Thanks for watching! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates: • What if AI debated ILLEGAL Immigration & Deportation? 👉 ua-cam.com/video/K9RrU4doKd4/v-deo.html 🔔Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
Agreed. I had to turn off the last debate I listened to because the moderator didn't do s good job at keeping one side in check (and without letting on which side was which) the opposition's stand was nowhere near as militant as the other side... one was only a moderate pro-their-side and the other was much closer 'fundamentalist-on-their side'
Yeah people tend to get emotional when they see one side as murdering babies and it's legal so they cannot do anything about it. The have passion for it. Personally I think it's murder, but if you want to do that, that's between you and a higher power if said exists.
Yeah, no one's life can fundamentally change with the outcome of the debate. It's very low stakes. If you might be forced to be pregnant, you too might find it difficult to remain calm, given the possible outcome.
I love how Dr. Choice didn't immediately accuse Dr. Life of misogyny or "wanting to control women" and instead focused on the ethics regarding fetuses.
This is an example of how AI can be beneficial for a quick understanding of complex debates. Thanks for this. Would love a video on how you set this up.
@@midnull6009 its common sense even with religion and politics. Abortion ends a life, therefore its murder. Not complex at all, what is complex is the undying need for said murderers and supporters of said, to justify their actions by delving into delusion and fantasy by claiming that sucking the unborn body of a human out of a womb is not murder or that the life inside of said womb is simply a clump of cells. As if all humans of all ages aren't exactly that. Govt is beheld to the Pharma industry which is a multibillion dollar industry with more pull than the president himself. They push the propaganda machine to encourage young mothers to "abort" their fetus. They don't care about the child or mother, they simply want free stem cells to fuel their maniacal lust of power and greed.
@@ivaniux8450 it’s come up a lot because banning abortion on the basis of embryos being legal people, ended up accidentally threatening IVF in conservative states. Some embryos are frozen and unused, intentionally killed, or used for research. They also have their own dna and potential to life. their death is generally more accepted, because it aligns more with conservative values/creating more people . But if personhood starts at conception, it’s immoral.
The debate was already bound to be better than what happens in politics when the Choice side conceded that life began at conception scientifically rather than playing games and jumping around an inconvenient truth like what we see
@@deancollinss what he meant if that normally pro-choice people claim that the baby isn't alive. they say things like: "it's not a human life", "it's not living", "I value the one who is alive first", etc. He was more like saying, that finally pro-choices will stop claiming so terrible basic biology
I agree. I'm pro-choice, but I don't bother to argue that. Abortion is killing a child, there's no question about it. The only question is whether that killing is Justified, or should be treated as a crime.
@@sordidknifeparty This is interesting, I've never seen a person admit to being pro choice while acknowledging that abortion is killing a baby. As I already have my own opinions on the matter, I'm quite interested in your perspective if you are willing to take the time to share it. Under what circumstances would it be justified to kill a baby?
I'm 20 years old i employ you to remember my name Terry Stephan Masterson III, I wanna fix this country through actual reasoning and though the peoples beliefs, I've determined I am going to dedicate my life to this country moving towards a great future in which our rights are respected, our politics aren't going to be pointless arguments. For the next 16 years I'm studying everything about what we do right and wrong as a country according to my standard, so when I run for president i can lay out my plan immediately, be able to immediately respond to actual issue while brushing off far left and far right questions that push an agenda to me you look bad. and I will be able to explain how the president and vice president and the cabinet can achieve those goals, and I would hope truly good ideals and righteous policy's will pass by congress as I understand most people truly do want good stuff for themselves and the everyday family. I will end corporate power in government as it only leads to greed controlling the agenda of the two major parties. Look up "The Think Tank" The Heritage Foundation, Reagan implanted many of their policies under his presidency and their policies were against the everyday worker and for the businessman, because the presidents before Reagan were helping the everyday workers and the rich people had a little less money to roll in so the started this foundation that gets donations from many major companies today which we knew about in the past, but know slowly this foundation lobbied for anonymous donations, so now we now know major companies donate, just not who. Anyways I will end this coopete rain on America if not done by me being 36. I believe God will lend me his hand and wisdom in this goal, I believe Jesus is my lord, but I will never force that onto anyone, because that what makes America, America, That freedom that we all are born inherit with. Remember Terry Masterson III you will see me in 16 years, now i realize I can run for president exactly when i turn 36 we got exactly for more terms, God lines things up for me and all of us.
@@tellmewhenitsoverLiterally no way you’re saying this in the context of Trump V Harris lmao. Trump is the master dodger. I would love to see the AI bring up Haitian migrants eating pets
Can you link me to the 1% please? I've only seen discussions where at least one side (usually the abortion side) resorts to namecalling and strawmen, if not screaming and physical violence.
Yep. In general late teem abortions are only in my opinion in special cases like rape, insest, severe fetal abnormalities(missing brain), and life of mother. I say 25 weeks and below is a good general rule for allowed abortions imo.
@@AoH3_King There instances of fetus having congenital deformities that prevent the fetus from engaging in labour and delivery, it would just stay in the womb past 40 weeks putting the mothers life at great risk. Look up the case Savita Halappanavar, an Indian dentist in Ireland whose death due not being provided late term abortion (because of law following Catholic ban on abortion) resulted in a referendum in 2012 that the scrapped the abortion ban in Ireland, her fetus literally begane to rot inside her body causing sepsis and ultimately shock leading to death of the Mother. There also cases of immune incompatibility between fetus and mother where immune system of either recognizes the other as a threat leading to things like Erythroblastosis fetalis (were the fetus dies) or pre-eclampsia (which is fatal to the mother).
@@clovebeans713 all of which became completely irrelevant once the caesarian section was invented. Something which is completely safe and nothing like an abortion, which is unnecessary in 100% of circumstances. Next
They've done similar video ideas before. ua-cam.com/video/GOOgHN24WcQ/v-deo.htmlsi=Q8Fm6EtiGSKVTByq ua-cam.com/video/eY_il2MZjxc/v-deo.htmlsi=1rtBfJp9PiiGkeN1
@Methodius-and-Cyril they crucified Him for claiming to be the messiah they said we are not stoning you for any good work but because you a mere man claim to be God
That is totally useless though, the Jews like me believe Jesus didn’t perform miracles in general and don’t believe they happened, and that Jesus was just a good Jew, while Christian’s believe he did do miracles, and some of the only records of these miracles come from the Bible, so it’ll just be a back and forth “yuh huh” vs “nuh uh”
The essence of Dr. Life’s argument is that all human life has high intrinsic value. Unfortunate, or horrible, circumstances don’t change the actual value of the human life caught in those circumstances. The essence Dr. Choice’s argument is that there is a spectrum regarding the value of human life, and at some point on that spectrum certain human lives are less valuable than the ability to live without the burdens associated with sustaining that life.
@@kaydnburns5935Sustaining life. Bringing a new life to the world is possible but maintaining it depend on those giving new life and societies itself. A cow with it's calf is surrounded with a pack of wolves. The chances of the calf to survive is slim. Rate of birth all over the world is on a decline. We are in a state of depopulation due to cost of living and the resources are dwindling. If we can address those 2 issues, then we can give more birth but it's impossible now. Saying is easy, doing is hard.
