she said. You took her statement completely out of context.
Loved hearing her arguments and discussion. It's so refreshing to hear legitimate debate that goes beyond "abortion is killing babies" to explain the why, and to provide examples of similar situations whererin similar rulings already stand.
Or classic chinese argument.
Antilife and anti choice at the same time.
But, also it's killing babies
Except that abortion IS killing babies. No amount of rationalization will change that.
@@paultrosclair1775 True, and hopefully I haven't diminished that sentiment with the scare quotes. Those who stand on the other side of this argument may think the same; however, they may not share the same conviction - in nuanced situations wherein more is at risk than solely the life of the child - to allow politicians and governing bodies to be the ones to impose universal restrictions on very considerations of individual circumstances. It's easy to dichotomize the issue into a clear and concise right vs wrong - and done so to leverage one side or the other - but the true 'debate' is in the middle ground. The good guys win, the war is won, but we're not there yet, and have to fight the daily battles incrementally as we go. The better equipped we are with knowledge and understanding, the stronger our footing when we face conflict or dispute. Stephanie is knowledgeable, quick in thought, and does a great job articulating and discussing such nuances.
@@themarksmann there is no other consideration than the life of the child. Don't fall for that excuse. In today's medical world, there is no such thing as an abortion which is medically necessary to save the mothers life. It is black and white. It is not nuanced. You are not helping by conceding "Gray areas" .
Interesting angle on the topic. What I rarely hear discussed is how sex is almost always necessary for a healthy relationship. If you want to be in a (heterosexual) relationship and yet not have children, it's as if you're not allowed. I believe this is a fairly extreme stance to have. It is unrealistic to think that people who don't want children should never have sex. Also the argument that you have an obligation to the fetus as its mother to give birth to it would mean that the father would have an obligation to support the woman while she is pregnant. As well as if you have an obligation before birth, why should this stop after the child is born. If the child is given up for adoption in the USA likely the child will suffer abuse in the foster care system, and if you are able to give them a better life should you be obligated to do so? When I think about it, it doesn't seem like the argument that the parents have an obligation to the unborn child holds up very well. This topic is extremely complex and the implications of either sides of the argument are a hard pill to swallow.
if they're put up for adoption as a baby, there's a long line of people waiting to adopt. the foster system is people abandoned at an older age generally
Even more - a father cant say: "O no, Its mine, but I don't want it."; But the mother can decide to give it for adoption and be held responsible. Those anti choice supporters fail to see that the most important thing is not if you are pregnant or not, but if you are ready for the responsibility that pregnancy brings with it - raising the child as a decent human being. We are not animals, so sex should not be considered a legal agreement to raise a child. Also just think about it - who is doing abortions? Why they do it? If a woman has took the hard decision to make an abortion, then its better for all to not force her to raise that potential child. If the reason is medical, or social, or economic, or criminal - its understandable. But even if the reason is, that she is a person that refuses to be a responsible grown human - well its better for everyone involved to not force such a person to raise a kid.
According to her logic, my spermatozoids also have the right to live and fulfill their function, when I nut in a tissue paper a am committing a crime against them, since I am the strong party, and they are the vulnerable one... And for those that will say its ridiculous to claim, that gametes can be compared to an embryo - you are just discriminating haploid cells, how "non inclusive"!!!
There are non-procreative forms of sex 😉 Plus, if you're in a heterosexual relationship and don't want children, either partner could get sterilized, and then you can have all the sex you want
And yes, the father would have an obligation as well. Why specifically doesn't the obligation argument hold up well?
@@dominic64tblightning24 This isn't true in the USA. For example in Texas the statistic is that 62% of babies are adopted by the time they reach a month old. In my eyes 38% of babies likely to end up in foster care is way too high of a number. The foster care system is brutal and needs to be overhauled. For the most part we have gravely failed the children who are in the foster care system and we will add to that number exponentially if millions of women now need to give up their babies for adoption because they could not abort or take a plan-b.
I had two ish major issues with the discussion.
Early on, the discussion was about consenting to the pregnancy and examples were used like breaking somebody’s window with a baseball or driving fast. These aren’t even remotely equivalent examples. Take driving: Merely driving has a risk of death from an accident. You could be in a parked car and killed by a reckless driver. You could be a pedestrian far from the road and could still be killed by a vehicle. We don’t get into a car “consenting” to be in or killed by a crash, but we can acknowledge that it is possible. That isn’t consent.
This one is the “ish” issue, but when confronted with the violinist argument the response was to immediately search for the defeater because the existing beliefs must be true so this one could not be sound or applicable. The guy did bring up my alternative objection to the violinist argument, if he was your child, but they do kind of take a pro choice argument on the violinist so sort of ad hoc plus special pleading but eh.
Lastly, the concern about legality (and probably the most important point). They did not address this, that even though the uterus is “for” offspring, it still ultimately belongs to one person. Were “ownership” to be distributed to the fetus, it certainly would not also include anybody outside of that woman’s body, but it also doesn’t account for past or future fetuses within that uterus. The issue becomes needlessly complex and deprives the individual of deciding what happens to the organs within their own body, perhaps to the glee of many until it happens to someone dear to them.
Thanks, i was trying to come up with words that were not "except it's your body". You can't tell me my stomach is for my offspring...or my eyes...or my arms...why would a uterus get special treatment.
Absolutely agree with you! But you have to appreciate the conversation they had. They were very respectful and spoke very clearly! Nice to see poeple talking in a civil way about controversial topics, without screaming and being very emotional.
For the first one: Yes, just sitting in a parked car doesn't mean you consented to being in a wreck, but that scenario is a lot closer to instances of sexaul assault- you are harmed without consent or provocation. Her examples were to demonstrate that when you have sex, getting pregnant is an actual risk that you should be aware of and are thereby consenting to, such as driving a car fast. Even if you keep your eyes on the road, driving above the speed limit puts you at risk of getting into a crash, which you would be held legally responsible for.
@@gracel8790 Having sex is legal. Driving fast is not.
@@MrFAD11 Sex is sometimes legal. Just like driving fast is sometimes legal (most interstates have very fast speed limits where you could suffer fatal injuries if you do not pay attention). There are illegal forms of sex (non-consensual/underage). There are illegal forms of driving. Why is everyone trying to avoid the point with arguing semantics? The analogy she is making is that if you do something that has a known likelihood of a possible outcome, you are being reckless by engaging in said activity with disregard for said consequences. You can disagree with her stance and her overall argument, but ignoring the forest for the trees is asinine.
Still pro-choice, but this is clearly a smart and well thinking woman, great to listen to!
care to explain why you are?
Maybe because unlike 99% of Americans, they aren’t afraid to listen to people they disagree with?
B M no I mean why are they pro choice
That doesn't make sense if you can't provide a decent counter argument.
@@nitrogenax2327 I personally think the societal benefits of allowing woman to chose to have an abortion are too large to pass on. Also, especially if the pregnancy was not started with the consent with the woman, it is too heartbreaking to force the woman to carry to pregnancy to term.
Furthermore I don't think it's right to grant an unthinking, unconscious feutus the same moral value a birthed human.
Interesting to see you reflect on your own arguments. It is even more interesting if that you are actively looking for arguments to justify your feelings. That's not bad per se, but you could also consider to think about why you feel so strongly.
I think the biggest issue in this argument is binary-thinking. Either you are for, or against in all cases. While it seems obvious to me that strict positions on either side have a lot of issues. Recognizing that there is a grey area in which both views have pro's and con's is probably a good idea. Then an additional question might be: should the law provide a definite answer for either option in such grey areas?
The reason it feels that way is that even if we tried to have restrictions so that abortion isn't rampant, the restrictions would always have loopholes or everyone would just claim to be in that Grey area even if they are not.
