Roe was just a poorly considered decision. And all this does is kick abortion back to the states. Bring a constitutional case back the the supreme court, or legislate a constitutional amendment. Anything short of that is not sufficient.
@@eyesofascension8678 As a subjective aside, once you've seen what an abortion procedure looks like and entails, it's difficult to be for it, let alone flippant about it. Same with slaughterhouses, factory farming, gender reassignment surgery. The gruesome details are hidden away because it's impossible to support otherwise.
According to Reddit you need to travel all the way to Canada or Mexico in order to even have a chance to get an abortion and if US presidential elections were decided only by popular vote this would never have happened. The true intellectuals of the internet
It's definitely not enough but it's a huge step in the right direction. Pregnancy was being treated as a medical condition which gives a woman the right to choose. Changing that is only the beginning. It makes it possible again to make a legal argument against it. Not to mention it should drastically reduce the numbers of infanticide.
I find Cenk's rant charismatic and very Murican lol However the "hypocrisies", well, it's just true that the stereotypical tribal "left and right" both pick their auth vs. lib, freedom vs. responsibility values more or less at random, and tend to include combinations of both in their ideologies; however they often lack awareness of this, so one day it's "we want to flow free and you're the jackboots", and then on another issue they're "we're for responsible behavior while you wayward children hippies are gonna cause a mess", and they lack the self-awareness lolol The "left/libs" effectively took the conservativist position on Covid, chastising the "right" for being too liberal, but how many dare phrase it like this? Syncretists, centrists etc., sure, all the time, but the card-carrying Ls? Not so sure.
Yeah pretty much and anybody he doesn’t like his right wing, he called Bill Maher, Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald right wing, oh yeah Tulsi Gabbard as well Tulsi Gabbard is at least becoming more moderate, but I would still say she is very much on the left, Jimmy Dore is so far to the left, you have to be delusional to think he’s right wing.
After the disaster in Afghanistan and now with abortion being banned I have one suggestion for the future. Americans need to improve their pull-out game.
Cenk over here be like >be a grown man >act like a child when the opposing side changes something you support >expect people to take you seriously politically
Why use the word "pro" in life or choice? The fact that we use language to lessen the matter fact action is absurd. The end of a potential life is still death regardless of sensibilities. Let's compromise, call it a "death penalty" in regards to those rape and incest babies and call death row executions as late term abortion.
Even Cenk's vocal cords say "this is dumb, I'm out" Cenk during C19: We need the government to force what I want Cenk after C19: We can't let people vote for what they want, they are forcing their way of life on me
@@user-pt8vr9eq8y Just tell her that RGB thought abortion was a bad ruling, and that it might not have gone this way if she wasn’t selfish and gave up her seat while Obama was president, lol.
23:20 There's a browser extension available called "Return UA-cam Dislikes" that unblocks the dislike counter. The likes/dislikes on that TYT video are 👍10K 👎9.4K.
“I don’t believe life begins at conception.” This topic shouldn’t concern “belief.” Scientifically speaking, life does begin at conception. I’m very pro life but I wish that people would at least be honest and acknowledge abortion = ending a life.
@@jm0112 When Bernard Nathanson, the founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League performed abortions using ultrasound, he became pro-life. He could see he was killing someone.
Chetachi. It has to concern belief since we don't have the research and process down to a perfect understanding. A fair question to ask is how much blame do you put on a person who decides to terminate the pregnancy when it was entirely by mistake, and both parties were taking precautions? If you want to criminalize abortion, I feel like the consistent position would be on the act itself. Not even the intentions behind it. The intentions could add to a sentence. But we need the punishment for the initial crime. I'm not an advocate for abortions and I'm also not an advocate for bad parenting. But bad parenting to me outweighs abortions since I'm not 100% against medically advised abortions. A preventative step at decreasing harm to alot more people I feel is more moral especially when you are talking about forcing someone to be pregnant against their will. I'm always way more concerned about forcing someones choice when they already have only bad options. And they aren't intending to be a good parent.
The question is when human life begins. Any non-dead cell you have is a life, but we don't consider shedding blood, spitting or ejaculating killing. It takes about 12 full hours for the fertilized egg to even divide into more cells. According to a quick Google search, at day 3 it is 16 cells. We are talking about a clump of cells. It is less than a single viable organ. Removing an appendix is ending a life (millions of it, really; every single cell is alive), and no-one is arguing about it, because we understand that an appendix is not a viable human and feels no pain.
@@za-ir5ni A pointless observation? That the people who decided killing baby's was okay didn't know what one looked like in the womb. The trimester system is arbitrary. What a pointless comment. Get fucked baby killer
@@za-ir5ni not pointless, just rhetorical. People have heightened emotions about what abortion actually is now that they see the baby kicking around in there. Prior to that, the clump of cells stuff could have motivated more people towards supporting abortion.
@@za-ir5ni Not seeing an ultrasound would be distancing yourself from that reality though, wouldn't it? I mean it's the same reason we don't think about how slaughterhouses actually operate - we just like the end result. It's almost hubris in a way.
Honestly, if you listen to right wing commentators and left wing commentators, you'll hear both sides say pretty much the same things about the other side. It'll almost be word for word. With maybe some slight variation because of differing beliefs. It's a little uncanny sometimes.
I really hope that he’s just a very talented actor pulling a grift, because otherwise, he is unironically a danger to himself and others, and he deserves to be committed to a psych ward on a 72-hour hold, for observation and evaluation (and adjustment of his medication). someone in his life, who cares about him, has to take the initiative to get him the help that he DESPERATELY needs.
Every time dude goes on rant he has to bring up someone doing things just for money or having a lot of money. Think he's a fairly obvious jealous greedy grifter.
Your opinion on abortion doesn't matter here. The Supreme Court is not supposed decide whether abortion is good or not. They decide the constitutional basis for a right to an abortion. We have elected lawmakers to make decisions about what we should do. That's not the courts job. They are not policy makers There is no constitutional basis. That's why roe and Casey should be overturned. That's the only reason that matters Your preferred outcome is not more important than our constitutional system and the integrity of the court.
@4:00 Adam almost gets it. He's right 18 is an arbitrary line we pick for adulthood. You can do a lot more things you couldn't do before (still have a few things you cant do like drink and rent a car) but you have a new 'legal fiction' that you exist under in society, despite being the same exact human as you were before. Now where he misses is comparing this to drawing an arbitrary line for whether or not it's ok to pay someone to rip your arms and legs off before crushing your head, or poison you, or stick a tube in your skull and suck out your brains, and then sell your body to science labs for experiments. Because unless an abortion happens at like week 5 that's exactly what you're doing to a baby. And if you're just drawing a line to say 'it's ok to do it here but 3 days later is kinda fucked up' then you're not thinking about this deeply enough
also, access to technology that can sustain the life should not determine viability or reasoning to have the abortion or anything. If tomorrow we find out that women arent even needed, we just need an egg (from a woman) and a sperm (from a man) and the rest can be done in a test tube, or obviously a surrogate (we can rest aside religious beliefs on these practices) - then clearly the life started at the conception. It's the only logical line to draw. Unique DNA. With current tech, as far as im aware, it's like 4-6 weeks before you can detect a heartbeat. That's the next line. Not only can you know if you're pregnant before then, but then what makes it okay to kill them the day before there would be a heartbeat? the same applies to not allowing day-before-birth abortions where it seems like 99.9% of us can agree is wrong to the core. The only problem i have with offloading the responsibility to technology is that these babies arent being made outside the womb with this future tech i speak of to begin with, otherwise they wouldnt need to get aborted! I also fear turning women into a commodity where their eggs are harvested. that's basically human trafficking. All life that people want to abort result of sex, and no one wants to bare the responsibility of their actions. abortion is not contraception. give birth, and someone out of the 8 billion on earth can take care of it. end of story. fair to say you dont own half your DNA if it mixed with someone else's? they're your child, yes, you have all your parental rights there, but murder isnt one of them.