@@tr1bes Youre beyond uninformed and out of touch with reality. Birth rates are ONLY declining in first world countries, the rest of the worlds birth rate is increasing. The more wealth and resources a country has the less babies they have not the other way around. We live in the best time in human history to have a child, its safer, easier and more affordable than ever. "BuT MeAt iS 12$" yea but you didnt have to risk your life every day hunting for it like we did for 10,000 years. Only first world privileged people like your self think its too hard to have a baby lmao. Air conditioning, super markets and social media have melted your rational brain.
@@tr1bes Also the phenomenon of low birth rates in first world countries like Europe, north America and Asia is largely due to abortion access, the destruction of the family unit, having both genders in the work place, restructuring of societal norms and values, devaluing relationships and glorifying quick dopamine and selfish lifestyles. The poorest and most violent countries on earth have the highest birth rates (Somalia, chad, libya, angolia, congo, iraq, pakistan, iran, afghanastan)
I love these debates because they are actual debates, they are being objective while treating the theme at hand with it´s due sensitivity, if more situations like this happened IRL I´m convinced we would understand eachother better
@@BibleN3rdon top of that people who might be this smart are pressured because they are on stage, and get fatiged over time which degrades their arguments. These ai could go on for the rest of eternity
The lady A.I. absolutely spanked the choice A.I. when it came to him changing the subject. He argued miscarriages showed we behave differently toward them. And she in her A.I. voice basically responded that these cases have nothing to do with choosing to kill verse natural death.
It isn't ignoring. there are facets to abortion with validity, and those which have value but raise questions. there is no end all point to this. that is why it is a debate.
Yeah, its role play, its weird but im sure theyve probably read every report avaliable to them online from people in that specific field of research, they have so much data its like an evolving brain
@@Izaokas-IgnotasChodakaukas you should be asking why is it scary? its scary because it suggests that babies and disabled human beings might not be persons.
@@skolix909And this was the crux of the Eugenics movement. They identified which types of people were genetically preferred and sought to rid society of “undesirables”. Whether by birth control, abortion, or forced sterilization, they sought to eliminate those who they deemed to be inferior. This included the disabled. Some approaches dealt with this directly (genocide) while others preferred a gradual elimination over time through reduced reproduction rates. Today, we see this play out in a different way. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism also leads to a reduction in reproduction.
Dr. Life gave philosophical and consistent responses which were not very arguable which caused Dr. Choice to continually bring up new points and it felt like a lot of “yeah but...” and relied on social norms/opinions
It was exactly this that became annoying. Ok, that didn’t work. How about this …no? Crap, ok this… no? Crap. Dr PC should have addressed any of the Dr PL points - and when it didn’t address the 19 weeks example there was no logical reason for any of the other LLM’s to say Dr PC won without their algorithm already being biased.
Right, that’s because the pro life stance is very simple whereas the pro-choice is applied differently each time. Have you ever watched multiple people debate from the pro-choice stance? Almost all of them have a slightly different view point or moral reasoning.
A miscarriage is difficult emotionally because, whether acknowledged expressly or not, the parents have already defined the fetus as a full person, and as a result they mourn their death.
Exactly. It is actually insane to see the difference in response that people have to someone who miscarried at 10 weeks vs aborted at 10 weeks. The baby is only a person if it’s wanted.
@@margie5310currently pregnant with our first baby and I agree entirely. I love this baby, it’s gonna be a little person, we want this baby. If that weren’t the case and we didn’t want children and let’s say our birth control failed (it most likely wouldn’t, we had 3 different methods we were using simultaneously up until trying for a baby)- I should have every right to terminate my pregnancy.
@@margie5310That’s actually super normal. It all has to do with emotional attachment. If I have a pet and someone killed it, I would be insanely upset despite the fact that I eat meat. These are essentially the same scenario you’re describing
You mean when a male is aloud to even have the ability to discuss the topic? The only reason it’s “acceptable” in this is because of the side he was placed in which was smart.
@@colonelsanders5278 And yet here you are being randomly(but commonly) negative and insulting, yup..."Pro-choice" is definitely the problem and not people like you XD
@@retro6309the pro choice side is usually the ones trying to attack character, "you just wanna control women" or "your a male, you can't have an option on this!". Or manipulation of "minors 🦐 themselves without access" which really doesn't paint a good picture btw. I'm not saying the pro life side is perfect, ofcourse not. but he has a point, most arguments devolve when a pro choicer decides you're a bad person for having an opinion and wanting to discuss it. And you going out of your way disregard him actually proves him right.
While this debate was shockingly fruitful and it was interesting to hear some more concrete arguments from pro life, i couldnt help but notice two things: 1. The ethics/science ratio between the two was not the same between the two, leaving Choice coming across as cold and disinterested in human life, and Life coming across more sympathetic despite the science. 2. This debate did not really address dangerous pregnancies, particularly in cases where the mother's life is in danger. And really short was the discourse regarding involuntary pregnancies.
About dangerous pregnancies, I have a good video for you here : ua-cam.com/video/5TmomK2RB2A/v-deo.htmlsi=4gNAPSxHCr2r6v6j (5 minutes) In few words, it explains that if it’s correct to say “some pregnancies are dangerous for the mother”, the baby in her womb never needs to be dead to save her. However, the only purpose of an abortion is to make this specific thing happen. Not being pregnant anymore is different from killing the foetus in her womb. She can deliver early (when the baby is viable outside of the womb), so it’s always possible to protect both lives, since complications rarely happen before the child is viable (around 23 weeks I think)
Also, I would like to add that you will never find any (intelligent) pro-life wanting to force a woman to be pregnant if it’s dangerous for her. Why ? Well, that’s simple : if the mother dies, the baby dies too. A pro-life simply doesn’t want to create a hierarchy between two human lives, and thanks to today’s medical science, it’s never an obligation. So delivering early is the best compromise I think
@@trgblogs1268 To me, the violinist hypothesis is slightly disingenuous in the way it's framed. It's framed in such a way as to invoke your outrage at the idea of being kidnapped and then connected to someone to keep them alive - but it's framed in such a way that the initial feeling is that the violinist is someone your kidnapper is actively keeping alive and specifically kidnapped you to do. However, the reality is that you and the violinist have both been kidnapped together, and are inextricably connected, with you keeping them alive with your blood, and them entirely unconscious. You can cut them off and leave them to die, continuing your life, or you suffer for 9 months, but both come out alive. If you have another take on it, I would love to hear it.
@joshgriffith7554 It's irrelevant. Yes, both sperm and ovum are alive prior to conception, but neither ever become anything other than sperm or egg on their own. During conception, sperm and ovum interact. They cease to be sperm & ovum, becoming zygote. Zygote undergoes cell division to form blastocyst, at which point the outer membrane which was formed by the egg hatches. Bottom line is the Zygote will likely become human child if left to natural processes. Zygote is analogous to fertilized condor egg. It's illegal to destroy one of the two.
even before a fetus has any meaningful stage of development? No consciousness, no ability to feel pain. The idea that potentiality is the same as current state is insane. I put eggs, flour, and sugar on the table in a pan, is this the same as a cake because it had the potential to become one? This example doesn't even account for the effects on the mother.