That's why everyone discusses it I'm this binary fashion.
Trying to be compromising will just end up with pro choice still getting what they want but having to possibly lie about it.
Example: if life threatening pregnancies or rape pregnancies are the only pregnancies that can be aborted, then a majority of pregnancies would claim that even if it wasn't the case...
Because there is no gray area
@@ailurophile4341 oh there is! But people like you are the reason there never will be.
Hi Philip, she already addressed these grey areas with the notion of a rape victims right to violate the life of the baby inside her. The old moral of.. two wrongs do not make a right. Tell me, have you met anybody who said that they were so saddened after deciding to keep the baby and raise it? Fear takes us all on a wild ride and makes us think irrationally, but do we really want to kill our future loved ones due to our current feelings on the matter?
"Legal, but rare"
The last point it important but often overlooked. The violinist is in a state of dying until you intervene. The child is growing and thriving in her natural environment unless an action is taken to stop that from happening
Counterpoint. An embryo that doesn't implant itself in the uterus won't grow and thrive, embryos created through IVF will eventually die unless an action to stop that, which is implanting them stops that from happening. The similarity of the argument is that both the violinist and embryo/fetus need another person's body to survive. An embryo that doesn't implant will be flushed from the uterus and won't thrive.
@@Andrew12217 IVF is against Catholic teachings...so I am sensing more consistency in the Christian teachings.
16:27 "My uteral lining is thickening
in great expectation
for the implantation
of the next generation."
Now I want to hear the rest of the abortion debate in form of a rap battle 😂
“Haha, no thanks”
lol loved that part!
Challenge accepted, Ray.
Buddy, put a condom on your 'junk'
So she'll have no reason to call you a punk.
Wanna keep it chill? Wanna keep it real?
Dont do it 'raw dog' - that would make you a heel!
This is a really interesting and backed-up argument that, even as a pro-choicer, I have found pleasant to listen to! This woman is clearly well-educated and I respect the hell out of her; we need more educated discussions such as this rather than emotionally charged arguments.
Yes, my good sir, how delightful!
We could look at it from 10,000 feet but that dehumanizes the situation and allows you to justify your immorality.
(Whether by God or Evolution, you can't deny that we feel the emotions of Guilt and Shame. There is a reason for both!)
Abortion is murdering another human being. It is wrong.
So basically you will not abandon the argument no matter what lol. I hate this aspect of UA-cam where people comment “I disagree! But great video”. It’s like we get it, no argument will ever convince you, we don’t need this false civility of “open discourse” and “educated discussions” between people to whom having these supposed educated discussions are more important than the actual substances at hand.
@@fahim-ev8qq it’s an issue that is difficult to change minds on. For example, for someone who has had an abortion, they understand how abortion can be a positive tool despite its immorality. At that point it becomes impossible to change their mind. It’s a positive tool that saves the lives of women, I won’t support stripping it away from all current and future women, essentially. And a pro-lifer, it’s impossible to convince them that it isn’t the murder of an innocent. So it’s kind of an impasse.
@Skelley-Priest To which god should I pray? I think I'll send my prayers to the Kotoamatsukami. The abrahamic god is too barbaric for me.
@@killacorn1
It is possible to persuade pro-choicers to change camps as long as they have a primordial commitment to logic and to the right of innocent beings to not be intentionally killed.
Pregnancy isn’t a passive act that doesn’t affect you in any way. The woman does it at her own risk.
There's an enormous burden on the woman to carry a pregnancy to term. But is that burden matched by her parental moral duty?
I have a hard time with pro life only with sexual assault victims... I don't think its fair. If you go to court and justify a sexual assault you should be able to get an abortion. Otherwise if you consent then you're consenting to the possibility of creating life
19:56 Ironically she makes this argument herself for the kidney
@@bds8715 morality is not a logical argument, I don't care for your morals, others don't have to either
@@manaspradhan8041 I'm not curious whether people fail to care about things they ought to. I already knew that. I'm curious as to whether parental duty is such that it matches the burden of pregnancy. A lot of people would say it doesn't. I wonder what arguments they would give for that?
I think this was an amazing discussion and I really enjoyed hearing each side of the argument. I argue that the premise of “responsibility of ordinary needs” with the cabin example, which the core of her argument is predicated upon, fails to fully analogize with pregnancy, giving birth, and abortion.
I believe it is distinctly different because what is required to feed and care for a child, with resources readily available, is fundamentally different then carrying a child to term. The cabin example lacks a real risk to health or births extended factors, such as losing ones life to childbirth, the hormonal changes that are induced, or the physiological change to the body after birth, and thus fails to fully encapsulated the significance of the intrusive and painful nature of actually giving birth.
I argue that while giving birth may be ordinary, its demands on a individual are extraordinary when it comes to providing care. Therefore the responsibility to carry to term becomes again analogous to the professors altered violinist example (with kidneys)
Furthermore, just because an organs design is to provide for another, there is no level of entitlement from a foreign body to that organ. An example of this would be breast feeding. The purpose of breasts is to produce milk for the child, to provide for another, yet there is no recognized entitlement to that organ and it is up to the owner of the organ to decide who gets to use it. This again legitimizes the professors altered violinist example where showing the intention of the organ to be irrelevant.
P.S. im very disappointed she didn’t share the response he stayed up all night thinking of
P.S.S this reply is 2 months later after over 70 comments on here. If you guys actually want the strongest two forms of this argument, not only did I find the person she her argument came from, but it’s followed by, by far the strongest string of counter arguments I’ve ever seen. This chapter of this book blows this video out of the water! If you are truly interested in the best form of this and its counter argument, please read “Ethics, Left and Right” by Bob Fischer, Chapter 10 on abortion. Its phenomenal.
I think the ultimate conclusion is that those who want to justify the death of babies will always find a justification to do so, yourself being an example of that. There will never be amicable ground between those who want to preserve the sanctity of life and those who wish to destroy it.
@@SkylearJ I feel like this line of thinking fails to even try to consider or contribute any idea to further a discussion about what is right and what is wrong. It appears to simply ignore the entire issue at hand and seems to turns a blind eye to the possibility to changing ones mind.
Regardless if you believe the two sides will always disagree, and even if you are correct there will not be amicable ground (which I think is wrong), society still needs to, and will eventually, choose a line of thinking. Exploring the merits of each side is the only real meaningful way for us to get close to the ‘right’ answer.
I at least enter into this discussion with an open mind and im attempting to find what I believe is moral through throughly analyzing and responding to extremely strong arguments from each side.
I challenge you to do the same instead of seemingly giving up and saying people can never find a middle ground. I challenge you to be more like the individuals in this video.
Also, painting my argument to simply
“Justifying the death of babies” is not only a straw man argument but its ill-willed and misses the point. You don’t refer to a difficult subject of war as “justifying killing people” or denying immigration as “an excuse to get away from a specific race” just as its silly to refer to the topic of abortion as “justifying the death of babies”. The reason these comparisons are just poor is because they completely doge very significant elements of the issue at hand. War has to do with the well-being and protection of a country, immigration has to do with economic, tax, and a variety of other issues, the same way abortion still has to deal with pregnancy and the birthing persons individual issues too.
@@huntercandreva2176 it irritates me to see people take on a facade of intellectualism. Call it a strawman if you must, but the argument is what it is. By and large, I'd be surprised if you found anyone who'd disagree that in the case a pregnancy would kill the mother, most would agree it becomes a medical necessity. What I, and what I believe the lady in this video, are arguing against is the notion you can abort for any reason you deem fit. This is tantamount to murdering a baby or a child or a person for being a mere inconvenience to you. In this light, it strikes a rather concerning light akin to Stalin versus his political enemies.