Currently pregnant, got my 1st sonogram at 11 weeks and it wasn’t really baby looking, got my next sonogram at 15 weeks and it was definitely a baby. Looked like a baby on the sonogram, saw her sitting down, flipping over, could see her little hands and feet, i mean it was very clear to me a lot of development happened very rapidly in that time and she was moving and very much alive. By week 18-20 they are able to see the 4 chambers of the heart and most of the baby’s organs have already developed. Used to be very pro choice, now i’m more in a grey area (i find i don’t think the government should be involved in most things), just based off my own experience anything 2nd trimester should be off the table. I dont know if it makes any sense per say, but i would be fine with decriminalizing abortion past 1st trimester, but not making it legally medically available, although i’m squishy on that for all the “special exceptions” ect. Its beyond my pay grade tho, probably makes more sense to just raise kids to value life and responsibility, so individually they choose to not participate with the abortion industry and are careful with their reproductive choices. I was terrified of becoming pregnant, so always used the pill correctly and made partners use protection, currently am married and having an on purpose baby. Also I’m fine with states making their own laws, and many businesses are already making paid abortion+ abortion leave a part of their work incentives, which 😏 of course they would offer that over paid family leave lol, its to their benefit to give you a one time stipend to take a week off and fly to get an abortion so you can return to work quicker then giving you paid time off to care for a child + potential future losses for you taking extra time off to care for children.
Yeah, the information I've seen on brain development definitely makes me think 2nd trimester should be off the table. I think the most elegant solution to deal with exceptions is to require two doctors to sign off on abortions, saying it was for medical reasons. Yes, some people might abuse the system. But it keeps the government out of it while still making it clear what's acceptable.
@Michael Peck A few big corpos have come out and made proclamations they are looking at adding these to their benefits packages, amazon, levis, citigroup, lyft uber, yelp, either paid leave and transportation resources or reimbursement for total costs through their medical benefits (depending on company reimbursements up to $4,000), i mean its in their right to add these services, and i could see it being similar/same to expecting companies to cover your birth control costs? But its just funny that they jump at adding those incentives and will be applauded for it in the news, for “fighting for women’s rights” but will be stone silent on family leave.
@@slommie1649 I agree, but just know its a very polarized issue, I mention the time thing more so because in the beginning of the video its brought up, and although its anecdotal I also had never really considered/bothered to learn much about the stages of pregnancy and child development. i hadn’t really ever thought long and hard about it until i actually got pregnant, and saw it for myself. I was naïve and bought in on the clump of cells argument, maybe it was ignorance because i didn’t care to know, but i really didn’t realize how quickly it changes. I lean more towards, its a baby the whole time, but I also can admit that my grey areas are driven by emotional arguments mostly. To that second point very true, abortions origins are eugenics, but i don’t think thats ever really changed. Deciding whose born or who isn’t ect, however I don’t know how you put that genie back in the bottle, aside from like i said, raising children/adults who opt out of abortion industry and who see the value in life.
Like, there are consequences to engaging in sexual activity without the many MANY contraceptive options. Once another human is involved, that human's rights MUST be respected.
@@za-ir5ni You say that as if a random baby ran and jumped into her uterus like a hobo seeking shelter in the rain. Rather than the reality that she welcomed it in (as sperm). That’s like asking for a refund on a lottery ticket because the chances didn’t result in your favour. You could have not played, but you decided to risk it. You have to live with that consequence just as you do with any other choice.
All these liberals saying they’re so “sexually creative” and everyone else is “vanilla”, yet they _just_ can’t avoid vaginal sex. The _only_ form of sex that gets you pregnant.
Once you become a father (maybe even earlier than that depending on the person) you realise that as a man you absolutely have a stake in the game. Even though you may not be carying the child inside you, its still your child in there and your job to care for both the mother and the child. By ceding this ground your surrendering more of your rights as a father. From my understanding a mother could get an abortion without your input by simply stating that you're a deadbeat that walked away. You have to fight for your rights today so that you'll have them tomorrow when you actually need them.
Lol have a stake shmave a shmake - if birth was as easy for humans as it is for I think every other species out there, then comparing these "stakes of the father" might've made sense; as it stands though, unless the father works as a combatant or hunter and gets excruciating injuries from it, and having a baby is vital for the couple's / group's material conditions, then sorry no - the awful mistake in our evolution that made childbirth into such an ordeai, eliminates the "fathers' rights" from the picture. They can't even compare, full period lol.
@@username45739 So you encourage fathers to leave their families? This is what your argument encourages. First off the father has a very important support role for the mother, especially in the emotion department. They perform the physical tasks that the mother can't do in the later months, they're an emotional bedrock in a sea of pregnancy hormones, they help keep the mother's stress levels down, they help with the delivery of the child, they help take care of the newborn (anybody who tells you that isn't a two person job has never had a baby) and finally they raise and take care of the child throughout that kids life. So please tell me, how exactly do fathers not have any stakes in the game?
@@za-ir5ni That's whataboutism, never said anything about comparing rights, in fact i never brought women's rights into this because because it's irrelevant to my point (unless you believe that the only way to give rights is to take it away from someone else, in which case you're gonna have to really argue for that one.) What i was saying was that men have a stake in the game when it comes pregnancy and then the eventual parenthood. The reason for this is not to devalue the role of women, but to uplift men and show that they are more than just genetic donors. It's to prevent men from becoming deadbeats and take responsibility for the child at all stages. And it's to show men that this should be as important to you as it is for the mother. It's not about bringing people down, but instead raising them up.
@@dargoz8 Ohhhh k, if you're not proposing that men get to veto an abortion, then ? You did sound like that's what you were proposing though lol. Surrendering what "rights"?
Adam, it's not a belief that life begins at conception, it is a scientific certainty that life begins at conception. An individual DNA sequence is generated shortly after the sperm fertilizes the egg. This creates an individual. The debate is when personhood is established. If you want to argue that, go ahead. This 'life' debate is settled.
Well if the majority votes for that right, then sure. Other than that, I agree with the right to use abortion as a contraceptive, but I agree that such a right isn't identical to democracy.
Prochoices have some of the weakest arguments I've ever had. I would challenge anyone to give me a solid reason that most abortions (outside of the extreme) should be moral or legal.
@@CoryTheRaven euphemisms and vagueness. You want to know how you know it's bad. If you just went in blind to a speech from a prochoicer about this you wouldn't know what the heck they were talking about. All you would here is "reproductive healthcare"," reproductive rights" ,"the right to choose" etc. If you don't have a decoder you will be completely lost. What does this even mean??? They know if they were upfront it would be a losing argument.
It’s absolute nonsense. There is no morally consistent argument for abortion. The “freedom” argument that Adam lays is also bad. What about the freedom of the unborn child? At the end of the day, people want abortion because it’s a get out of jail free card. For both men and women.
@@chetachi_ people who would turn a blind eye to abortion and don't recognize how heinous and evil it is makes me wonder what else they would support. Freedom can't work because freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences. People who say " I don't think the government so be in the business of restricting this" look goofy to me. This is why I could never go full libertarian. It would turn into a shit show really fast.
@@art-gx7qp I personally would consider myself libertarian. I am prolife however because from the moment of conception that is a human and I believe all humans are entitled to inalienable rights. I don't think a mother has a right to kill another human.
I used to agree with stitch on abortion. It was none of my business & I am against groups of people forcing their will & beliefs upon others. But after learning how many babies have been aborted since this all started, I felt sick. When you are aborting a baby, you are imposing the worst of wills upon him/her. Not even giving the poor little bastard a fighting chance. Maybe imposing our will upon those who aren't concerned about the lives of defenseless babies is the lesser of 2 evils.
Over 90% (around 95%) of abortions are done out of convenience. Not because of medical reasons, rape, or incest. Rape is the main one they throw out as an excuse, and rapes account for 1% of abortions. They are using the fringe to justify the majority.
Plus, not saying someone can terminate a life isn't the same thing as forcing their will and beliefs upon people. We also don't allow people to take lives OUTSIDE of the womb. Abortion is the only time we use these kind of "not my business" arguments involving terminating innocent lives.
@@GaigeGrosskreutzsMissingBicep Agreed. It was stupid of me to allow that line of thinking in the first place. But it was effective on many. Especially those of us without children.