@@sortingbadge4123so are you arguing that all females regardless of species shouldn’t have the ability to get pregnant and reproduce?? Are you suggesting that a coma patient unable to feel or respond to stimuli can be abused at will by those around them? Are you saying that being human alone isn’t enough to have inherent human value?? So whats the standards you’d then place on human value and what do you do with those who weren’t aborted and are walking around but don’t fit the standard? Should they be put in groups and separated from the rest of society? Given jobs that meet their station?? Congratulations you’ve made the logical argument for Eugenics. Unless you’re able to admit it I’d reevaluate my positions it I were you.
@@vikkidonn Not at all. I am not suggesting that females should not have ability to get pregnant/reproduce. I am also not saying that coma patients can be abused. But you must concede that the "value" that coma patients do have is markedly less than your average human. A fetus is not completely valueless but to say a fetus and/or a coma patient has the exact same value as a normal living person is preposterous. Not sure where you got the "you arguing that all females regardless of species shouldn’t have the ability to get pregnant and reproduce?? Also, take a dead human corpse for example, would it then also be advocating for eugenics to imply it has less value than a living person since they are both human but have different "capability"?
@@sortingbadge4123 1st no I belive ALL humans have equal value based inherently on being human. This was one of the questions I asked and I’m glad you answered, even if long winded. So yes you don’t believe in equal human rights based on simply being human. That is definitionally eugenics. Thank you. 2nd when you implied that the natural ability to reproduce was somehow so terrible that women should have full control to end it, control it, ect you were putting forth a notion that the natural biology of a female is in and of itself an issue and problem. This is the same ideology that has fueled the “test tube” babies and “lab grown” human projects for centuries now. The idea that nature is to be altered implicitly to remove the capability of pregnancy from women altogether. Such was my question. 3rd you suggest equal human rights are “preposterous” and then attempt to suggest its then logical to me that a dead human is of the same value as a living human. The implication on your part wasn’t clear so let me answer deeply. A human corpse is valuble for several reasons. Is it 100% equal to a living human being? No. Because it is dead. Death isn’t comparable to any other condition of a living human and therefore definitionally cannot be equal. What makes humans 100% equal is the fact they are human but ALSO living. Very simple, objective, and unchanging.
@@vikkidonn Eugenics is the study or practice aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. This involves encouraging reproduction among individuals with perceived desirable traits and discouraging or preventing reproduction among those with perceived undesirable traits. Historically, eugenics has been associated with controversial and unethical practices, including forced sterilizations and discriminatory policies. The primary intent behind abortion is to respect the autonomy and health of the pregnant person, allowing them to make decisions about their own body and life circumstances. Eugenics, conversely, involves external control over reproductive choices to achieve a perceived societal benefit, often infringing upon individual rights. Abortion rights are grounded in principles of personal liberty and bodily autonomy. I never said "human rights are preposterous", nor did I say the that the natural ability to reproduce was terrible. My reference to a corpse or a coma patient/brain dead individual is that they are treated differently than normally operating and living humans; and no, not because a coma patient is tube fed, before the obfuscation comes. The topic of abortion is about bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. You claim that abortion is akin to murder, or at least the unjust killing of another human because you believe life begins at conception. I believe that personhood is/should be a primary consideration on this topic. I value personhood over a collection of cells, despite that collection of cells being chromosomally/genetically "human". Fetuses do not possess the key characteristics of personhood (ie consciousness and/or reasoning). Say for example, a baby was born without a brain, but doctors are able to keep the body alive. If I understand your position here, you would argue that pulling the plug, or aborting that pregnancy would be completely immoral and akin to eugenics? Keep in mind what you claim is most important is that the homo sapien genetic code is present. I'm willing to allow there to be a disctinction, for sake of argument, on active interruption vs. inaction that shares the same consequence (death), but you get what I am saying. You can continue to be snarky with "thank yous" and bad faith. Obviously a dead human corpse is a human corpse. I thought it would be inferred that I am drawing a distinction in the societal "value" of its state, thus implying an additional characteristic of importance, personhood. Legally, this is hotly debated. Roe v. Wade argued that the term "person", in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn, in 2022 when it was overturned, states have both implemented "fetal personhood" laws and protections for abortion. To say that the position opposite yours is completely absurd is either bad faith or ignorant. Can you not appreciate the merits of both arguments? I am not accusing you of this per se, as it seems you are taking a more biological approach, but religious beliefs should stay as far away from jurisprudence as possible, in my opinion.
To say that personhood is not automatic for all humans is incredibly dangerous and this idea has been used throughout history for injustices that we know to be wrong.
What makes something a human? Is a severed arm a human? It has human DNA, and can continue to live with the help of medical machines. Is a brain dead person a human? They essentially have the same qualities as the severed arm. Is a brain in a jar human? It has no input organs to have any experiences, making it effectively no different from the braindead person. What is your definition of a human that would require personhood to be a necessary resulting quality?
It’s eugenics. Pro choice is a cover term to describe fence riders who tend to lean towards supporting eugenics. The term eugenics itself hasn’t been used publicly since it was socially beaten up during wwll. When Hitler imported eugenicists from America to help build the concentration camps and various sterilization programs ect. These people were openly racist in America. The institutions still exist today they just do things in the dark now.
The choice ai saying miscarriages would need moral considerations confused me bc from what ive seen when women have a miscarriage it already needs moral consideration their baby just died
@@ACrossland22 Grieving something doesn't mean the thing that you are grieving have inherently value, it just means YOU valued it. Parents grieving or not grieving isn't an argument.
People miscarry a lot. People might mourn sometimes, but most people do not feel like an early miscarriage has the same weight as a full term situation. Those are not the same.
@@Neon-bs7es Where does it state it is old? 'an old Earth' idea is based on the big bang and there is no reason to think it is old except it and the 'evidence' they have come up with. If you're making a biblical comparison as @_Helix_Nebulous requested, then there is no reason to think it is old because the God of the bible is all knowing and he doesn't need to make experiments to learn how to create the world and life. Additionally, it is said he created Earth on the first day and man on the seventh day. And a day is a day, it is 24 hours. There are lots of reasons why but I am in no mood to make a long comment. The recorded history of humans, population, and human artefacts all suggest that the Earth is 6000 years old
I was skeptical of this "AI debate," and after looking through the channel's videos I'm pretty convinced it should be taken with a grain of salt. This originated as a christian channel, and all the AI videos you'll see align with christian conservative values, which is too convenient for me to accept without question. There is nothing wrong with being christian, but I don't think it's possible for a christian channel to provide an unbiased video on abortion when their default position is that it's wrong. For those not aware, AI is not an objective, infallible machine of logic and truth. It can easily be manipulated to provide the results you want, while making it seem it was its own conclusion. A healthy dose of skepticism is advised.