@@SkylearJ First I just want to say, thanks for at-least referencing and responding to the video and my original comment and I just want to say im not trying to appear as an intellectual, im trying to participate in an intellectual debate.
That being said, on the topic of pregnancy, while they may not be very prevalent, there are many individuals who don’t care if it could killing a mother. Honestly, my and (id argue) your point are both kind of irrelevant though because my original point was just to exemplify the extreme nature of pregnancies. You could replace the chance of killing the mother with changes in hormones, extreme physical discomfort, or the effects on their body after the pregnancy.
More importantly though, and what I think its a crucial idea in this entire discussion, is what you said the lady in this video is arguing against. I believe her idea is actually much wider in scope than just “aborting for any reason you see fit”, I believe her idea is actually what the child is entitled to, specifically pertaining to the uterus (this is also why is said “justifying killing babies” doesn’t fully encapsulate the discussion).
I agree actually that aborting for any reason is similar to murdering because its simply an inconvenience and that feels very wrong, but I don’t believe the discussion ends there. At least personally im not ready to concede that the child (or any person for that matter) has any entitlement to anyone else’s body, and until I discover a more convincing argument from either side about the issue (different from the modified violinist argument), I believe the crux of the issue lies there.
Do you think the child is entitled to a birthing persons organ, and if so do you think the law should dictate that? And if so id be happy to discuss and find a better way to think about that issue with you.
It’s fairly well accepted that the exception is if the mothers life is in danger. It’s a non point that has been addressed far before this video was a thing.
I'm not fully convinced with her rape justification.
"You've been raped so its your responsibility" like whaaaaaaat?! "What makes rape wrong". Excuse me!?
@indp. iv As a hypothetical scenario, the rape argument makes sense. However, think in terms of reality. I'm 17 years old. Are you saying that if I was raped and got pregnant, it would be my responsibility to care for this unborn baby, which would likely cause me to drop out of school (90% of pregnant teens drop out of school) and could cause permanent physical and psychological damage? Although Stephanie says that the resources to take care of the baby are there and all I have to do is my parental obligations, in reality it's not that easy. I shouldn't have to give up my life and body because I was raped.
@@nicoleceriani7360 exactly and what kind of quality of life does an unwanted child have anyways
@Nicole I used to think about it the same way at age 17. - When you are 25 and with a guy for many years and he had a job, it is a different situation. - But as teen you have nothing to offer for a child and everything to lose.
I don't think children should have children. And in Belgium every pregnancy under the age of 20 is seen as high risk.
On the subject of rape, some people might need teratogenic medicines to cope with it mentally. Can't be pregnant and take that. Unless we want babies that grow up to become people that could never even tie shoelaces.
Nicole Ceriani THIS PERIOD. I cannot get on the pro life bandwagon because of this exact scenario. No young girl deserves to have their life taken away because of a pathetic rapist.
At 7:30 she accidentally makes a salient point about the financial responsibility thrust upon fathers. Really he shouldn't be held responsible unless he signed a contract agreeing to those terms.
This doesn't actually play into her argument as well as she thinks, because she is basically saying "if men can't opt out of parental obligations, women shouldn't be able to either."
7:57
yep. or at least she's saying "if women have this option, men should have a similar option". Men don't even have that option if their sperm got literally stolen or obtained by literal rape AND have then have to pay their rapist child support.
Exactly. If I were to have a conversation with her and she brought that up I would just say “Well I don’t agree that men _should_ have that responsibility”.
And the fact is men CAN and DO opt of of the moral obligation to help provide care for the child. They can sign it away legally (at least where I'm from they can). or they can simply ghost the mother.
@@chelseac8855 they can sign away their rights, they need the mother to sign away the responsibilities, and "ghosting" in this context is illegal. We are talking about legal obligations here. An equivalent argument to yours would be "even if abortions are banned, women can still get one, just don't get found out."
4:28 "this is a bad analogy, so let me make a worse analogy"
This analogy _absolutely destroys_ the argument by ignoring the reality that there is a step between the ball being hit and the window being broken, that being abortion between unsafe sex and having a baby.
For the sake of steel-manning the argument: let's say that abortion is dad reflexes that catch the ball. It must be done quickly and if not, the ball will hit the window. This does not say that unsafe sex is safe, because dad reflexes have a limit.
11:14 Again ignoring there is a step (9 months in this case) between the conception and the birth. You don't get raped and then instantly have the responsibility of a baby. Also assumes you do have the ability to care for it but whatever.
More importantly, it says that if you have the ability to do something, you just have to do it. I'd guess you'd say "well this isn't just anything, it is something morally right- caring for a child," but the moral right to care for a child does not happen until you have the child (or at least there is no moral justice action you can take with baby formula if there is no baby)
I guess these two disagreements just come from me not seeing a fetus as a person with the same rights as a born child, because obviously if a fetus does have these right obviously you don't have the right to murder someone, or at least I agree with the ideas behind all of your arguments. So then abortions would be illegal, unless there's medical complications- you wouldn't want both people to die so abort to _save a life_.
16:08 Oh no now this has gone off the deep end...
Again with if you have the ability to do something you must do it; if you have a uterus you must get pregnant. Well that's not exactly what she's saying but it kinda implies it. What she's saying is the fetus has the right to use the uterus to live because that is the uterus's purpose. I don't think it matters what the purpose of it is. We use tons of things not for the purpose they were "made for." Such as cutting down a tree; it was "made to" be a home or food for animals or turn CO2 into O2 not to be burned and to heat artificial homes which are made of other trees. Or with the body: tattoos- skin "made to" protect not be art, hair- "made to" warm not to cut. So we shouldn't appeal to "what is natural" in debate (I've heard it's a principle of debate), but since you already broke it, I will proceed to break that rule again. It is the human nature to go against the rule or what is supposed to happen, we take things and break them to work for us; it is ingenuity, capitalism, slavery, mathematics, chemistry, etc. So I think this train of thought is just missing the point.
A result-driven argument for pro-life: Abortion rids the world of an opportunity.
A result-driven argument for pro-choice: Abortion gives someone who is not prepared for a child (regardless of whether its right for you to not be prepared) the ability to not burden themself. A child that cannot be thoughtfully cared for is not likely to be the great change in the world. Childhood essentially defines a person. If a child is born as an accident that was forced to live, it will be born as a negative for the parents and thus a negative for the child in a negative-feedback loop.
I really have never understood how this is an issue, it's like homophobia and transphobia; this is a free country (assuming this is an argument about the USA (not saying no other country is free, "this is a free country" is just an American thing to say)) and it doesn't affect you. That argument doesn't really work for if you see abortion as murder though. A results-driven argument for that it is not murder: It doesn't have the effect of murder. There is not an immediate loss in the world. A fetus is doing nothing for the world. It not existing never makes the world a _worse_ place, but murder does.
>Anime pfp
>Loli
>Dogsh*t Opinion
Damn Bro, you're really checking all the boxes here. What's next? Your dad left you? Family issues maybe?
@@completeesoteric9010 the fact that an anime loli person made more and better arguments than you, should be alarming to you, smooth brain.
Yeah, your last argument works just as well for justifying infanticide. You're average 2 month old does pretty much nothing for the wider world, especially if the parents wishes he/she were dead. Try coming up with a better argument buckaroo!
Edit: Also, your critiques completely miss the point. The violinist argument and its variations are strong BECAUSE they accept a fetus IS A PERSON. If you disagree with that claim then you are making a different claim entirely (a claim that is dealt with plenty of other places, just not in this video).
I find the "basic care" and "extraordinary life-saving measures" arguments convoluted and over-specific. Here's what I think is a better answer:
When you abort a pregnancy, you are actively ending a child's life. In the case of the violinist, it's the disease that's ending his life. In one, an action kills the vulnerable, in another, inaction lets the vulnerable die. Action is not the same as inaction. We have responsibility for our actions (such as creating a child) but no one has the right to our action.