I'm sitting here at 40:00ish Listening to the back and forth and wondering why that number was not 100%. Did people for did people forget Epstines Lolita express and island, and the flightlogs that had most of the to US democrats on it? Did people forget about all the Hollywood sex scandal's involving kids and how all those people are major democratic backers? Did people for get creepy uncle Joe, his weird kid sniffing habit and that thing about taking showers with his daughter? And the less I say about the contents of hunters laptop the better. Like 52% of republican's thinking democrats are in weird kid sex cults in a low number in my books.
When my wife and I lost the pregnancy due to miscarriage at 7 weeks it was the loss of our baby. The OB/GYN refers to the baby as a baby. We’re in CA, fetus is a baby it’s just a term people use to distance what their actions are
people the descendants of adopted people, or even adopted themselves, should probably shut the eff up and be thankful they're alive and wish that same fate for others as well.
31:33 @Sitch there is a book that’s almost like that called Unwind. Abortions are illegal and kids can be “unwound” up until the age of 18 if the parent doesn’t want them. Having them unwound sends them to a facility that harvests the kids for all their parts and the entire time they are awake and alive for it.
parents should probably be the only truly protected class in america that also receives any sort of benefits. everything else can take a backseat / 2nd chair.
Blood libel in the legal sense is holding the son accountable for the actions of the father. Some European Christians held Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, which is where the antisemitic undertones of the term derive.
I'm pro choice but I always had discomfort towards how abortion is looked at. I always considered it a "take backsy" for people who aren't being responsible or if say they get attacked - in which case do what you think will help you - but then you have Michelle Wolfe types who go on national TV shouting "God Bless America and God bless Abortions!" and I just think "just gonna softball it in like that?"
The only reasoning that makes pro choice acceptable is believing that from conception to a certain point in the pregnancy; the baby is somehow considered a parasite and has a possibility of becoming something other than a human being by birth. Otherwise, you’re just legally killing a human baby. There is nothing stopping adoption if you still feel a type of way.
Yes this. I’ve always conceptualizad it as an absolute last resort that should be avoided if at all possible. The growing attitude towards it being seen as just another birth control has always bugged the hell out of me. I’m kind of in the middle on the issue where in an ideal world there shouldn’t be any but realistically it’s a little more complicated depending on the situation. These ppl have gone from pro choice to full on pro abortion and that’s a little past my acceptable threshold.
You just realized that?! At least for me, that's been a thing for years!! My recent realization was that he wasn't using the tough guy schtick as hyperbole for rhetoric and that he actually believed it!! Mainly cause he believes that he can beat Joe Rogan to a fight.
I am pro-life, but absolutely not anti-abortion. Women will still have abortions and I agree abortion shouldn't be a birth control but there are many cases where an abortion is the best choice for everyone at almost any part of the pregnancy.
This is me basically, but I find it hard to have sympathy when there are numerous ways that you can prevent a pregnancy in consentual encounters. Cases of rape? Absolutely, but with the caveat that it should require a police report to show that you're not just lying for access to abortion as contraceptive. Mother or infant health reasons? Absolutely with the caveat that there are actual and legitimate documented reasons that the pregnancy can't be allowed to go to term. I think a good compromise is more access to contraceptives and more comprehensive sexual education in high schools.
@@peonixgold maybe I’m wrong about this, since I’m not American, but isn’t contraceptives and sex education widely available in America? I mean, out of all the options out there for birth control, I would have thought that going to have abortions would be the most difficult of the options out there. And yet these women for some reason choose that option when there are clearly easier and more accessible birth control options out there.
@@davetycho8330 depends on where you are in the country. Things like condoms are more or less available everywhere, however there are places that make it an absolute pain in the ass to get your hands on them if you're not an adult and don't mind your reputation in the community being destroyed. There are also places where Sex Ed is abstinence only and any attempt to teach the actual fundamentals of sexual health are met with threats of protests and picket lines.
@@peonixgold I see. I guess I’m lucky to grow up in a country that taught its’ kids sex education and had condoms easily available, although I don’t think that the pill was easily available back when I was young. I was taught abstinence at school too, but as a array of solutions to dealing with teenagers dealing with sex for the first time. Maybe because of extreme pushing of abstinence is causing an extreme counter push of rejection of all forms of sexual protection, and then doubling down on such behaviours by choosing abortions over preventative means.
I don’t understand the rage and hate in this situation to the Supreme Court. Pro-choice/pro-life doesn’t matter, the supreme courts job is not to uphold human rights, but look if ones Legal rights as a citizen have been broken in a case. We can argue if abortions falls under a human right all day, but again it doesn’t matter unless it’s falls under something in the constitution. If you want to be mad, light a fire under the legislative branch to amend laws that fall in line with human rights. Til the Supreme Court is doing what it was designed to do…and if it didn’t violate a legal right then roe v wade should be repealed
We have an entire Amendment in the Constitution for unenumerated rights - rights that are so inherent they didn't think they needed to write them all down, like rights to privacy regarding health, family, money/purchases, etc. The Supreme Court decided Roe originally on the right to medical privacy as an unenumerated right, that telling a woman not to have an abortion often led to the State getting in between a woman and her Dr. Them overturning Roe on the basis that this right does not exist because it is not enumerated in the constitution is them saying you have no constitutional rights to medical privacy when it comes to the issue of abortion. I wonder how the other side of this authoritarian bird can extrapolate that idea out? What things do you think the left would categorize as necessary without an inherent right to medical privacy? 🤔 given we are coming out of Covid, forced vaccines come to mind.
@@katilynwhitson3105 Hmm interesting. Still trying to learn as much as I can about this whole situation. I was under the assumption people Roe v wade was about right to privacy under the fourth amendment. I might have to consider this point a bit further, because let’s say I do agree right to medical privacy is an unenumerated right. That might allow you to make any medical decisions for yourself, but curious how that applies to ones family? Do you get to make a medical decision for your child that the rest of the world knows to be harmful? Should the state intervene in that? It changes because we’re bring another life into the equation. Much in the same way you have a right to privacy of home, that right goes away in signs of neglect or abuse no? Which kind of brings the whole question of abortion to where we believe a life begins.. Thanks for giving me more information to look at and consider.
@@lyonsheart361 From my understanding of the original Roe decision, they knew deciding it based on the unenumerated right to medical privacy was shaky ground at the time, but did so because they had problems with aggressive and authoritarian pro-life groups in Republican States that were pushing the State to intervene between Drs and Patients. When the State gets to decide which abortions are "necessary" and which aren't, a lot of women die. They knew this. They knew the States coming in and telling Drs and Patients which abortions they "could do" under the State's law was most likely invading on that unenumerated right to medical privacy. That's why Roe was originally decided the way it was, under the reasoning of the 9th amendment. The Supreme Court coming out and saying "this unenumerated right that we previously all agreed applied to this situation, no longer applies to this situation" opens the door to losing lots of other unenumerated rights under the same exact logic and now court precedent. They just confirmed that you don't have an all encompassing right to medical privacy, that there can be exceptions to "save the life of others". I don't like where that leads in the slightest and don't think it makes for a more free and fair world for anyone. When life begins, although often discussed at length in these arguments, is both the least compelling and most irrelevant argument. We kill what is biologically life all the time and rarely look at it as an inherent negative. We even kill human life when we think it's "deserved" or "justified" and people have no problem with it. In order to argue from a life at conception standpoint, you have to assert life has inherent value because it is life, but I've never heard a compelling argument for life having value outside of religious based ones. 🤷♀️
I'm pro choice but I'd never condone abortion, but I'm against Roe V Wade because it's over sweeping. I want a FEDERAL system where States decide who they want to cultivate that. Plus, where's the National Federal legislation? There is none, just a Supreme Court decision not backed by Legislation.