@ Not sure why, but they have now deleted the “first” video they had uploaded when I last checked. That video was uploaded around 2 years ago titled "Jesus is God. These 33 Bible verses prove it in 5 minutes". You can find this by looking up the channel in the wayback machine. Even without that video, we can use the information still available to realize the bias present. Currently, 6 out of the 9 videos in this channel have God as a central topic, and in every single one, the AI decides in favor of the character defending the Christian position. On top of that if you look up Jon Olesiuk, you can see he has directed various Christian shows between the years of 2013-2019 with the latest called "Young Once". With this information we can make a highly educated guess that it's very likely the creator of this channel is using it to evangelize. Now, I want to make it clear that I have no issue with Christians using their platforms to discuss their beliefs. Honestly, all of Jon's work seems to be very well made. However, I do think that it's misleading to use AI to try to frame your own Christian beliefs as "unbiased/objective" when AI is so easily manipulated to produce the desired results. You can see this on this channels' own short titled "ChatGPT ‘PROVES’ Islam, Christianity or ANY belief!" in which they show that ChatGPT will present any desired answer as "truth" by tweaking the prompt. All of this to say that a Christian creator posting a video which suggests abortion is immoral (while trying to paint it as "unbiased" by using AI tools) feels dishonest. Again, a healthy dose of skepticism is good with these sorts of things. This is an actively controversial topic, the outcome of which has real consequences on real people. These videos are entertaining, but nobody should be using them to form their opinions on subjects as important as this. The issue is that not everyone is aware of how biased and easy to manipulate AI is, so I'm doing my part in letting people know that.
The violinist argument is a fallacy because it overlooks the fact that the womb is the natural environment for the fetus; it is literally designed to nurture a new human. It is not an artificial situation where we connect someone arbitrarily to sustain another person.
All their analogies are just desperate attempts to distract from the brutal realities of abortion. They never want to be honest and just say "yah I don't care though, morals aren't real, right/wrong don't exist, I'm killing the child and don't care". They won't do it because they know how insane they will appear, plus nihilism can be debunked alone. But its odd that their justification always avoids the reality.
Also, the person that is abducted and hooked up to violinist did not perform and consent to action that would have had had a consequence of being attached to the violinist (in >99% of cases). They were just existing and then taken off the street to do this.
This is the only time I've heard a conversation about abortion stay on topic. And consequently the only time I've heard a coherent pro-choice argument. I'm so impressed and fascinated with the idea of AI debates now. As they are maybe yhe best way to understand two sides of an argument quickly.
The pro choice argument is really simple. As women, we decide who lives and who dies. It's as arbitrary as the "existence of God" argument. We don't need a reason.
@@teresamagnusson disagree, if you have a choice to kill someone it’s one thing, if you have a choice that doesn’t involve death in any form - it’s completely other topic
@@teresamagnussonI mean, hats off to you for reaching the logical conclusion. Yes, as the child bearer, mothers have the unique ability to determine whether a new life is brought into the world. Now it’s incumbent on those women to decide whether it’s better to create a life or destroy it. One shows optimism for the future of our species and love for humanity, while the other is repugnant and on the side of Hitler and others who hold human life in so little regard.
I had a 12 week ultrasound and I couldnt believe how active my baby was on the monitor. I thought she would just be curled up motionless in a ball, but she was moving around so much, stretching her arms above her head and kicking. And she was all there: nose, lips, eyes, legs, fingers, and toes.
The AI is disregarding most countries and parent’s ability to actually support these “necessary” children. It idealizes our societies as ones that are completely fit to raise these kids as healthy individuals. Whatabout the mothers that would starve on the streets just trying to support their infant? Babies cost a heck ton of money not everybody has. The reason we used to have a lot of children was because we knew a lot of them would die.
The debate was about the moral worth of the fetus, not the financial viability of children. Your argument amounts to letting kids die just because they are poor.
@@portal2boyz405the ai is based in the us. Other countries are irrelevant. All lives are as you say “ necessary”. This is why doctors have a Hippocratic oath to help all patients regardless of sex, age, mental state, race, religion, and economic status. It idolizes a morel and just society. This is why we abolish slavery. We realized that slaves were people to and they deserve rights. Now the next step is to extend the right to the people in the whom. They are vulnerable humans that need to be protected. The us is flush with welfare to help those in need. No one is going hungry. Contrary we have an obesity issue. So we should just kill people if they might not be living in super ideal situations? Sounds pretty morbid to me It’s funny how you bring up poor people and having kids you don’t see all these super wealthy people with 10 kids. Statistically as people get more money they have less kids. Somehow poor people make it work. Lastly, no one saying that anybody should have 10 kids, You can choose not to get pregnant, but if a woman is with child, she should bring that child to light and not murder it .
I’m surprised how consistent these arguments were, the model for Dr. Life had arguments that I never heard before, although leaning too heavily on arguments that seem to be from authority. It seems Dr. Choice was taking a lot of mainstream inputs, while Dr. Life had more academic inputs, which makes me think what would happen if you switched the response order. Overall the lack of gaslighting and red herrings made this pleasant to listen to compared to political debates.
Thats because the PC argument is entirely a cultral one and focuses on the intrusion of governemnt into an individuals life. Switching any order in this would come to the same outcome. If you wanted something interesting you would change the "consistent morals". Something like Humans ascribe meaning in the universe. Thus, if humanity ends meaning ends. Its Humanities duty to ensure itself into the future to maintain meaning in the universe. Should we terminate pregnancies that are likely to swallow resouces and delay progress that would likely ensure humans into future?
If you speak to pro-lifers who actually understand their position, the arguments that Dr. Life brought up are frequently used. I actually thought there was a few more arguments that Dr. Life could have used in response, but chose not to. Such as a parents inherent responsibility to their child, which is a social norm that is accepted in all other areas of the law (if a mother does not feed her child, but has the ability to, she is arrested for child neglect). In every circumstance other than rape, the woman chose to engage in a reproductive act which resulted in reproduction. To deny that consent to sex equals the consent to the possibility of pregnancy, is like saying consenting to eat does not mean you are consenting to defecating. It is the natural biological outcome.
@@GrimmDragon203the AI is clearly working off medical knowledge. Just because society and culture changes their opinion on conceptions does not mean that in the realm of biology and science there is a shift on what studies show.
The point of the argument is the dependency of the fetus to the mother. Only the mother can take it to full term. If someone needs say my liver to live, the law cannot force me to donate my liver or any other parts of my body. The law would force mothers to use their bodies for the fetus. As soon as the infant is born, it no longer requires the mothers body
@@minhn1791 You grew your liver for yourself. A woman grows and has a uterus solely for her offspring. The uterus is the only organ that exists for someone other than the human who grew it. Your kidneys are yours, your liver is yours, your spleen is yours, your uterus is there only for the gestation of your children. Also, you can donate a piece of your liver. Consenting to the action that can get you pregnant is consent to the potential outcome of pregnancy.
@@Nahnah111The uterus is for reproduction, however the uterus is connected to women’s hormones and other health benefits to women. The law cannot force anyone to donate pieces of liver or something as simple as blood to save a life
@@Nahnah111so what if the potential outcome of pregnancy is a fetus attached to the womb? what makes that fetus have a right to keep attaching to said womb?
when they touched on the "potential" of life versus the "actuality" of life it addressed a point I have had and barely ever heard. It was so nice to hear here.
Yes. Regardless of you opinion 90% of people arguing for this would resort to "I can do what I want to do an noone can tell me otherwise" ( actually that's atheistical satanic take ) or "it's not a baby, it's a fetus. F e t u s, see the difference using word offspring from Latin makes in considering someone alive ?" ( A. k. a. It an untermansche, a Jew or a Slav, what's wrong with making Jew flavoured soap from those things, they are not a human like us Germans ) I think this topic should only ever be debated by philosophers not common men cause they are not nearly philosophical enough to even bring out trolley or violinist.