That's just not as strong an argument. I can imagine someone saying something like, "The violinist's body is unable to support itself, just like the unborn child's body is unable to support itself [until late pregnancy]." I'm strongly pro-life, but analogies like this one work because the subject IS so complex.
@@kambriamclean3146 I don't see how the support argument changes things. While both are vulnerable, what is done about the situation is different. For the violinist, something specific has to be done for him to live, for the child, something specific has to be done for it to die.
@@kambriamclean3146 the analogy doesn't work. It's what amounts to a stupid person's best attempt. It fails on several fundamental levels, not the least of which being that this random "violinist" is not supposed to be the other person's child, which constitutes a categorically unique relationship.
I agree.
Too many people don't want to draw a distinction between killing and failing to save.
I have a Communist friend, and every time I try to point out how many people Communism has killed, he'll retort that Capitalism has killed more. You might think he's trying to count victims of wars, airstrikes and whatnot, but no, he's saying that everyone who dies for lack of medical care was killed by the Capitalist system that expects to be paid for that care.
But of course that best back into all these arguments here. If failure to save is the same as murder, then anyone who doesn't risk their own life to help every stranger they come across who appears to be in the slightest peril, is now a murderer. Just based on whether that person happens to die or not.
See a person broken down on the side of the freeway, but didn't stop? Guess what they got hit by a drunk driver 15 minutes later, you're now a murderer... IT's a pretty insane standard.
Simply not true. The only reason the baby is killed before hand simply to make the removal "easier". If you did a c-section to vremove the baby, without additional care it would die.
OMG an intelligent argument. I might disagree, but it was such a breath of fresh air to hear intelligent conversation instead of slogans. Great arguments. Well thought it philosophy. Congratulations.
I was thinking the same thing. I happy it pop up on my home page now😁
Same, was about to click off but I'm glad I listened.
it was intelligent until she reached the rape part. she compared rape to waking up in an unfamiliar place as a direct analogy with the intention of downplaying it. she then compared carrying a baby to term to feeding a baby a bottle. pregnancy is extremely painful and is occasionally fatal. then she claims that parents have an inherent responsibility to children they did nothing tk create. which equates to "because their DNA is based off yours, you must care for it" you could reapply that to a clone
overall they did a great job at first on why consenting sex leading to pregnancy should be the responsibility of the parents but her attempt to bring rape into it was not just disgusting, but dishonest and did a lot of downplaying
@@logosking2848 to say pregnancy is “occasionally fatal” is like saying driving a car is “occasionally fatal” yeah okay some people die sorry you don’t get an excuse to kill baby’s :)
@@logosking2848 I don't disagree with you.
There were a lot of holes in her arguments - even more than the ones that you brought up.
There is also a disingenuous way she approaches her opinion. She has already decided how she feels, and only wants to arrive at a single conclusion regardless of any argument. That is clear.
However, I think we should acknowledge that she attempts her best to find her best arguments she can to support her point. She doesn't run away from really strong arguments others might bring and instead tries to confront those arguments as best as she can. She doesn't demonize the other side of the argument.
I think this is a breath of fresh air in a difficult subject.
I wish she wouldn’t have avoided the argument about potentially having no moral grounds for applying rights guaranteed to that which has reached potential.
Could you break that argument down for me?
@@Va11idus OP is saying that whilst born humans (humans who have "reached potential") have rights ascribed to them by other humans (such as the right to life), why should such rights also be ascribed to unborn humans (those who have not, in OP's view, reached potential)?
Have infants "reached potential"?
@@Agamemnonoverhead , it's an excellent question, the kind that also leads to important arguments for/against the euthanisation of adults with conditions such as locked-in syndrome.
I think the question of whether abortion is ethical really boils down to these two things:
(1) How strongly do you value personal autonomy, both in the sense of: (a) bodily autonomy; and (b) the autonomy of being able to accept/reject responsibility for a child?
(2) How strongly do you value the life of an unborn child, both from the standpoint of: (a) whether they should be born at all; and (b) from the standpoint of whether the parents can give them a worthwhile life after birth?
Personally, I know I value (1) and (2b) much more than (2a), which is why I am pro-choice.
@@JivanPal yeah, I think that's a pretty poor argument given that you could feasibly use it to justify euthanasia for children, or really anyone.
Brilliant - just BRILLIANT - particularly from about 13:50 onwards! Thank you both. (Advice to potential veiwers "Watch it ALL".... so many great perspectives!)
Kells and moomoo windmills and shay mccay dark wood cabinets while there's oil and grease on the chemistry lab tables while there's lots some complaints from classmates about that in the new room you go in and sit down one day.
Next, Andover trip in 2 days but then when you're on the bus and you hear the noise while going fast, it reminds you of compounds of the oil and orangish red grease High school chemistry lab where there's a bit of oil and grease on the tables
andover trip in 2 days weather looks in the clear the plan will be brought out
thinking about compounds lately
I think the biggest thing about this is that the Pro Choice argument isn't necessarily about what's moral or immoral, but about whether the government should be allowed to punish someone over the decision. Since this is about autonomy and the right to someone's body, it's a grey area. Ultimately, the decision is to be left to the mother/would-be mother over what the right choice is - with obviously some exceptions, since the law still needs to draw a line somewhere - because she's the one the decision affects the most. The Pro Life approach essentially grants the government the authority to force the decision, whereas the Pro Choice approach isn't forcing anything.
The stem of most of the arguments seem to come from some god-given responsibility to a child. In order for that argument to have merit, you must first provide evidence that not only does a god exist, but that this god has handed out these responsibilities, and that we also have some sort of obligation to respect such a god. The purpose of a specific organ is irrelevant - it's still a part of *your* body, and the concept of an organ's "purpose" is shaky at best. If we're simply talking about its function, then as I said, it's irrelevant. If we're referring to a "higher purpose" - as in "divinely ordained" - again, we're getting into religious territory and claims of the supernatural, which is going to complicate the point a whole lot more. Not only are those arguments unconvincing to someone who isn't convinced there is a god at all, they're unconvincing even to people who believe in a god - even the same god as the interlocutor believes in - who say that's not what he says at all.
Frankly, my respect for the arguments tanked when we got to the "god spoke to me" bit. It implies that we're shifting the issue onto some being that may or may not exist, and that we're expected to take it for truth and not think about it further. "God did it/god says so" is not only not a convincing argument, it actually complicates issues far more than they already are, and it implies that we're no longer willing to think logically about a problem.
Under normal circumstances, the right to live is over any autonomy or right of other individual. That is why the law should force it and not allow it to be depending on anyone's personal criteria.
@ no, that's not true. That's why you can't be forced to donate organs.
@ I mean, even this lady disagreed with that sentiment when she brought up the violinist analogy. She agreed to the idea of one's autonomy being preserved even if they're the only one who can save a stranger's life. That's not exactly normal circumstances, but one could also argue that neither is pregnancy, in this context - especially if said pregnancy is a result of rape. It's not as simple as one human life over another if the one of the "humans" hasn't even developed a recognizable brain yet.
That also opens up another can of worms with capital punishment and, sort of the reverse of that, euthanasia. Those are two more issues with a conflict of interest between autonomy and life.
In many cases, the person in question can also say whether they want to live or not, but that's not the case with a developing fetus. Forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy affects both her life, at the very least for nine months, as well as the life of a future human. If she has no means to support a child, that child's quality of life may suffer greatly, depending on the situation.
Is it irresponsible for a woman to get pregnant when she doesn't have the ability to support a child? Perhaps, but she isn't the only one who will suffer for that if she's forced to birth the child.