I agree with Tim Pool on this, I begrudgingly rather have the 1st trimester safe, legal and rare ideal for emergencies only. But a method of contraception, no I'm not for it. We have wide accessibility to condoms and pills and other methods. Use that. My ex had an abortion when she was 16 and it still haunts her to this day which she didn't think would happen to that severity. Those who liberally abort as contraception, you're evil in my eyes. Tim Pool said simply if my 2 choices is no abortion at all VS abortion good till birth, and yes this is the proposal of Progressive Democrats, I choose non at all. I support 1st trimester safe legal and rare and if that's not good enough get over it and do your natural baseline job, reproduce and raise it the best you can to understand the world and how to defend yourself and how to succeed before death. We all know how babies are made, I didn't blast in my girlfriend's because I do not want an unplanned child nor it to be an abortion. I likely will not have children despite wanting them. My pool list isn't great at 35 and yes I prefer women my age and not 18-25, I don't speak their language. The one woman I was in love with mutually I screwed up and she has her own family. Terrible feeling, and my pull list of 25-35 of women who do not have a long term boyfriend, a husband and kids at mt age is for a reason: they're often mean, beyond selfish and often are sociopathic, think Amber Heard. It sucks man, I'd love to be in love mutually, be married and have a Son + a Daughter, and raise them with my wisdom now and hopefully do better than I did. Like, it's lonely and unfulfilling when you've been in mutual love with a wonderful person, screw it up, and date in this era of my age range. However, I'd rather be alone with no kids, then attempt a family with a crazy, mean and sociopathic woman I don't care how hot she is. That said, I don't understand this abortions are wonderful mentality, I have the abortion is a necessary evil that should be used as least as humanly possible. But being boxed in between none at all VS they're amazing and good for up to birth (don't understand why'd you carry for 9 months to get an abortion), I choose non at all. Be nice to have a compromise of safe legal and rare, and yes Roe V Wade was a bad decision. Either actually pass a Constitutional law in US Fed Govt, or it goes to the State. This can also be said for FDR's National Firearms Act and Reagan's Firearm Owners Protection Act are policies not amending 2A. They can't get that support for amending 2A, so they pass unconstitutional crap like NFA and FOPA. With Roe V Wade, this will still allow abortion but at the State. A ton of people migrated to freer states over COVID, Small businesses and taxes along with gun control state laws that didn't agree with people, left for the states it did. Sorry abortionists, it's your turn to flock or simply stay in your Progressive Blue Supermajority States and whack all Rugrats you want, sicko's man.
The "give me a kidney" does not cut it. Conservative would just respond that your body is your own responsibility and you should have taken better care of it so you wouldn't have been ended up needing replacement. So essentially Cenk would be making similar argument as pro-choice from conservative point of view: Lack of consequences for your actions.
Here's a thought: at some point in probably the next twenty years, possibly sooner, we will have fully artificial wombs capable of raising a zygote to fetus to infant. Most of the medical arguments for legalized abortion disappear when you can simply move the fetus to a surrogate womb to be raised to birth. So, much like how the internal combustion engine and mechanized farm equipment would've made slavery economically unviable within a few decades regardless of the Civil War outcome, so too will technology largely make abortion almost entirely unnecessary within a generation or so.
The left's only legal argument against overturning Roe is stare decisis, but stare decisis doesn't just demand obedience to precedent - there's an established process for considering whether a past decision should be overturned. This all comes down to the Court's overreach in Roe and Casey. There is no constitutional right to abortion when you apply the substantive due process analysis for unenumerated rights (if it's not in the Constitution, it has to be deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the U.S. such that it is inherent to ordered liberty). Abortion absolutely fails this test, but the Roe majority ignored the evidence that would have invalidated their holding (like the long history of abortion being criminalized in this country). My objection to Roe isn't based on personal feelings about abortion. You can be pro-choice and recognize that Roe was wrongly decided.
The doctor and nurses never called my daughter a fetus, or embryo, or anything other than a baby. Didn't matter how far along my ex was, they called my daughter a baby
Objectively speaking, conception is the only point that makes sense for life to begin. Otherwise, you have to anoint some specific organ or timeframe special significance as the "life bestowing" factor. If the cells weren't alive, they can't multiply, the organism cannot grow and develop. Any other starting point for life is arbitrarily chosen.
You could make an argument for legal or medical life to be defined differently than biological life, since we do the same thing for death; biologically speaking Henrietta Lacks is still alive as cells that contain her specific genetic material are still alive and multiplying, but legally she's been dead for a few decades. Cell function isn't enough to declare someone still alive if their organs have failed. Granted if you wanted to make the argument that legal life should have a different definition from biological life, it would have to be analogous to the difference between legal and biological death so it would have to be tied to organogenesis placing it between 4 days to three weeks post fertilization, well below the standard set by Roe so I doubt anyone pro choice wants to go down that road.
Simple as: decisions are made long before a child is conceived. Consensual decisions that lead to a child should not be abortable. There's adoption. I think that covers it
Roe was just a poorly considered decision. And all this does is kick abortion back to the states. Bring a constitutional case back the the supreme court, or legislate a constitutional amendment. Anything short of that is not sufficient.
@@eyesofascension8678 As a subjective aside, once you've seen what an abortion procedure looks like and entails, it's difficult to be for it, let alone flippant about it.
Same with slaughterhouses, factory farming, gender reassignment surgery. The gruesome details are hidden away because it's impossible to support otherwise.
According to Reddit you need to travel all the way to Canada or Mexico in order to even have a chance to get an abortion and if US presidential elections were decided only by popular vote this would never have happened. The true intellectuals of the internet
It's definitely not enough but it's a huge step in the right direction. Pregnancy was being treated as a medical condition which gives a woman the right to choose. Changing that is only the beginning. It makes it possible again to make a legal argument against it. Not to mention it should drastically reduce the numbers of infanticide.
@@frankmerker630 yes, truly the most brilliant of rocket surgeons
Projecting about your OWN Projection is, honestly, an impressive feat of Mental Gymnastics. Cenk deserves to win a medal for this. 👍
What else would you expect from a guy who thinks he could totally take Joe Rogan in a fight. He is delusion incarnate.
I find Cenk's rant charismatic and very Murican lol
However the "hypocrisies", well, it's just true that the stereotypical tribal "left and right" both pick their auth vs. lib, freedom vs. responsibility values more or less at random, and tend to include combinations of both in their ideologies;
however they often lack awareness of this, so one day it's "we want to flow free and you're the jackboots", and then on another issue they're "we're for responsible behavior while you wayward children hippies are gonna cause a mess", and they lack the self-awareness lolol
The "left/libs" effectively took the conservativist position on Covid, chastising the "right" for being too liberal, but how many dare phrase it like this?
Syncretists, centrists etc., sure, all the time, but the card-carrying Ls? Not so sure.
"It's only democracy when I get what I want!"
Cenk
Yeah pretty much and anybody he doesn’t like his right wing, he called Bill Maher, Jimmy Dore and Glenn Greenwald right wing, oh yeah Tulsi Gabbard as well Tulsi Gabbard is at least becoming more moderate, but I would still say she is very much on the left, Jimmy Dore is so far to the left, you have to be delusional to think he’s right wing.
Adam i love you buddy but life does begin at conception that’s a fact
Man the left wing have just been taking L's left and right seeing these psychopaths meltdown gives me hope
After the disaster in Afghanistan and now with abortion being banned I have one suggestion for the future. Americans need to improve their pull-out game.
niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice lmao
BASED!!! XD
HEEYYYOOOOO!
Well played.
Poetry
... ... ... Yeah I've got no argument against this
Cenk over here be like
>be a grown man
>act like a child when the opposing side changes something you support
>expect people to take you seriously politically
Why use the word "pro" in life or choice? The fact that we use language to lessen the matter fact action is absurd. The end of a potential life is still death regardless of sensibilities. Let's compromise, call it a "death penalty" in regards to those rape and incest babies and call death row executions as late term abortion.
Even Cenk's vocal cords say "this is dumb, I'm out"
Cenk during C19: We need the government to force what I want
Cenk after C19: We can't let people vote for what they want, they are forcing their way of life on me
🤣 Well put.
Overturning Roe V. Wade allows the states to decide whether they allow abortions at all. From my understanding.
My teacher be spewing bs that abortion has been banned over all and that it’s because of trump putting in three people
@@user-pt8vr9eq8y tell your teacher to stfu and do their job fr
@@user-pt8vr9eq8y your teacher is objectively wrong and needs to keep her political bullshit out of the classroom and stick to demonstrable facts.
@@user-pt8vr9eq8y Just tell her that RGB thought abortion was a bad ruling, and that it might not have gone this way if she wasn’t selfish and gave up her seat while Obama was president, lol.