I constantly debate pro life with these same points. I'm often called a terrible person who supports assault of 12 year olds or forcing breeding on women. It's often the pro choice side that is so emotional and can't debate rationally and respectfully
They have throughout all of time. It's only recently people have become venomous in their cult like beliefs. If anyone should be outraged it should be the ones who have to argue for babies not to be pulled apart by forceps.
I believe that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term - whatever the reason - is ALWAYS going to have extremely negative consequences on BOTH the woman and the baby. For the mother, I think it's obvious why. For the baby, they could either be put out for adoption, which is of course traumatizing, or they could live in an house where there is no love for them, also deeply traumatizing. I'd rather have an happy woman who had an abortion and no baby (by the way I agree with all of Dr. Choice's claims on abortion, the reasons why it's ethical, the 24 weeks etc.) than two miserable human beings.
I have to say you are officially my new favorite yyou tube channel. Please dont stop making these. Be like the Channel company man, and just make 1 video a week so you dont stress yourself out.
3:50 Its kinda wierd to argue against/for AI, but Ill give it a shot. My girlfriend recently had a miscarrige. I haven't cried like that in many years, to which spans over the course of many other tragic life experiences. This one was an exceptionally brutal blow to me. I mourned our loss and all. Im sure SOME people might regard a misscarrige as a body malfunction and nothing else, but It doesn't seem to hold true with most of western society. For example, look at tv comedy shows such as family guy or Morel Orel. I believe family guy had an episode that was scrapped because it tackled the misscarrige topic. It was too serious and unsettling, so they didn't go through with it. Some say morel orel was canceled BECAUSE they aired an episode on the topic. I do believe most people take misscarriges seriously and as a tragic loss, it is really hard to imagine most people not doing that. To what degree of pain in comparison to that of a born child passing awayis up for debate, but for my girlfriend and I, we lost our child. There is no thought in my mind that says, "Atleast they weren't born yet". This is all aside from the abortion argument, which after our misscarrige, really put it all in perspective for me. But to be fair, I was already prolife. Now I just don't understand how someone could "end a pregnancy" just because. You can argue the fringe, low hanging fruit of "grape" and "binscest", but for it to be used as birthcontrol is nothing short of evil. I don't even believe in god or whatever, its just out right evil, man.
Women still should be the ones to decide what to do. It’s down to personal choice if to do it or not, if it’s good or not but the option shouldn’t be taken away. Tbh e one carrying the baby is still the one that’ll have their body being used to develop that baby and the one that’ll most likely have to care for them their whole life. It can be bad but still allowed, depends on the persons upbringing and choices.
@@anapaola7241 She did choose. She choose to have sex. Ending the life of a baby is just straight up evil. Thier body is being used? They are carrying the baby because they choose to though sex. "grape" cases is a separate debate (not to mention happens far less often than consenting). I am talking solely about consentual and mutual actions. A choice was made. To deprive the baby of life for the sake of a mothers change of mind is just twisted. The unborn child did nothing wrong, including "using" the mother, and deserves life just as much as you and I. It doesn't feel right to not put children first over someones lack of self control.
@@A_Dog_You_Know I agree fully with everything you said and I admire it. Good points, especially "she chose to have sex" I'm sorry about your baby 💔 I pray for yours and your lady's peace and healing
Wow, this is unfortunately incredibly stupid. Miscarriages can cause risk of death to the mother as well. The mother should have the choice to ABORT that fetus, it's not an equivalent human. It's in the process of becoming a person. A sperm cell isn't a person and neither is the ovum or a fetus below 24 weeks. That's the straight reality, women need access to abortions for their own safety.
3:51 my sisters were around 20 weeks when they passed, and my parents had a funeral for them. We’ve visited their graves and mourned them. This is such an offensive point. It has no ground
It's dilly yo debate if it's alive, of course it's alive. The ugly truth is that we're not necessarily going to allow it to continue. We decide who lives and who dies.
It's a true point though. except the percentage is way off. It's more like over 50% If we're including very early term miscarriages, like within the first week, including failure to implant and such. Implantation rate is affected by being drunk. So should everyone that has sex while drunk be charged with murder?
@emmy_grace I believe the point being made was from a legal and social standpoint. The laws of the country and the unspoken rules of society aren't going to be changed to represent every single miscarriage -- especially because many happen without knowledge of the mother. That's not to say that a funeral isn't still a wonderful or important thing to do on an individual basis, especially when it happens on such a late-term basis. I know it was not meant to be offensive at all.
You can treat them like people and that's not the point. The point is that, a woman should have an option to abort a miscarriage. The mother when she chooses herself over an unborn fetus should NOT go through trauma, for the fetus is NOT an equivalent human being.
Dr Choice contradicted himself. He argues that he counsels women who have suffered miscarriages, and yet claims that acknowledging the deaths of unborn infants challenges societal norms. Didn't he JUST say that the women he is counseling are essentially mourning the loss of their children? I know AMPLE men who mourn the death of their unborn children, regardless of how early or late in the pregnancy the couple lost their baby.
I love how well thought out, how well formed and put together this is, and then I remember, yeah. Humans. Most will not watch this video, at-least fully. And actually care to see another perspective, but rather just go down here, to the comments, and begin fighting over the arguments that they themselves will never actually participate in, in any meaningful life changing way personally. I'd give my opinion on the subject, but that feels like it would dismay from my point. Please, watch the video, appreciate a nice, not screaming, high school debate.
Good news is this is by far the most civil comment section on this topic I have ever seen. Yeah you can still find harsh comments, but in general good discussions.
These videos are very excellent! I appreciate them and all the work you’ve put in. I have one little question, though. I’ve always noticed in my own ventures playing with AI that they don’t really ask questions. In debates of most forms, cross examination requires questioning. Is there any way that you could include this? I think it would elevate the debate to be more direct, less repetitive, and insightful!!
I honestly love this. Hearing a proper debate without the heated emotions swings and such. It's also so nice that you added footnotes in the description!! It's something I wish more creators did when they are using heavy topics such as these by listing their sources
One thing I’ve always wondered is why most if not all states in the US allow abortion, claiming that the fetus is not actually a person with human rights until a certain time period. Yet when a pregnant woman is killed, it is considered a double homicide.
To me when you analyze humans unbiased it honestly seems that most of the value of a fetus prior to birth is purely based on the desire of the mother/father to actually have that baby. If a pregnant woman is killed who had chosen to keep the baby it makes sense that it would add to the severity of the crime.
I think the quality of the argument here isn't as good when the AI is trying to argue from the perspective of an expert. A pro-choice Oby/Gyn probably would not have made the viability arguments as he/she would be very familiar with the current research and status of medical breakthroughs in keeping preterm newborns alive. Either way, I love these videos. Please keep up the good work!
They wouldn't have argued that way because they are liars. 90% of pro abortion arguments rely on lies, faulty evidence and ignorance. Ais don't have any incentive to lie, so if they're wrong... well they're just wrong, whatever. It makes no difference to them. But it makes ALL the difference to us.
Not a bad take but consider the practicality implied here - while yes one child may have survived from 19 weeks onward outside the womb, the effort required to make that happen as well as the resources were, I can only imagine, astounding. So, in the near term, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume this is possible on anywhere near a large enough scale to affect the consideration of it.