The first part of your argument is if someone should be punished for aborting a child, well let’s say the child wasn’t in the whom and was 1 year old, is it the parents fault if they leave the baby to starve to death? Yes it is, also abortion isn’t just not letting someone use your body, it’s not letting someone use your body by killing them, and a baby in the whom doesn’t chose to use your body, it’s just natural so it’s not like the fetus is being selfish and doing what is best for themselves. All I’ve just said can be believed by a non religious person as well
@@Isaac8_13 A 1 year old is not attached to someone’s body feeding off their nutrients like a parasite.
My own mother was bed ridden for 6 months bc she went into labor after the 1st month. I absolutely negativity affected those 8 months of her life (I was also a month early). If my mom was a teenager who needed to work to support herself and financially couldn’t allow herself to be bed ridden for that long then I would’ve wanted her to abort me.
It doesn’t matter that a fetus doesn’t choose their host. That makes so sense as an argument. Fetuses also don’t choose to have life threatening defects lmao. Those are “natural” too lol an appeal to nature is ridiculous bc everything humans do is against nature.
I taught applied ethics at the undergraduate level for a number of years. We had a section on abortion, and the article being discussed here was one of the ones we looked at. This was a good discussion.
The aspect that we ended up talking about often in my classes, and it comes up here, is the uniqueness of pregnancy and birth vs other medical situations that have been used in reason-by-analogy type arguments. Being attached via man-made medical equipment to a violinist as part of a medical intervention is a highly unusual state of affairs in the real world. Children needing kidneys is unfortunately more common but still relatively rare, as is the intervention of donating kidneys to such children. But pregnancy and birth are ubiquitous. Every human alive is so because of pregnancy and birth. The organs of pregnancy have that as essentially their only function. Uninterrupted, the process of being pregnant usually results in continued pregnancy and birth. This uniqueness is morally relevant, and prevents the intuitions we might have from stories about violinists or kidneys from transferring simply to pregnancy.
This is so under rated in the comments for this video.
When I was a pre-med in undergrad, I took this bio-medical ethics class taught by faculty from philosophy department, I think we spent several lectures on this abortion issue, the professor laid out lots of analogy and ideas by both side, and I only remember some of them. I remember she told me majority of philosophers agree that pro choice is the logical conclusion. Now I need to see if I can still find some of those lecture notes haha
I think the weakness of the argument that birth should happen because it's natural for it to happen (Something everyone is related to in some way) is that if you try to logically extrapolate that to other situations you might arrive at poor conclusions. Death is also a natural phenomenon that everyone experiences. Also couldn't one use the natural phenomenon argument to argue that everyone should be morally obligated to have children once the reach the natural age. The argument that organs should be allowed to do what they were made to do is a scary argument to extend. I think the consent argument is a very strong one, but the arguments used in the case of rape are much weaker.
@@ZIbroweed The argument isn't that birth should happen because it's natural for it to happen. This isn't a 'natural = good or normative' argument.
My post was about something quite specific: the usefulness of analogies in the abortion discussion. Specifically, I'm arguing that many of these commonly used analogies are actually dis-analogous in several significant and relevant ways. If that's correct, then their usefulness is highly limited.
My observation that, "uninterrupted, the process of being pregnant usually results in continued pregnancy and birth," is pointing out one of those fundamental dis-analogies between things like being hooked up to violinists or donating kidneys on the one hand and pregnancy on the other.
The former two are medical interventions intended to prevent what would naturally happen. The latter is not a medical intervention at all. Rather it is the standard or natural operation of those bodily organs once fertilization has occurred.
Given that I'm not opposed to kidney replacements, or other medical interventions, my point isn't that pregnancy is good because it's natural and unnatural things are bad. The argument isn't that organs should be allowed to do what they were made to do.
Rather, the argument is that because of the difference in being intervention vs not intervention, as well as other differences that I mentioned, scenarios likes being hooked up to a violinist or donating a kidney don't seem to be sufficiently analogous to pregnancy to be useful in reason-by-analogy arguments about abortion.
If I'm right, that at most merely takes such arguments off the table. It does not constitute a positive argument for either a pro-life or pro-choice position.
@@ZIbroweed It can be important and useful to remember the context of the analogy.
Thompson grants for the sake of argument that the fetus is a living human being. The violinist analogy is intended to show, by eliciting a moral intuition about that scenario and transferring it to the supposedly analogous scenario of pregnancy, that even if the fetus is a living human being a person is not obligated to refrain from ending that human being's life.
My claim is that such a scenario is not sufficiently analogous to pregnancy for the moral intuition about the violinist scenario to rightfully transfer to pregnancy.
If I'm right, that doesn't mean abortion is morally wrong. It simply means that, with the assumption that the fetus is a human life, Thompson's violinist argument does not demonstrate that abortion is morally right.
Showing that an argument fails doesn't show the argument's conclusion is false, or that its opposite is true.
WOW! SHE IS A MASTER! I love her!
The very fact that they use precautions (birth control), shows that they are aware that the act bears a risk of pregnancy. They know it's a risk. They prepare against it. They take the risk anyways. Then get pregnant and claim that they have no responsibility towards the child that was placed in their womb.
No, and especially not if they were using condoms/birth control/whatever to stop an unwanted pregnancy.
If I go drive somewhere, and crash, does that mean I consented to the crash? No. If I used a seatbelt and turning signals and my mirrors, I acknowledged the risk of crashing and I took measures to prevent it, did I consent to it? No, I still didn’t consent to it.
If a skydiver’s parachute fails, and they knew it was possible that it might, do they consent to dying? Should they be forced to die from that fall because they knew their parachute might not deploy? No, they don’t. And the exact same goes for your comment.
@@oooshner4277 If you have sex, even if you try to prevent pregnancy, you don't get to kill the child you made. You made a child. You knew that might happen. I know you knew because you even tried to prevent the pregnancy. You knew what could happen and it happened. You can't avoid responsibility for your actions by killing your child. It would be more like someone saying that they can't be held responsible for spreading HIV because they used a condom. You are still responsible. You knew you had HIV and we know you knew because you had sex with a condom for the purpose of not giving it to your partner, you didn't tell them you were HIV positive and now you've caused harm to another and are responsible.
This
I found out I was pregnant after having left my daughter’s dad. I chose to have her and gave him the choice to be a dad or not. If he didn’t want to be a dad, he would owe me nothing and he would have no contact with the kid. If he wanted to be a dad, then I would make ample opportunities for him to have time with it and I would expect him to help with the expense of raising it.
What did he choose?
Your child would most likely seek him when they grow... so it's best to have their dad in their life now
My Name is My Name
He was in her life when she was younger. She decided on her own that she didn’t want him around when she was grown.
lil sam He chose to be a dad.
@@mynameismyname7795 but if he dont wanna be a dad
Y'know, I prefer the modified version of "The Violinist"
The big change is that, instead of being kidnapped, its assumed you were in a car accident that involved the violinist.
You are not assumed to be at fault, however, the accident wouldn't have occured if you hadn't been driving....And if you choose to disconnect yourself.. Well..This major celebrity violinist dies and you're the reason.
To go further, I find a lot of these arguments generally unconvincing.
Extrapolating to homeless children is weak.
I believe that we should create a society where children don't go starving and homeless.
IF you don't and you advocate against that, you literally are to blame.