23:20 There's a browser extension available called "Return UA-cam Dislikes" that unblocks the dislike counter. The likes/dislikes on that TYT video are 👍10K 👎9.4K.
Some extensions are a bit broken tho, haven't found one with actual accurate dislikes. Regardless, sounds like what Chunk Yogurt would get.
Yeah that’s like a 50% just like ratio it should be way lower.
It seems to me like Cenk’s strategy for news is “If I yell enough and sound confident enough, people might believe me”
Plankton: CORRECT!!
'Bluster' has never felt more appropriate a word.
“I don’t believe life begins at conception.” This topic shouldn’t concern “belief.” Scientifically speaking, life does begin at conception. I’m very pro life but I wish that people would at least be honest and acknowledge abortion = ending a life.
@Michael Peck Nobody on the Supreme Court when the decision was made had even seen an ultrasound. Which is just wild to think about.
@@jm0112 When Bernard Nathanson, the founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League performed abortions using ultrasound, he became pro-life. He could see he was killing someone.
It's like "Men can get pregnant" levels of denying science.
Chetachi. It has to concern belief since we don't have the research and process down to a perfect understanding.
A fair question to ask is how much blame do you put on a person who decides to terminate the pregnancy when it was entirely by mistake, and both parties were taking precautions?
If you want to criminalize abortion, I feel like the consistent position would be on the act itself. Not even the intentions behind it.
The intentions could add to a sentence. But we need the punishment for the initial crime.
I'm not an advocate for abortions and I'm also not an advocate for bad parenting. But bad parenting to me outweighs abortions since I'm not 100% against medically advised abortions.
A preventative step at decreasing harm to alot more people I feel is more moral especially when you are talking about forcing someone to be pregnant against their will.
I'm always way more concerned about forcing someones choice when they already have only bad options. And they aren't intending to be a good parent.
The question is when human life begins. Any non-dead cell you have is a life, but we don't consider shedding blood, spitting or ejaculating killing. It takes about 12 full hours for the fertilized egg to even divide into more cells. According to a quick Google search, at day 3 it is 16 cells. We are talking about a clump of cells. It is less than a single viable organ.
Removing an appendix is ending a life (millions of it, really; every single cell is alive), and no-one is arguing about it, because we understand that an appendix is not a viable human and feels no pain.
Does anyone take Cenk seriously anymore? Dude is insanely unhinged.
I think a lot of people forget when roe v wade was decided no human had the ability to see an ultrasound.
What a pointless observation.
@@za-ir5ni A pointless observation? That the people who decided killing baby's was okay didn't know what one looked like in the womb. The trimester system is arbitrary. What a pointless comment. Get fucked baby killer
@@za-ir5ni not pointless, just rhetorical. People have heightened emotions about what abortion actually is now that they see the baby kicking around in there. Prior to that, the clump of cells stuff could have motivated more people towards supporting abortion.
@@za-ir5ni Not seeing an ultrasound would be distancing yourself from that reality though, wouldn't it? I mean it's the same reason we don't think about how slaughterhouses actually operate - we just like the end result. It's almost hubris in a way.
🌟Make *ALL* Women CHATTEL With This *ONE* Easy Trick!
Lmfao
Controlling "our" bodies?
Is there something that want to share with the class, Cenk?
I am pro-life, but at least you guys can talk about it without going insane
Honestly, if you listen to right wing commentators and left wing commentators, you'll hear both sides say pretty much the same things about the other side. It'll almost be word for word. With maybe some slight variation because of differing beliefs.
It's a little uncanny sometimes.
I am honestly genuinely scared for Cenk himself. The dude seems to literally get unhinged.
Definite cult leader vibes from Cenk.
I really hope that he’s just a very talented actor pulling a grift, because otherwise, he is unironically a danger to himself and others, and he deserves to be committed to a psych ward on a 72-hour hold, for observation and evaluation (and adjustment of his medication).
someone in his life, who cares about him, has to take the initiative to get him the help that he DESPERATELY needs.
Every time dude goes on rant he has to bring up someone doing things just for money or having a lot of money. Think he's a fairly obvious jealous greedy grifter.
I laugh when Cenk gets unhinged.
I feel like he became the Alex Jones of the progressive left.
Cenk: "MOLOCH IS THIRSTY! MY LORD DEMANDS SACRIFICES!"
how can life not begin at conception if it's 100% unique DNA and the cells are working overtime to form the child.
Your opinion on abortion doesn't matter here. The Supreme Court is not supposed decide whether abortion is good or not. They decide the constitutional basis for a right to an abortion. We have elected lawmakers to make decisions about what we should do. That's not the courts job. They are not policy makers
There is no constitutional basis. That's why roe and Casey should be overturned. That's the only reason that matters
Your preferred outcome is not more important than our constitutional system and the integrity of the court.
@4:00 Adam almost gets it.
He's right 18 is an arbitrary line we pick for adulthood. You can do a lot more things you couldn't do before (still have a few things you cant do like drink and rent a car) but you have a new 'legal fiction' that you exist under in society, despite being the same exact human as you were before.
Now where he misses is comparing this to drawing an arbitrary line for whether or not it's ok to pay someone to rip your arms and legs off before crushing your head, or poison you, or stick a tube in your skull and suck out your brains, and then sell your body to science labs for experiments.
Because unless an abortion happens at like week 5 that's exactly what you're doing to a baby. And if you're just drawing a line to say 'it's ok to do it here but 3 days later is kinda fucked up' then you're not thinking about this deeply enough
also, access to technology that can sustain the life should not determine viability or reasoning to have the abortion or anything. If tomorrow we find out that women arent even needed, we just need an egg (from a woman) and a sperm (from a man) and the rest can be done in a test tube, or obviously a surrogate (we can rest aside religious beliefs on these practices) - then clearly the life started at the conception. It's the only logical line to draw. Unique DNA. With current tech, as far as im aware, it's like 4-6 weeks before you can detect a heartbeat. That's the next line. Not only can you know if you're pregnant before then, but then what makes it okay to kill them the day before there would be a heartbeat? the same applies to not allowing day-before-birth abortions where it seems like 99.9% of us can agree is wrong to the core. The only problem i have with offloading the responsibility to technology is that these babies arent being made outside the womb with this future tech i speak of to begin with, otherwise they wouldnt need to get aborted! I also fear turning women into a commodity where their eggs are harvested. that's basically human trafficking. All life that people want to abort result of sex, and no one wants to bare the responsibility of their actions. abortion is not contraception. give birth, and someone out of the 8 billion on earth can take care of it. end of story. fair to say you dont own half your DNA if it mixed with someone else's? they're your child, yes, you have all your parental rights there, but murder isnt one of them.
I'm impressed that sitch and Adam turned a 5min video into an hours worth of content. 👍
Currently pregnant, got my 1st sonogram at 11 weeks and it wasn’t really baby looking, got my next sonogram at 15 weeks and it was definitely a baby. Looked like a baby on the sonogram, saw her sitting down, flipping over, could see her little hands and feet, i mean it was very clear to me a lot of development happened very rapidly in that time and she was moving and very much alive. By week 18-20 they are able to see the 4 chambers of the heart and most of the baby’s organs have already developed. Used to be very pro choice, now i’m more in a grey area (i find i don’t think the government should be involved in most things), just based off my own experience anything 2nd trimester should be off the table. I dont know if it makes any sense per say, but i would be fine with decriminalizing abortion past 1st trimester, but not making it legally medically available, although i’m squishy on that for all the “special exceptions” ect. Its beyond my pay grade tho, probably makes more sense to just raise kids to value life and responsibility, so individually they choose to not participate with the abortion industry and are careful with their reproductive choices. I was terrified of becoming pregnant, so always used the pill correctly and made partners use protection, currently am married and having an on purpose baby. Also I’m fine with states making their own laws, and many businesses are already making paid abortion+ abortion leave a part of their work incentives, which 😏 of course they would offer that over paid family leave lol, its to their benefit to give you a one time stipend to take a week off and fly to get an abortion so you can return to work quicker then giving you paid time off to care for a child + potential future losses for you taking extra time off to care for children.
Yeah, the information I've seen on brain development definitely makes me think 2nd trimester should be off the table.