@@Ken62737 The viability argument is usually used to demonstrate when "life" is said to begin and the argument against it is that it is something that changes with technology. How practical it is does not have any baring on its merits. For example, 19 weeks might be viable in a rich country with advanced healthcare but not viable in a poor country with almost no healthcare. Would we have different definitions of when a fetus is a person based on where they live?
@@epaybe I see - the pro choice AI accepted life beginning at conception though I thought? I was thinking of that augment as more an alternative to abortion than a philosophical line in the sand on personhood.
I like how they say that the cell's life begins at conception when both cells are "alive" before and after conception. It makes it a strange statement to say the word "life" when talking about conception. You could say you move the living cell to the path of where it will eventually become a human, but it doesn't change if it was a live or not.
Now , make them debate genders (3 - being male, female , undetermined due to physiological mutations/imbalances) and whether sexual orientation or their actual gender determines their gender
2, most intersex people are closer to one than the other, so just go with that, if someone is essentially right in the middle, just pick the one you like better.
there is no average "physiological mutations/imbalances" that have someone not have distinguishable reproductive parts. It should be about scientific biology. Not pseudo psychology science societal construct babble. Using astronomically small %s of the population, to says its ok for dudes to call themselves women because they're in a dress is asinine. Even more so when they are screeching everyone else has to do it as well. You took hormones, had surgery, etc? Wow.... you're a Man* (see fine print below) then. I say we revert to only using biological terms of male and female again, and leave the sociopaths behind.
The overwhelming majority of intersex people are still male or female, just with small abnormalities, the number of people who are truly intersex, with a mix of both genders reproductive organs are about 0.018%, and in that case they still sway slightly more to one side then the other, so it's not plausible to classify intersex as it's own 3rd gender.
I think the disconnect on the gender debate is about definition of a word, when some believe it’s a biological debate. Which just seems like a waste of time. I think the real debate should be about biological sex, which isn’t about definitions.. it’s objective.
Best response to the Violinist argument (on forced organ donations like kidneys) I've heard is that the uterus is the only organ in the human body that exists to grow ANOTHER (different) body. Credit to Stephanie Gray Conners discussing the question with Matt Fradd.
I actually think it's a poor response to the violinist argument. That's because there is more that is needed than just the uterus to grow an embryo. We need the heart for blood circulation, the blood for transporting nutrients, the kidney for expelling the baby's waste products, and so on. At best, this response just kicks the can down the road. The violinist proponent could simply agree for the sake of argument that the uterus belongs to the baby, and ask if they can have an abortion by removing both the baby and the uterus. And we are back to the violinist argument, just with extra steps. Ultimately, we know that simply having the uterus would not allow the baby to live, without all the auxilliary organs that join in to produce a viable environment.
On organ sellings, it is completely different, you only let someone die, not directly cause someone's death. Abortion directly causes someone's death, you cannot just kill a person who is in need of kidney, you can only let it die. If somehow the let it die equates to killing therefore you already have killed someone for not saving a child by not donating to a charity
Another thing about the violanist argument is that it is a disanalogous to pregnancy. When you abort, you are directly causing someone's death (like pushing someone in a lake). When you don't donate your kidney or in the violanist argument when you unplug, you are only letting someone die. Letting someone die and directly causing someone's death is different. If letting someone die equates to directly causing someone's death therefore you already have directly cause someone's death because you didn't save a child by donating to charity..
Force Organ Donation analogy is already flawed by thinking it is the same as directly causing someone's death. A right to control one's body doesn't mean a right to kill someone, a right to undermine your dignity, and a right to be evil. In law, you are not obligated to save one. In law, you are obligated to not kill someone. See the difference? A lot of pro-choice are confused by the difference. Plus, bodily autonomy argument justified late-term abortion, that's why Thomson said that she doesn't support late-term abortion, either way her argument does support it.
@@SachiiHatsuna I would say this is one of the better responses to the violinist argument. But it does suffer from the same problem of focusing too strictly on the details of the analogy rather than the core idea it is trying to present. Here, someone could suggest a reformulation where you are plugged to the violinist in a manner closer to some kind of horror movie - where if you were to pull the plug, it will automatically trigger a mechanism that kills the violinist. Does the principle and intuition that one should not be compelled to stay plugged still work here? It would still appear to be debatably so. One might be tempted to say that the fault lies not in the one who unplugs, but the one who setup such a mechanism in the first place - such as the consenting couple. But this also provides an out, because the pregnant woman isn't necessarily involve in setting up the mechanism. For instance, in the case of rape, then only the rapist is responsible for setting up such a mechanism. Thereafter, if we were to say the woman is free to unplug from the violinist because only the kidnapper is responsible for setting up the trigger death mechanism; then we are compelled to also say that abortion is not immoral in the case of rape.
The immediate takeaway is that even when programmed to be pro choice, ai recognizes that abortion after 24 weeks is messed up. Showing that even AI is more ethical than democrats.
...and what folks don't realize is that when someone says, let's return to Roe v Wade, they are saying abortion MUST be legal prior to viability (depending on the state, that's anywhere from 24-28 weeks) and can only be banned afterwards, but states can make abortion legal up until the moment of birth. That anyone argues to support third trimester abortion is just straight up legal.
@@KreatorStudios talk about ethics…pregnant woman are being allowed to die in Texas even when fetuses are not viable. Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, when complications jeopardize the life of the mother or a fatal fetal anomaly can be detected. I’m so sick of the lies that a woman would carry a pregnancy all the way to 6, 7 or 8 months and then just say meh, screw it I changed my mind.
@@TwinklingDelight read the website got questions and you’ll find how inherently unbiblical most catholic practices and beliefs are. Praying that God removes the scales from your eyes 🙏
There can be no debate there, debate is based on objectivism, objective morlaity is the only thing you can debate. Without objective morality, everything is permissible.
@@davidgavranic5044 Our very premise of morality is subjective as it is viewed from a human-centric perspective. Certainly within that framework, objective morality exists with regard to human well-being but the only way for morality to be at it's core objective would be if you could show some things are objectively "right" and/or "wrong" for all beings regardless of ideology, culture or species.
@@jonathanwestrum9345 animals don't have morality, we don't assign morals to animals, animals do what their instincts tell them is best for keeping their genetic lineage going. So only for humans do we talk about morality, and there, morality must be objective, or we have no basis for making any moral judgements. If morality is subjective, you can't say Hitler was evil, just that you wouldn't do the same, if he said you were evil for not commiting genocide, both of you would be equally valid in your views. Morality must be based on logic, not subjective feelings, and the basis of this logic, and it's axioms have been a subject of philosophical debate since the very beginning of philosophy, but all of them recognized, one must be correct, or there is no such thing as good or evil, just or unjust, and if justice does not exist, neither can laws.