This is a difference entirely from the question of whether or not the parent has a responsibility to care for their child.
so in this case, the violinist would also have equal responsibility if not greater responsibility(say they caused the accident) for the state they are in because they were also driving. The baby did not choose to be born.
it it's not like that violinist argument. I would say that it's more like driving in a car. Let's say you're doing 80 down the highway and your car. You own the car you paid it off you pay the insurance if you are car. You're doing 80 miles down the highway and you've got a passenger in the seat because you let them in and you're giving them a ride. And then suddenly you decide that you don't want them in your car anymore. Are you allowed to shove them out of your car right there on the highway doing 80 miles an hour? Well obviously not. That's illegal that's a salt that's murder or attempted murder. Yes of course you're allowed to have them out of your car or body. At the earliest safe convenience. You can't kick them out of your car doing 80 miles down the highway. You made the choice to let them in now you have to wait until there's a safe place to pull over and let them out. And it's the same thing with an abortion. You made the choice to get pregnant. You chose to have sex without protection and without taking pills or any kind of pregnancy blockers. That was your choice. You weren't raped because no provocation is has ever been raped and gotten pregnant as a result and I challenge you to find any evidence to the contrary. You made the choice to get pregnant. Now you have to wait till the safest earliest convenience to get the baby out. Which is typically about nine months. If you don't like it then they have plenty of options that have been available since the beginning of time to avoid getting pregnant. Your choice not to make use of those options is no one's fault but your own
@@FarikoTrigger I think you misread, the Violinist is not driving in this "modified violin example"
@@yamanosu9463 I think that what they were trying to say is that in this scenario it is stated that the accident was not your fault, meaning that the violinist would have at least some responsibility for causing that accident (even if it was because they chose to be wherever they were when the accudent occured) but the unborn child has absolutely no responsibility for being conceived. So i would say that the normal violinist argument holds up better than this modified one because it shows neither party bares fault instead of both or even the fault of the violinist.
@@yamanosu9463 it's really then a question of who bares fault in the accident if both you and the violinist do not
I watched the whole video, even though it made me very comfortable (no one is pro-abortion). It was good to see a real debate/explanation of the pro-life view without hearing name calling or other such language.
It seems like some people think pregnancy or carrying a baby is just that. Like you just carry the baby in your uterus instead of a stroller. Pregnancy is very hard on a person's body and has many-many risks. High blood pressure, loss of calcium deposits, diabetes, pre-eclampsia, etc.
I was raped while in middle school and thankfully I did not get pregnant. I would have been too young to be pregnant. Plus the stigma of being pregnant as an 8th grader. Having to explain I was raped would have been excruciatingly difficult and I would have been shamed for "letting it happen."
Not all abortions are for females who don't want to be pregnant. Some people have had to make a decision for the betterment of their own health.
Im sorry to hear that. I agree that really would have sucked also if you were pregnant in 8th grade.
I do want to add though, the that rate in which women get abortions induced by rape is very low; fewer than 1% in multiple sources. Of those women, 85% do choose to keep the child. I thought this was really interesting and fascinating really.
I think in the case of rape it’s even more difficult. On one hand, you are forced to deal with something that you had no choice in. On the other hand, why do we kill someone based on the manner in which they were conceived, when this person also had no choice in this matter, and is still innocent?
It gets tricky, and abortion is something that both sides will have to come to some sort of compromise on. I’m pro life but I do hear the other sides’ arguments.
I won’t try to change your mind just as you probably couldn’t change mine but, again I empathize with you for what you had to experience. I think we should first discuss the death penalty for the rapist.
@Bullet Anarchy Right not 100, but 85% of them do choose to keep the child, so why assume that every woman who was impregnated by a rapist wants to murder their children when they did nothing wrong? My aunt actually was raped 3 times when she was around 16 and didn’t kill her children because they were innocent. Over 20 years later she does not regret her decision and I was talking to her the other day and she gets very frustrated when people use her as a “pawn” in her words, aka stop bringing her into the argument in order to justify the slaughter of millions of babies
@@N0VEMBYR no one is arguing abortion should be mandatory for rape victims. it comes down to choice. she had one, to keep the children. Others should also have the right to decide.
@@freakymeff My point was that people talk so much about “but what if I was raped” as if it justifies killing the child out of nothing more than convenience so they can continue to make impulsive decisions while erasing the responsibility and consequences that come with it.
Rape victims should have the choice, women who conceived the child incestuously should have the choice, and the health of the mother and baby should also be prioritized.
But if you really believe it’s an innocent little baby, it doesn’t matter if it was rape or incest
This was a very interesting and different discussion. Stephanie really impressed me. She is a very wise woman. I have liked and subscribed.
@@freedommatters7677 it was an analogy to highlight the underlying point: actions have consequences
@7:45 to be honest, as a pro-choice person, I feel like in that example, I wouldn’t be on the side of the woman. If you choose to have a baby without either the consent of the father or without the fathers knowledge, you have no right to demand child support from him, just as if you have sex with a man and end up pregnant, you don’t ‘owe’ him anything (I.e. you don’t owe him parenthood.)
Im with u. Im pro choice, and i also belief that if I have a child and the father doesnt wan it im not going to making him or aks from him nothing. He should be able to mancipate from the situation. Im going to search if by proclaim the baby and giving their last name is when they have a legal responsability.
The only reason a parent is required to provide for their child is if they consented to either create the child or to be its guardian. A rape victim has consented to neither.
As to the argument that the uterus' primary function is to support an embryo/fetus, while a kidney's is only for the mother; that doesn't justify the state overriding a persons exercise of their bodily autonomy to remove the product of a rape from their body. That a uterus' primary function is to contain an embryo doesn't mean that it's primary function is to contain that specific rapist's embryo. Vaginal rape isn't justified by the fact that one of the vagina's primary functions is to have a penis inserted in it; its primary function is not to have that specific rapist's penis in it. The primary function of a digestive system is to have food in it, but if someone illegally force-feeds you some food, you have the right to remove it. It would be absurd to say that if someone forces food into your ear, it's fine to remove it, because ears are not configured to accept food; yet it should be illegal to remove food forced into your digestive system, since they are configured to accept food.
If one is raped, any object or person that is using their body as a result of that rape is doing so by no fault of theirs, without their consent, and without their consenting guardianship. Stronger versions of the violinist argument remain valid in the case of rape.
Phylogeny, those are fair points. I only have a couple comments: 1- the baby isn’t the rapist. He/she did nothing to deserve the death sentence. And abortion doesn’t help the woman address the trauma of the rape. It simply adds a trauma to her history. 2- you’re arguing that less than one percent of the cases should determine the policy for the other 99 percent. You can’t argue a policy for the usual cases by citing the extreme case.
What percentage of abortions are due to rape? Go look up that statistic.
@@jasonrodgers880 Sorry for the late replay, but I was only just notified of Fitz's replay, then I noticed earlier ones.
"the baby isn’t the rapist. He/she did nothing to deserve the death sentence. "
Correct. The baby doesn't deserve to die and the mother doesn't deserve to be forced to have a child (let alone the child of a rapist). Once the rape has occurred, no matter what is or is not done afterwards, the rapist has ensured that not everyone will get what they deserve. However, this doesn't justify forcing a non-consenting person to allow others the use their body, even if this results in their death. Courts have ruled, for example, that one cannot be forced to donate an organ to a terminally ill family member, even if that family member will die if they refuse.
"And abortion doesn’t help the woman address the trauma of the rape."
Nor is it intended to.
"It simply adds a trauma to her history."
An abortion does not simply add trauma to a rape victim that chooses it; it also 1) prevents them from having a child (and as a result, from either raising a child or having to know that there exists one in the world that they are not caring for); and 2) maintains their right to bodily autonomy.
"you’re arguing that less than one percent of the cases should determine the policy for the other 99 percent. You can’t argue a policy for the usual cases by citing the extreme case. "
I'm doing no such thing; I was responding to the portion of the video that both claims that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape, and that presents and addresses a variation of the argument by professor Sneden. I only addressed the case of rape because that's the potion of the video I was responding to. Yes, rape is only a factor in a very small percent of abortion cases. For pro-choice advocates to appeal to rape to justify the legality of most abortions is just as much an invalid red herring as when pro-life advocates appeal to third trimester abortions (and even to some extent second trimester abortions, as they represent less than 10%) to justify the illegality of most abortions.