I think the most elegant solution to deal with exceptions is to require two doctors to sign off on abortions, saying it was for medical reasons.
Yes, some people might abuse the system. But it keeps the government out of it while still making it clear what's acceptable.
@Michael Peck A few big corpos have come out and made proclamations they are looking at adding these to their benefits packages, amazon, levis, citigroup, lyft uber, yelp, either paid leave and transportation resources or reimbursement for total costs through their medical benefits (depending on company reimbursements up to $4,000), i mean its in their right to add these services, and i could see it being similar/same to expecting companies to cover your birth control costs? But its just funny that they jump at adding those incentives and will be applauded for it in the news, for “fighting for women’s rights” but will be stone silent on family leave.
@@slommie1649 I agree, but just know its a very polarized issue, I mention the time thing more so because in the beginning of the video its brought up, and although its anecdotal I also had never really considered/bothered to learn much about the stages of pregnancy and child development. i hadn’t really ever thought long and hard about it until i actually got pregnant, and saw it for myself. I was naïve and bought in on the clump of cells argument, maybe it was ignorance because i didn’t care to know, but i really didn’t realize how quickly it changes. I lean more towards, its a baby the whole time, but I also can admit that my grey areas are driven by emotional arguments mostly.
To that second point very true, abortions origins are eugenics, but i don’t think thats ever really changed. Deciding whose born or who isn’t ect, however I don’t know how you put that genie back in the bottle, aside from like i said, raising children/adults who opt out of abortion industry and who see the value in life.
Like, there are consequences to engaging in sexual activity without the many MANY contraceptive options. Once another human is involved, that human's rights MUST be respected.
No, because a human doesn't have a right to live inside another human.
@@za-ir5ni lol wut? We're talking about an unborn human fetus gestating in a woman's womb. What are you on about?
@@za-ir5ni You say that as if a random baby ran and jumped into her uterus like a hobo seeking shelter in the rain. Rather than the reality that she welcomed it in (as sperm). That’s like asking for a refund on a lottery ticket because the chances didn’t result in your favour. You could have not played, but you decided to risk it. You have to live with that consequence just as you do with any other choice.
All these liberals saying they’re so “sexually creative” and everyone else is “vanilla”, yet they _just_ can’t avoid vaginal sex. The _only_ form of sex that gets you pregnant.
@@za-ir5ni Looks like vaush let one of the children out of his basement today
The water buffalo does it again.
You guys got mentioned in a Secularist Talk video
I’m really disappointed with Kyle for not calling out TYT for their racism and BS
Link?
Cenk: We're lambs to the slaughter!!!
Unborn baby: 🤨
Once you become a father (maybe even earlier than that depending on the person) you realise that as a man you absolutely have a stake in the game. Even though you may not be carying the child inside you, its still your child in there and your job to care for both the mother and the child. By ceding this ground your surrendering more of your rights as a father. From my understanding a mother could get an abortion without your input by simply stating that you're a deadbeat that walked away.
You have to fight for your rights today so that you'll have them tomorrow when you actually need them.
Lol have a stake shmave a shmake - if birth was as easy for humans as it is for I think every other species out there, then comparing these "stakes of the father" might've made sense;
as it stands though, unless the father works as a combatant or hunter and gets excruciating injuries from it, and having a baby is vital for the couple's / group's material conditions, then sorry no - the awful mistake in our evolution that made childbirth into such an ordeai, eliminates the "fathers' rights" from the picture. They can't even compare, full period lol.
@@username45739 So you encourage fathers to leave their families? This is what your argument encourages.
First off the father has a very important support role for the mother, especially in the emotion department. They perform the physical tasks that the mother can't do in the later months, they're an emotional bedrock in a sea of pregnancy hormones, they help keep the mother's stress levels down, they help with the delivery of the child, they help take care of the newborn (anybody who tells you that isn't a two person job has never had a baby) and finally they raise and take care of the child throughout that kids life.
So please tell me, how exactly do fathers not have any stakes in the game?
What an irrelevant argument. Men's rights are no where close in the same stratosphere of this specific issue. He's not the one housing another life.
@@za-ir5ni That's whataboutism, never said anything about comparing rights, in fact i never brought women's rights into this because because it's irrelevant to my point (unless you believe that the only way to give rights is to take it away from someone else, in which case you're gonna have to really argue for that one.)
What i was saying was that men have a stake in the game when it comes pregnancy and then the eventual parenthood. The reason for this is not to devalue the role of women, but to uplift men and show that they are more than just genetic donors. It's to prevent men from becoming deadbeats and take responsibility for the child at all stages. And it's to show men that this should be as important to you as it is for the mother. It's not about bringing people down, but instead raising them up.
@@dargoz8 Ohhhh k, if you're not proposing that men get to veto an abortion, then ?
You did sound like that's what you were proposing though lol. Surrendering what "rights"?
Yes, lets stop playing word games and drop the "pro-choice" label, you guys are pro-abortion. You do you, but stop trying to soften the blow.
The whole "religious belief of life starting at conception" thing adam said is stupid. It isn't a religious belief. It's scientific.
Adam, it's not a belief that life begins at conception, it is a scientific certainty that life begins at conception. An individual DNA sequence is generated shortly after the sperm fertilizes the egg. This creates an individual. The debate is when personhood is established. If you want to argue that, go ahead. This 'life' debate is settled.
if its your body your choice then its my wallet my choice
If the legal definition of being dead is when your heart stops why isn't the legal definition of being alive when your heart starts?
this is the best cenk content, malding out in front of a camera
Democracy is being allowed to use abortion as a contraceptive -- Cenk Uyghur, most definitely
L M A O
Well if the majority votes for that right, then sure.
Other than that, I agree with the right to use abortion as a contraceptive, but I agree that such a right isn't identical to democracy.
Exactly Cenk’s definition of democracy is just whatever he agrees with.
Prochoices have some of the weakest arguments I've ever had. I would challenge anyone to give me a solid reason that most abortions (outside of the extreme) should be moral or legal.
The ONLY pro-choice argument is "I want it and I mean to have it." That's it. Everything else is window-dressing.
@@CoryTheRaven euphemisms and vagueness. You want to know how you know it's bad. If you just went in blind to a speech from a prochoicer about this you wouldn't know what the heck they were talking about. All you would here is "reproductive healthcare"," reproductive rights" ,"the right to choose" etc. If you don't have a decoder you will be completely lost. What does this even mean??? They know if they were upfront it would be a losing argument.
It’s absolute nonsense. There is no morally consistent argument for abortion. The “freedom” argument that Adam lays is also bad. What about the freedom of the unborn child? At the end of the day, people want abortion because it’s a get out of jail free card. For both men and women.
@@chetachi_ people who would turn a blind eye to abortion and don't recognize how heinous and evil it is makes me wonder what else they would support. Freedom can't work because freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences. People who say " I don't think the government so be in the business of restricting this" look goofy to me. This is why I could never go full libertarian. It would turn into a shit show really fast.
@@art-gx7qp I personally would consider myself libertarian. I am prolife however because from the moment of conception that is a human and I believe all humans are entitled to inalienable rights. I don't think a mother has a right to kill another human.
You can almost smell the bacon grease thru the screen when Keek Ogre throws a temper tantrum.
God Sitch is driving me crazy in this one. He did vote for Biden after all, so I guess it makes sense.
I don't blame him. His Jewish babushka would beat the crap out of him if he voted for Trump.
I used to agree with stitch on abortion. It was none of my business & I am against groups of people forcing their will & beliefs upon others. But after learning how many babies have been aborted since this all started, I felt sick. When you are aborting a baby, you are imposing the worst of wills upon him/her. Not even giving the poor little bastard a fighting chance. Maybe imposing our will upon those who aren't concerned about the lives of defenseless babies is the lesser of 2 evils.
We should arm the Fergus to Defend itself from the woman.
@@jamesfellows5081 Oh shit 😆
Good one! 👍🏼
Over 90% (around 95%) of abortions are done out of convenience. Not because of medical reasons, rape, or incest. Rape is the main one they throw out as an excuse, and rapes account for 1% of abortions. They are using the fringe to justify the majority.