@@davidgavranic5044 First, there’s no evidence to support morality is entirely unique to human beings. Second, your initial premise that unless morality is objective, we have no basis for making any moral judgements is fundamentally flawed as I explained earlier. Whether you believe morality is innate, bound to evolution, determined by culture, society or religion, the fact remains we approach it from a human-centric position making it entirely subjective from our point of view. Entirely for the sake of discussion, assume (again, theoretically) we someday made contact with an advanced, intelligent alien species that had developed its own morality. It is not unreasonable to assume and it logically follows their morality would naturally be centric to their own race, not ours, and hopefully, for our sake if they are the advanced race at the time of meeting, they would be compatible lol. Third, subjective and objective morality are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the majority of western morality is viewed through a prism of moral relativism proves morality is often viewed as conditional or can change depending on various standpoints. There are many examples of this illustrated in scenarios such as the trolly dilemma, the overcrowded lifeboat, etc. Fourth, in your Hitler example if something can be viewed subjectively then it cannot be objectively true. As to the rest, human well-being is foundational to morality and just because someone makes a subjective morality claim does not change that. As such, any argument that it would be immoral to not commit genocide would violate human well-being and therefore be a non-sequitur. So no, they would not be equally valid views. Finally, I agree with you that morality must be based on logic but just because the initial premise is subjective doesn’t mean it must remain so or must be argued only using subjective logic. Again, I’m not arguing that morality is entirely or can only ever be subjective, just that any objective morality argument is still predicated on a subjective premise. Good chat. Cheers 😊
@jonathanwestrum9345 I disagree entirely, I stand by what I said, you cannot make moral judgements on animals, an animal is an animal, if a lion kills and eats a gazelle, or kills a rival's cubs, it's not evil, it's just following it's instincts, and assigning morality to animals is fundamentally flawed logic, sure, they can do things we would consider moral or immoral if done by a human, but we cannot map human morality onto them. With regards to morality being sibjective and the hutler thing, if morality is subjective, then who is to say that violating human well-being is wrong? That would be objective morality, you can't have morality be subjective and determined by the individual, but then also have things that are always immoral. I am not claiming I know what is right and what is wrong, what I am saying is every moral dilemma has an answer, and if 2 people give different answers and both are right, you can't have morality at all, as you have to take your conclusions to their logical end, you can't stop halfway, if some things are always wrong, that means morality must be objective, you can't have it be subjective and have rules which are not up to personal interpretation. If there are moral axioms and rules which are not up to personal choice, then 2 people cannot arrive at different, but equally valid moral stances, as by the rules, even if it may be close, one would always be more moral, so if 2 different stances can be equally valid, that eliminates the existence of the rules which are not up to personal choice. Again, what you're suggesting is only possible if you take neither the idea of objective or subjective morality to it's logical conclusions, they cannot coexist. If morality is sibjective, means it comes from within each person, that means you cannot tell if you're right, or Hitler is, as there is no objective framework of right and wrong, you could say objective morality is just the sum of the subjective views around you, meaning society determines it, which would again mean Hitler was right since he had support. If we can call anything good or evil, the rules must come from outside, and thus be objective, or we have no grounds to stand on.
Not that her argument was bad or wrong, but those quotes were appeals to authority. A person being a philosopher doesn't give them the authority to determine the facts of morality since nothing is settled among philosophers themselves. She might as well have quoted famous authors.
@@ArbidarbFinally someone with a brain. I was confused every time that a philosopher was quoted like their words had any more meaning than anyone else’s.
Can't say I agree with Dr. Choice on the Miscarriage thing. Just because we humans don't go through the fanfare of a funeral doesn't mean we don't mourn the loss. It's just not talked about as much IMO.
I think the fact both AIs agreed life begins at conception is game over. When Dr. Choice started arguing one life is more valuable than the other life I started to see the scary implications of any potential AIs making consequential decisions in our society.
No because life doesn’t create value we do not value the dna code it’s more then that we value consciousness. And that’s what the issue is about the fetus or baby what ever u prefer it doesn’t have consciousness until a certain point. And at before that point it’s value is questioned yes it has potential but potential isn’t rlly a 100 percent thing so it becomes independenable and we debate it the the question isnt is it life its more so what makes life valueble
@@Obsessedwith.alenah You don't value life. You claim to value consciousness. Yet we can't not define consciousness or measure it. With that being said how do we know 100% anything..as you put it. We were all once fetuses. Imagine 100 years from now we discover that a fetus does in fact have consciousness. We would be looked at as barbarians. With so so much blood on our hands. The slavery argument is played out but it applies here. Many people a few hundred years ago felt slavery was perfectly fine. They assigned more value to some people's lives over other people's lives. It's a very similar argument. Innocent life over everything!!!!
Im saddened that you didnt go deeper into the life vs autonomy argument cuz the logical extreme of autonomy vs life is suicide. We shouldnt force the person to seek help who actively are for suicide. Because its ultimatley there autonomy. This is a very problamatuc view that i wish the debators explored a little more if the right to life is an even more important right Maybe you can make a video on wether assisted suicide is moral or not. Which takes place in countries like switzerland
@christopherlin8661 wdym the freewill argument was dead even and what about the election argument. The consensus is it needs to be changed among the judges. And how would you know what side he necessarily is on
We have to differentiate the philosophical concept of life from the psychological perspective of life, to be brief, the life has inherent value that integrates a final cause or way of being, on the concept of good, we understand it as the fair ordering of the being in function of their final cause, being the life the precondition of human being, therefore the human has the natural instinct to continously living because of their essence, but the way the mental or physical pain restricts us to contemplate the beutiful things of life makes us degrade the inherent value of life. So the professionals on their practice never have to abandon the idea for searching the way the patient can appreciate their life and not to run from it, this applies on almost all mindsets of suicidal thinking, but for the tragic cases of cancer is different because we can't guarantee their lives
2:20 the problem with this position is that it overlooks the fundamental objective of reproduction: to establish new life to continue the species. Children are ALWAYS saved before adults.
Just like with rectangles and squares, All persons are human, but not all humans may be considered as persons. That being said, the human right to life has always been the HUMAN right to life, so it should be applied to all unique living members of the human species. Terminating a human fetus goes against that right
@@AoH3_King Considering that it's a panel of AI's that judge it, it's really up to your own reasoning skills since they're naturally gonna be more biased towards their amount of training data along with other factors that we couldn't even comprehend. Personally I think the fundamental flaw for blue is the premise. The idea that human life itself has intrinsic value; the fact that it has human DNA is really what the argument boils down to in its key components. I think the placement on sentience actually allows for broader implications down the line as well as room for more compassionate exceptions without risk of unnecessary harm to individuals.
@@king0bubbles human DNA is not the point, but the fact that the embryo has a UNIQUE DNA sequence, distict from their parents, is used to say they are distinct beings from the mother, and the fact that embryos naturally grow and reach awareness is used to give value to the embryo, so the potential future of a sentient being is what is argued to, consistently, give value to life. Somatic cells are not naturally capable of generating new human life, wich is why they are not granted human rights (nor is anyone argueing for that) despite having human DNA. As for the broader implications of placing value in conciousness, I don't understand what you mean by that. As I see it, this relativization of the value of human life leads to further relativizations that lead to the legalization of murdering in other contexts. Unless you are talking about considering AIs, sentient aliens or even genetically modifed sentient animals as people, I don't think we need to relativize your notions on the value of human life for that, we only change the "human" part to "any species with sentience", even though I still don't believe AI should be considered people because of their inherent differences to us humans, and I don't think it is ethical to modify animals to make them sentient, even though I wouldn't deny them human rights if some mad scientist did it (I am also against animal cruelty, despite not being a vegetarian, just to make this point clear).