@Big KY I don't believe that third trimester abortions are justified in non-rape circumstances. See my recent response to Jason Rodgers for more information.
@@fitz3540 I'm already aware that rape is a factor in
Her argument supports the birth of the child, but if only birth is all that we needed as humans!
Birth is just the beginning of a very long commitment that needs to be taken into consideration, instead of pointing at the tip of the iceberg as if it is all there is!
I would think that she argued that parents have the responsibility to take care of the kids that they have made, specifically in the case that they choose actions that resulted in that life.
I'd like to point out that I consider abortion to be a competing rights issue, and your answer depends on how much value you put on a woman's control of her body vs whatever is in her uterus to exist in a specific situation.
@@jbc175 I think it is more than about their physical body only; more like it is a question of whether or not you feel ready for, or even want to be a part of the this HUGE commitment? For if she is a neglectful mother to her unwanted child, you and I will will be the ones suggesting that she be locked up!
Also consider the mechanism of action of a condom that literally physically separates the sperm cells from meeting the egg, and thus killing them, is that Wrong?
Is it one's moral duty to give birth to every possible child they can, to ensure that no gamete cell is "wasted" or "killed"? That would be ludicrous! What I am saying is, it may be the case that we should make a distinction between an early termination and a late one, since the later it is, the more child-like, does this being in the uterus become, and the child support/care/duty argument starts to make more sense...
@@jawwad4020 the baby is alive, or she is not. Murdering her is either murder, or it is not.....how would you feel if someone arbitrarily decided that you were worth nothing until you passed through a certain door, then went ahead and killed you before you could make it out the door?......this is what is actually happening, 96% of all biologists, and about the same of the earths population probably, know that life begins at conception and at no other time( no ambiguity here!).......And it is mainly socialists and atheists who feel that certain people are not people and that human life does not have an intrinsic value coming from a creator. In this case, of course, people may be treated as cattle, since they are worth nothing.
adoption
@@d.e303-anewlowcosthomebuil7 I'm afraid that the starving kids from the other side of the world will have to disagree... People are cruel and will make you into a child laborer and pay sh*+ for salary, that is even with your parents alive! There are a few angels out there, but few and far in between... Not nearly enough to support all the unborn/potential children brought to life, to live a life that is more meaningful than just surviving...
It's like saying organ donation is the solution to all liver failures- but which unfortunately is not scalable...
Here’s what really, really bothers me about this argument of hers: she says the woman, whether she wants to be a mother or not, in every conceivable situation, is morally obligated and should even be legally obligated to carry out a pregnancy no matter what the consequences to her are, because it’s inside her uterus which is an organ biologically made for reproduction, and it’s her child. But when the man asks her, “What if it turns out that adult she’s hooked up to is her child that she gave away at birth? Is she morally obligated to remain hooked up to them or give them her organs or blood?” And her response is essentially “Oh no that’s *different.*” She dismantled her own logic to prove its not about the life of the child outside the womb that pro-lifers are primarily concerned with, but the act of pregnancy and the grand “what if’s” surrounding the unborn. And all tied to religious belief, which is something meant to be personal and not enforced upon an entire population.
Let’s be honest here, the vast majority of people having abortions aren’t individuals practicing safe sex. And to devalue the life of a child because you made a mistake is insane. Let’s be clear Hitler thrived out of the ideology that some humans are lesser just like the US did with slavery. When you devalue a human life in the womb you get closer and closer to playing God. Also her response made since. Once the child is outside the womb then it can make its choices as it progresses through life. The scary part of abortions is not even the murdering of children it’s the fact that parts of society are so willing to devalue life because they made a mistake.
@@Detailabyss it's not devaluing life, it's saving women's lives, abortions are medical care.
Birth scares happen even when practicing safe sex, for a number of reasons, from a broken condom to failing birth control, and in those situations, if you feel like you are not able to take care of that child in your current living and financial situation, or you feel like you don't have the temperament for it, not having the child is a totally valid choice to not make a future child's life hell.
But I guess you don't care what happens to the baby after it's born, do you?
@@LoreCatan key word “feels like”. So to that logic I feel like not worrying about the baby after it’s born, what’s wrong with that ? Id argue that’s not a very good solution huh. So instead of pretending abortion solves all your life’s problems let’s talk about things that help deal with pregnancy. Adoption , Pregnancy crisis centers, therapy , trusted loved ones, guardianship, parenting. Sadly this isn’t enough for women, and you want to pin it on the people that are trying to help. Who really is the one that doesn’t care what happens to the baby ?
@@Irohhj "let’s talk about things that help deal with pregnancy. Adoption , Pregnancy crisis centers, therapy , trusted loved ones, guardianship, parenting", none of which talk about the effects of pregnancy on the women's bodies, their hormones, their mental health, etc. After my mom had her third child, she developed tinnitus and it drove her crazy for a while. She still has it, and it was very hard for her to learn to live with it, because her ultimate paradise fantasy has always been a quiet, calm beach.
But "sadly", all of these options that do nothing for the mother's health aren't "enough for women" and we just "want to pin it on the people that are trying to help", the tragedy, right? [when has that happened ever, I'd genuinely like to know when have women put the blame on people who are trying to help? What does that even mean]
"Who really is the one that doesn’t care what happens to the baby?"
I'm sorry I dare to care about the mother's life more than that of a fetus, but that doesn't mean I don't care about the consequences of pregnancy, and bad parenting/awful foster care.
"key word “feels like”. So to that logic I feel like not worrying about the baby after it’s born, what’s wrong with that?"
What's wrong with that is that you call yourself pro-life, when that couldn't be further from the truth. You don't care about the baby, you just care about the morality of it not being born.
Quality of life should always be above life itself.
She doesn’t dismantle her argument because the adult would not be in her uterus. Also this violinist scenario completely discards 99%+ of abortion cases, where the sex was consensual and reproduction is a known consequence of sex.
12:09 That argument hinges on the premise that you can't escape the situation. So in this scenario, I read the kidnapping as the SA, the cabin in the woods as pregnancy, and the baby as... well... the baby. The kidnapping itself is traumatic and violent. Being trapped in this cabin, with this baby, is also a separate but related trauma.
The physical and mental toll of being locked in a cabin alone for 9 months will likely cause all sorts of psychological damage to you. Also, at the end of the 9 month stretch, you will have a melon forcefully inserted into an orifice in your body, and before you leave you will be forced to push it back out. This could take an hour, or 24 hours, will be incredibly painful and might even kill you. You know this will happen and there is little you can do to prevent it.
Say then, you have an opportunity to escape the cabin. It will be physically painful and emotionally turbulent, but less so than staying in the cabin. Unfortunately, the baby will not survive your escape plan. Do you escape? Or do you simply accept that you're stuck in that cabin for 9 months, reliving the trauma of your kidnapping, becoming more physically and emotionally exhausted, while carrying the emotional weight of caring for the baby?
Another point I wish to make is a counter argument against the idea that parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring. Now, we are already making an assumption that this premise is true and accurate, so we're already on shaky ground. However since I agree with this premise in most circumstances, let's run with it. Is there ever a scenario where abortion could be the best thing for the child? I would argue, yes.
In cases where the child would be born into an abusive home with a mother/father who resents it, and will make it's life a living hell? Or in the case where the child will be given to the care system, to be constantly moved from home to home (which can be disastrous for a child's emotional wellbeing and ability to form attachments later in life) or potentially abused by care workers and other children in the system?