Plus, not saying someone can terminate a life isn't the same thing as forcing their will and beliefs upon people. We also don't allow people to take lives OUTSIDE of the womb. Abortion is the only time we use these kind of "not my business" arguments involving terminating innocent lives.
@@GaigeGrosskreutzsMissingBicep Agreed. It was stupid of me to allow that line of thinking in the first place. But it was effective on many. Especially those of us without children.
I'm sitting here at 40:00ish Listening to the back and forth and wondering why that number was not 100%. Did people for did people forget Epstines Lolita express and island, and the flightlogs that had most of the to US democrats on it? Did people forget about all the Hollywood sex scandal's involving kids and how all those people are major democratic backers? Did people for get creepy uncle Joe, his weird kid sniffing habit and that thing about taking showers with his daughter? And the less I say about the contents of hunters laptop the better. Like 52% of republican's thinking democrats are in weird kid sex cults in a low number in my books.
Sitch, you say up to 18 years as a joke but someone made a dystopian novel based on that exact premise
I believe it was callsd unwound
When my wife and I lost the pregnancy due to miscarriage at 7 weeks it was the loss of our baby. The OB/GYN refers to the baby as a baby. We’re in CA, fetus is a baby it’s just a term people use to distance what their actions are
I vote republican and want to own women as livestock chattle, but I don't see how chunk connected those dots between my politics and sexual fettishes.
"Was that good Anna?"
I’m insulted that Cenk went for so long uninterrupted about a women’s issue without giving the News-skirt a chance to speak
people the descendants of adopted people, or even adopted themselves, should probably shut the eff up and be thankful they're alive and wish that same fate for others as well.
31:33 @Sitch there is a book that’s almost like that called Unwind. Abortions are illegal and kids can be “unwound” up until the age of 18 if the parent doesn’t want them. Having them unwound sends them to a facility that harvests the kids for all their parts and the entire time they are awake and alive for it.
parents should probably be the only truly protected class in america that also receives any sort of benefits. everything else can take a backseat / 2nd chair.
At some point "pro choice" just seems the lazy "middle position"
You guys said the word "Precedent" so often in this video it stopped sounding like a real word.
...guys, I think Cenk doesn't like us.
Money on those, who consider themselves as conservatives, might also identify as Hunter Avalon lol
Cenk: They have no morality for wanting to stop the killing of babies!
Me: Sure seems obvious to me who is the one with no morality.
I would like you guys way more if you were pro-life.
Blood libel in the legal sense is holding the son accountable for the actions of the father.
Some European Christians held Jews responsible for the death of Jesus, which is where the antisemitic undertones of the term derive.
Chunk is the gift that keeps on giving.
I'm pro choice but I always had discomfort towards how abortion is looked at. I always considered it a "take backsy" for people who aren't being responsible or if say they get attacked - in which case do what you think will help you - but then you have Michelle Wolfe types who go on national TV shouting "God Bless America and God bless Abortions!" and I just think "just gonna softball it in like that?"
The only reasoning that makes pro choice acceptable is believing that from conception to a certain point in the pregnancy; the baby is somehow considered a parasite and has a possibility of becoming something other than a human being by birth. Otherwise, you’re just legally killing a human baby. There is nothing stopping adoption if you still feel a type of way.
Yes this. I’ve always conceptualizad it as an absolute last resort that should be avoided if at all possible. The growing attitude towards it being seen as just another birth control has always bugged the hell out of me. I’m kind of in the middle on the issue where in an ideal world there shouldn’t be any but realistically it’s a little more complicated depending on the situation. These ppl have gone from pro choice to full on pro abortion and that’s a little past my acceptable threshold.
I just realised that Cenk thinks he's a tough guy
You just realized that?! At least for me, that's been a thing for years!! My recent realization was that he wasn't using the tough guy schtick as hyperbole for rhetoric and that he actually believed it!! Mainly cause he believes that he can beat Joe Rogan to a fight.
I mean imagine Cenk saying this about any other group
"Our democracy"
My constitutional republic
I am pro-life, but absolutely not anti-abortion. Women will still have abortions and I agree abortion shouldn't be a birth control but there are many cases where an abortion is the best choice for everyone at almost any part of the pregnancy.
This is me basically, but I find it hard to have sympathy when there are numerous ways that you can prevent a pregnancy in consentual encounters. Cases of rape? Absolutely, but with the caveat that it should require a police report to show that you're not just lying for access to abortion as contraceptive. Mother or infant health reasons? Absolutely with the caveat that there are actual and legitimate documented reasons that the pregnancy can't be allowed to go to term.
I think a good compromise is more access to contraceptives and more comprehensive sexual education in high schools.
@@peonixgold maybe I’m wrong about this, since I’m not American, but isn’t contraceptives and sex education widely available in America? I mean, out of all the options out there for birth control, I would have thought that going to have abortions would be the most difficult of the options out there. And yet these women for some reason choose that option when there are clearly easier and more accessible birth control options out there.
@@davetycho8330 depends on where you are in the country. Things like condoms are more or less available everywhere, however there are places that make it an absolute pain in the ass to get your hands on them if you're not an adult and don't mind your reputation in the community being destroyed. There are also places where Sex Ed is abstinence only and any attempt to teach the actual fundamentals of sexual health are met with threats of protests and picket lines.
@@peonixgold I see. I guess I’m lucky to grow up in a country that taught its’ kids sex education and had condoms easily available, although I don’t think that the pill was easily available back when I was young. I was taught abstinence at school too, but as a array of solutions to dealing with teenagers dealing with sex for the first time. Maybe because of extreme pushing of abstinence is causing an extreme counter push of rejection of all forms of sexual protection, and then doubling down on such behaviours by choosing abortions over preventative means.
I don’t understand the rage and hate in this situation to the Supreme Court.
Pro-choice/pro-life doesn’t matter, the supreme courts job is not to uphold human rights, but look if ones Legal rights as a citizen have been broken in a case.
We can argue if abortions falls under a human right all day, but again it doesn’t matter unless it’s falls under something in the constitution.
If you want to be mad, light a fire under the legislative branch to amend laws that fall in line with human rights.
Til the Supreme Court is doing what it was designed to do…and if it didn’t violate a legal right then roe v wade should be repealed
We have an entire Amendment in the Constitution for unenumerated rights - rights that are so inherent they didn't think they needed to write them all down, like rights to privacy regarding health, family, money/purchases, etc.
The Supreme Court decided Roe originally on the right to medical privacy as an unenumerated right, that telling a woman not to have an abortion often led to the State getting in between a woman and her Dr.
Them overturning Roe on the basis that this right does not exist because it is not enumerated in the constitution is them saying you have no constitutional rights to medical privacy when it comes to the issue of abortion.
I wonder how the other side of this authoritarian bird can extrapolate that idea out? What things do you think the left would categorize as necessary without an inherent right to medical privacy? 🤔 given we are coming out of Covid, forced vaccines come to mind.
@@katilynwhitson3105
Hmm interesting. Still trying to learn as much as I can about this whole situation. I was under the assumption people Roe v wade was about right to privacy under the fourth amendment.
I might have to consider this point a bit further, because let’s say I do agree right to medical privacy is an unenumerated right. That might allow you to make any medical decisions for yourself, but curious how that applies to ones family? Do you get to make a medical decision for your child that the rest of the world knows to be harmful? Should the state intervene in that? It changes because we’re bring another life into the equation. Much in the same way you have a right to privacy of home, that right goes away in signs of neglect or abuse no?
Which kind of brings the whole question of abortion to where we believe a life begins..
Thanks for giving me more information to look at and consider.
@@lyonsheart361 From my understanding of the original Roe decision, they knew deciding it based on the unenumerated right to medical privacy was shaky ground at the time, but did so because they had problems with aggressive and authoritarian pro-life groups in Republican States that were pushing the State to intervene between Drs and Patients.
When the State gets to decide which abortions are "necessary" and which aren't, a lot of women die. They knew this. They knew the States coming in and telling Drs and Patients which abortions they "could do" under the State's law was most likely invading on that unenumerated right to medical privacy. That's why Roe was originally decided the way it was, under the reasoning of the 9th amendment.
The Supreme Court coming out and saying "this unenumerated right that we previously all agreed applied to this situation, no longer applies to this situation" opens the door to losing lots of other unenumerated rights under the same exact logic and now court precedent. They just confirmed that you don't have an all encompassing right to medical privacy, that there can be exceptions to "save the life of others". I don't like where that leads in the slightest and don't think it makes for a more free and fair world for anyone.
When life begins, although often discussed at length in these arguments, is both the least compelling and most irrelevant argument.
We kill what is biologically life all the time and rarely look at it as an inherent negative. We even kill human life when we think it's "deserved" or "justified" and people have no problem with it. In order to argue from a life at conception standpoint, you have to assert life has inherent value because it is life, but I've never heard a compelling argument for life having value outside of religious based ones. 🤷♀️
I'm pro choice but I'd never condone abortion, but I'm against Roe V Wade because it's over sweeping. I want a FEDERAL system where States decide who they want to cultivate that. Plus, where's the National Federal legislation? There is none, just a Supreme Court decision not backed by Legislation.
I agree with Tim Pool on this, I begrudgingly rather have the 1st trimester safe, legal and rare ideal for emergencies only. But a method of contraception, no I'm not for it. We have wide accessibility to condoms and pills and other methods. Use that. My ex had an abortion when she was 16 and it still haunts her to this day which she didn't think would happen to that severity. Those who liberally abort as contraception, you're evil in my eyes.
Tim Pool said simply if my 2 choices is no abortion at all VS abortion good till birth, and yes this is the proposal of Progressive Democrats, I choose non at all. I support 1st trimester safe legal and rare and if that's not good enough get over it and do your natural baseline job, reproduce and raise it the best you can to understand the world and how to defend yourself and how to succeed before death. We all know how babies are made, I didn't blast in my girlfriend's because I do not want an unplanned child nor it to be an abortion. I likely will not have children despite wanting them. My pool list isn't great at 35 and yes I prefer women my age and not 18-25, I don't speak their language. The one woman I was in love with mutually I screwed up and she has her own family. Terrible feeling, and my pull list of 25-35 of women who do not have a long term boyfriend, a husband and kids at mt age is for a reason: they're often mean, beyond selfish and often are sociopathic, think Amber Heard. It sucks man, I'd love to be in love mutually, be married and have a Son + a Daughter, and raise them with my wisdom now and hopefully do better than I did. Like, it's lonely and unfulfilling when you've been in mutual love with a wonderful person, screw it up, and date in this era of my age range. However, I'd rather be alone with no kids, then attempt a family with a crazy, mean and sociopathic woman I don't care how hot she is. That said, I don't understand this abortions are wonderful mentality, I have the abortion is a necessary evil that should be used as least as humanly possible. But being boxed in between none at all VS they're amazing and good for up to birth (don't understand why'd you carry for 9 months to get an abortion), I choose non at all. Be nice to have a compromise of safe legal and rare, and yes Roe V Wade was a bad decision. Either actually pass a Constitutional law in US Fed Govt, or it goes to the State. This can also be said for FDR's National Firearms Act and Reagan's Firearm Owners Protection Act are policies not amending 2A. They can't get that support for amending 2A, so they pass unconstitutional crap like NFA and FOPA. With Roe V Wade, this will still allow abortion but at the State. A ton of people migrated to freer states over COVID, Small businesses and taxes along with gun control state laws that didn't agree with people, left for the states it did. Sorry abortionists, it's your turn to flock or simply stay in your Progressive Blue Supermajority States and whack all Rugrats you want, sicko's man.
Pro-choice = pro-legal abortion
“Pro-choice” is a disingenuous term that misleads the discussion.
The "give me a kidney" does not cut it. Conservative would just respond that your body is your own responsibility and you should have taken better care of it so you wouldn't have been ended up needing replacement. So essentially Cenk would be making similar argument as pro-choice from conservative point of view: Lack of consequences for your actions.
Here's a thought: at some point in probably the next twenty years, possibly sooner, we will have fully artificial wombs capable of raising a zygote to fetus to infant. Most of the medical arguments for legalized abortion disappear when you can simply move the fetus to a surrogate womb to be raised to birth. So, much like how the internal combustion engine and mechanized farm equipment would've made slavery economically unviable within a few decades regardless of the Civil War outcome, so too will technology largely make abortion almost entirely unnecessary within a generation or so.
The left's only legal argument against overturning Roe is stare decisis, but stare decisis doesn't just demand obedience to precedent - there's an established process for considering whether a past decision should be overturned. This all comes down to the Court's overreach in Roe and Casey. There is no constitutional right to abortion when you apply the substantive due process analysis for unenumerated rights (if it's not in the Constitution, it has to be deeply rooted in the history and tradition of the U.S. such that it is inherent to ordered liberty). Abortion absolutely fails this test, but the Roe majority ignored the evidence that would have invalidated their holding (like the long history of abortion being criminalized in this country).
My objection to Roe isn't based on personal feelings about abortion. You can be pro-choice and recognize that Roe was wrongly decided.
The doctor and nurses never called my daughter a fetus, or embryo, or anything other than a baby. Didn't matter how far along my ex was, they called my daughter a baby
Abortion up to 18 years was literally the plot of Unwind
Objectively speaking, conception is the only point that makes sense for life to begin. Otherwise, you have to anoint some specific organ or timeframe special significance as the "life bestowing" factor. If the cells weren't alive, they can't multiply, the organism cannot grow and develop. Any other starting point for life is arbitrarily chosen.
You could make an argument for legal or medical life to be defined differently than biological life, since we do the same thing for death; biologically speaking Henrietta Lacks is still alive as cells that contain her specific genetic material are still alive and multiplying, but legally she's been dead for a few decades. Cell function isn't enough to declare someone still alive if their organs have failed.
Granted if you wanted to make the argument that legal life should have a different definition from biological life, it would have to be analogous to the difference between legal and biological death so it would have to be tied to organogenesis placing it between 4 days to three weeks post fertilization, well below the standard set by Roe so I doubt anyone pro choice wants to go down that road.
I am more pro life than choice, I'm not religious at all, I just find it quite awful when it's not safe, legal and RARE!
I enjoy the times Sitch is going through data and Adam is playing around like a kid chasing butterflies at a peewee Tball game.
I don't really hate anyone besides my ex but Chunk is coming close to being the second on my list. Him being a joke of a journalist saves him from it.
He is talking about body autonomy. So alito doesn't respect women's bodily autonomy but cares about his own.
So, how long until people start comparing it to handmaids' tale. which's nothing but feminist propaganda.
watching cenk makes me want to hunt large, mostly immobile, rare & tasty animals. like buffalo or something.
Cenk doesn't like me. I'm so devastated man... 😤😂😂🇬🇧🥁
I find the older I get the more against abortion I am.
But wait, if the peddlers are also the babecoolers, aren't they ruining their own market?
On a slider of 1 day to 9 months how pro choice are you? And if you are really liberal, then how about 1 day to 1 year old?
😂😂😂
Even if your pro abortion rvw is a bad case and should be legislated by The legislative branch
Dude. U gotta learn to do this. We don't wanna hear 5 seconds and then both of u laugh and talk nothing and then repeat the Buffalo
Can we just go back to live and let live? Well the aborted babies might agree with that sentiment.
If we can’t even agree when life begins then we can’t legislate on a federal level when it’s OK to have an abortion or not.
Cenk is really channeling his inner 15 year old girl at 1:11:00
Out of context it sounds like he’s bullying another teenage girl in his friend group 😆
Crumbtube is just a mean girls clique that never got over their teen years. Yes, that includes the "men" too.
you guys need to start putting time stamps if you want to stop the video every two secs....
This video starts too strong lol with Sitch's giggling, too strong.
Can someone explain what mole bug is?? I have no idea
All this did was return the issue to the states. Nothing is banned
Real funny because Cenk was a bush republican 🤣
I didn't know Cenk was a woman. Why else would he be reacting this way?
3:30 freedom does not mean murdering children
This show reminds me of mining the Nether...
Pro murder. Call it what it is and own it.
Ya'll have me DEAD over here, lol!!!
Simple as: decisions are made long before a child is conceived. Consensual decisions that lead to a child should not be abortable. There's adoption. I think that covers it