Or how about in the case of severe disability? Now, before you come after me on this point, I will mention that I have a disability that requires me to use a wheelchair, so I have a personal stake in this discussion. My disability is stable now, but when I was a child I suffered a lot of pain and trauma. had my disability been worse, I would have suffered even MORE pain and likely died very young. Would a short life full of pain really be better than no life at all? I say, no.
You may say, "but recovery from all those things is possible! YOU recovered, after all, surely others could too with therapy?" Not everyone recovers. Some become dependent on alcohol or drugs and their addictions can kill them. Some take their own life. Many people will travel to Switzerland, where euthanasia is legal. When we are adults, we have the autonomy to make that choice for ourselves. Children, babies and foetuses don't have that autonomy, it's up to their caregivers, and when the caregiver values the sanctity of life over the quality of life, they could end up inflicting emotional and physical trauma on a being who did not ask for it, for life.
What about we add a further spin onto that whole situation. Let's say that being trapped in the cabin with the child reflects a pregnancy like you had suggested. Would it be immoral to escape if caring for the child meant a sacrifice to the health of the kidnapped person, or in this case the mother?
Not only is SA and a resulting pregnancy incredibly traumatic in many facets, but if the pregnancy was causing serious health risks to the mother and adding further trauma, would she still be obligated to carry to term? If abortions were to be entirely illegal, what would that mean for the women who physically cannot carry a child for the sake of their own bodily functions, like an ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo had implanted outside of the uterus.
It is a life-threatening type of pregnancy, needing critical medical care and could very well lead to the mother's death before she makes it to term in the first place. This is an extreme example of when an abortion may be the only option, regardless of how conception occurred, but the issue of some women being unable to carry out a full pregnancy should be a major thing considered. It is not all that much different to the child being born into dangerous circumstances, only that the child is the cause of the dangerous circumstances.
Does the woman accept that she will die in the next 9 months because she is experiencing a dangerous pregnancy, or does she make the incredibly difficult decision to better the circumstance and potentially save her life? It should also be mentioned that some medical conditions or disabilities, though the individual can become pregnant, cause this to be just as dangerous. Even if there is no external way to recognize that the woman has a condition. Also, the decision to have an abortion isn't an easy one either, as it can come with not only guilt and trauma, but the mother can also develop post-partum depression from the loss. That in itself is also a dangerous thing in some cases.
Should she then be required to risk her life to bear a child that may very well kill her? Or should she legally be able to overcome the circumstance safely through medical intervention, even if it means that the child in that cabin will die instead of her, but the kidnapped person was safe and alive?
@@yukukoyamada4824 excellent point.
You're ignoring the part where you can just have surgery to remove the "melon" easily, and that you will be provided with incredibly powerful painkillers if you wish to pass the melon naturally, and the chances of complications and death from this melon are *extremely* low, so much so that if something happens that indicates the process will be fatal to you, it will be immediately stopped and circumvented for your protection.
And the answer is: you are *absolutely* an awful person, and nobody in culture as a whole would disagree with this, if you let a baby starve to death all alone in a cabin because you value yourself over the baby. Literally nobody will support you if you had the opportunity to care for and protect a baby and decided instead to let it die.
This also is inaccurate, because to *truly* be accurate, you don't get to just 'escape' the cabin and leave the baby to die. No. To escape you must first murder that baby in your care. You can tear it into pieces with the metal implements in the cabin, or you can poison it with some drugs and kill it via overdose. Either one will work and cause the door to open, but it will not open so long as the baby is alive until nine months pass. So you will not just be choosing your own well-being over that of a baby, you're also actively murdering the baby first.
And as to your follow-up, literally none of your examples actually work for "would abortion be best" because if they were true that would mean that in every listed case such as "the parents are abusive, the child does not have a permanent home, the child has been abused by someone other than the parents, and the child has a disability sufficient to be considered 'severe' by someone" the correct answer to this would be to have someone murder those children, and that anyone who murdered a child suffering from any of those examples - including abuse - would be *morally correct* in doing so.
@@Thedarkbunnyrabbit I doubt many women who have had a C section would describe it as easy or painless, although this seems to be a popular misconception. Also, the drugs offered to women during labour are not as effective or advanced as you think they are. I notice that you use very emotive language when describing any harm or pain done to the baby, and yet you seem almost dismissive of the pain of women when undergoing childbirth.
Although I disagree with your argument, you do bring something important to my attention-that this scenario hinges on the assumption that when a woman is pregnant, her foetus should be given the same rights as a fully formed baby, who is capable of surviving outside the womb. A foetus, as we know, is not a fully formed human, and is not capable of surviving outside the womb. So whilst we can all agree that it would be monstrous to drown, poison or otherwise murder a baby, doing so to a foetus is a totally different thing, morally speaking. We do not know whether a foetus is capable of feeling pain or fear (in all likelihood, no) whilst a newborn baby most definitely is. Instead of imagining the torturous things in your argument being done to a human baby, imagine instead those are being done to a cactus. Does that seem as barbaric?
And to respond to your last point, you seem to have missed the point I was trying to make. Abortion can sometimes be the most responsible thing for the mother to do, both for herself AND her foetus. Many philosophers would argue that the point of morality is to minimise human suffering. And in certain circumstances where suffering og an extreme calibre is all but guaranteed, sometimes the best way to minimise human suffering is to prevent the human from existing in the first place.
"there's no heroic virtue required to support the child". I'm glad some feel this way but as a father of a 3 and 4 year old who has every financial and class advantage, having kids feels like life on hard mode. And I love my kids to death. Even the thought of sharing a cabin with a new born is depressing.
May God have mercy on any child born to parents who are not ready.
They rise to the occasion or show how bad of a human being they are. That's it. Once you have kids you do everything for them.
@@ItalianCJ13 that's why they are trying to get an abortion. Because they don't want kids.
@@ItalianCJ13 So if they're bad human beings, pro-life people required a child to be born to a life of suffering under bad human beings
@@ItalianCJ13 lol sorry friend, my life did not end when my childrens began.
If parents are not ready, practically every state has laws that allow you to give up your child voluntarily.
I'm going to be honest. I'm a left-leaning moderate and very pro-choice for numerous reasons beyond the scope of this video. Honestly, I was expecting far less from this video. The argumentation and commentary from Matt Fradd was top notch. He asked great questions and stimulated the arguments for pro-life viewpoints. Excellent work overall. Hoping to see more of this quality content in my feed from now on.
Edit: I am disappointed to say that Pints with Aquinas has not delivered on what I hoped they would. The vast majority of their content doesn't include any critical or rigorous inquiry, especially, none as strong as thing one. If anyone else knows if content that is as intellectually strong as this video that fairly represents right-leaning views, I would love to see it.
Wow, what a refreshing and almost alien concept you bring to the discussion: Fair-mindedness, openness, introspection and common-sense. A rare commodity, my friend. And, by the way, I'm a veritable metronome on this subject, swinging to-and-fro depending on context but I'm willing to learn, as you are willing to learn. Somewhere amidst this tangle there is a root and an answer, only reflection and cooperation will lead us to it.
How can you be far-left leaning and a moderate?
@@barleywaterfederal I just realized I meant to remove "far"
@@barleywaterfederal Actually, Buck didn't say: "I'm a FAR-LEFT leaning (and a) moderate", Buck said: "I'm a left-leaning moderate..." The concept of a person who is just left of moderate (the middle) is not such a complex issue, really, as I can justifiably refer to myself as a reverse image of Bucks position because I am just to the right of the middle (moderate) position, not the same but not that awfully far from Thatcher's position, not so far that we can't discuss things rationally. I hope I expressed that in a way that lent itself to your understanding because, well, words matter as does meaning.
@@waynemyers2469 read up they edited their answer after my post
Brilliant! So glad I found this channel.
@bulletanarchy6447 Because he's not as pitiful as you, probably. Maybe get a life instead of being an attwhore for every comment you dislike