@@lucaskohn5457 Yeah, lol, I figured we're all watching an AI video so I might as well throw in the implications of emerging artificial sentience. On your first point, however, the saying of "life begins at conception" is absolutely predicated on valuing *specifically* human life (having unique human DNA) and that being inherent within itself. I disagree and would say that the value is given when the being gains the specific requirements that allow for a concept of value in the first place. I would also distinguish between potentiality and reality, meaning the idea that a being could exist is not the same as a being that does exist. Edit: Also you said that valuing sentience over potentiality could lead to justification of murders, that is the slippery slope fallacy.
I have some concerns with how this AI debate was structured. Assigning specific jobs or roles to the AI models restricts the debate, limiting it to perspectives tied to those specific roles. Instead, I would present the prompt in a more open-ended way to allow for a broader discussion. I believe the focus should be on ethics rather than morality. The conversation should center around a woman’s choice, rather than the personhood of a fetus. Pro-choice advocates aren’t necessarily denying fetal personhood; rather, they argue that a person shouldn’t be compelled to support another’s personhood with their own body. This broader perspective could also touch on issues like military drafts. Additionally, the conversation could explore the potentiality arguments raised by Doctor Life. If potentiality alone justifies certain actions, we could question other scenarios: Should we require young girls who begin menstruating to have sex to maximize the potential of their eggs? What about males-should we prohibit masturbation to avoid wasting semen, as it could theoretically contribute to potential life? Should we be regulating bodies in such a way?
May I request a debate about wether humans are essentially good or evil, just how Jean-Jaques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes argued for their according philosophical standings?
@@Neoprenesiren well technically, there is no objective morale, but as a collective species, we define morals on a subjective basis. Rarely any human has ever look at murder (of a loved one to make the case more extreme) and decided "I have no opinion about this whatsoever". So I find it interesting to see if we as subjects find that we are good or evil by nature
Less than a minute in and I’m already blown away. Look, I’m pro-choice, but I can’t stand when people on my side argue that a fetus isn’t alive. That’s like showing up to a debate with a blindfold and a “kick me” sign. You’re just begging to lose. The real question is personhood-that’s the whole ethical battleground. Where’s my 20-24 week squad at?
Exactly, life begins at conception. The problem is when does the baby become conscious, and that happens at about 26 weeks. Before then it's a growing fetus, after that it's a pre-birth baby.
@@vitriolveio definition wise, fetus is the first 8 weeks after conception, meanwhile a baby is a young human. These are not the same thing. They are not even synonyms.
@@user-ko7gk7wp5xThe fetus has the form of a being that develops conscious, rational capacity so it is a person worthy of moral consideration. A person in a coma or someone who got knocked out from a punch is temporarily unconscious but they still have moral value. Same with a fetus.
I asked ChatGPT O1-Preview to Define a Hypothetical Civilization and Find and Define the Middle Ground for abortion after uploading the transcript from your video. *BTW this would've been a great addition to this video topic*
@@AoH3_King Frankly, the Abortion debate isn’t going to be won or lost at either extreme. Regardless of your personal beliefs, if there ever was a line drawn in the sand on the issue, it would be somewhere in the middle.
@@RS_AFKing I think it can. We just need more time. Our priorities as a civilization change, and with that change the things we value change. Prime example: Lobotomies (for the ailments they were used for). Before seen as the Standard of Practice, now not only NOT the standard of practice, seen as actually EVIL and inhumane.
@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy It's not that values change, just information shows it actively harms you. We have always been against harm, we just debate if something is harm and if it's a lesser extent than the alternative
Very nice. I love both sides of the argument. I started the first 2-3 rounds on Dr. Choice's side, but Dr. Life swayed me as it evolved the conversation better and it felt like Dr. Choice kept going back to the same determinant factor.
It is irrelevant because it only feeds your dreams or fantasies, not contact with reality. When we appreciate things that are so far in the past or in the future, we must acquire capacities that are in the middle of reality and gradually developed towards the edges. This would mean if we "try" to answer and manage to visualize a little what is hidden in a distant past or in a distant future, that we already have or are acquiring paranormal abilities. So it is so stupid both by the nature of the desires and by the capacity that develops for a more complete understanding of the reality that undergoes transformations over time.
Person is an an individual substance of a rational nature, a fetus is an individual substance of a rational nature , thus the fetus is a person. The debate would then be if all persons are valuable.
wow this is a pretty good video, I'm pro life and I've never heard the argument from the other side that we shouldn't require people to use their bodies to keep others alive, just like how we don't mandate organ or blood donations. Very interesting. However, I think that argument leaves out the context of the situation. If you accidentally push someone off a cliff but caught a hold of their hand before they fell (get pregnant) you would be expected to hold on as long as you can, and drag them up (give birth). Letting go of them just because holding on made you uncomfortable would be wrong (getting the abortion) in that case, assuming it wasn't your grip that gave up (miscarriage)
It also doesn't apply because, while your other organs are meant for you and keeping you alive, your womb is specifically designed to keep a fetus alive. Pregnancy is not an unnatural sharing/transplanting of an organ, but an entirely natural process that literally every human being goes through. A child has a right to his mother's womb just as it has a right to live in his parents' house once it's born; it is his natural habitat.
I liken it to drug use--whether prescribed or recreational. Side effects of many drugs are bleeding, liver damage, seizures, blood clots, overdose, etc... and people opt to take these drugs regardless of the potential consequences. I've known two alcoholics who now have bad liver damage and they both KNEW what was coming and just sort of shrugged it off. For some reason, unprotected sex doesn't seem to fall in this category of "known side effects," and people seem very shocked when they find they're temporarily pregnant... but they don't seem shocked when they find they've got a permanent drug injury.
Very interesting and well put analogy, I see your point but as someone who’s pro choice I think the one thing I would say it’s missing is that it intrinsically assumes that the value of a mothers life and 9 months of her life are equal to that of the unborn fetus, with a little bit of thought it’s easy to realize that even just among human life we can logically conclude some lives are worth more than others for instance a pedophiles life is worth less than that of a nurses. And so as the mother who the fetus depends on to live I think it should be within their right to judge for themselves whether a potentially unwanted fetus life is worth more than their health, time, and future. To add to the point about life value being on a scale I personally find it odd that pro-life people have issue with the removal of a fetus (even before it’s conscious or can feel pain) but naturally have no issue with the billions of sperm cells that men waste when they masturbate. Yes there must be a point when human life is given rights but it seems to me that at 24-28 weeks once it gains consciousness and the ability to feel pain makes the most sense. Replacing the image of a full grown human dangling off the cliff in your analogy with a tiny cluster of gooey cells seems more accurate, are those cells worth getting close to the cliff if you don’t want to be there? Idk just some thoughts, I could be wrong.
I ask not to argue but to understand bc I've never gotten a clear response to this question: why is it okay to have the expectation of women to have less bodily autonomy than dead bodies? I mention this since even dead bodies can not be forced to sustain another person's life had they not consented before death. Without a doubt, if we used every body that died as organ donors, many lives would be saved. But we can't. If we're expected to respect a person's autonomy even after death, why does it suddenly not exist when a woman becomes pregnant? You could answer consent, but I'm not sure that's a good enough answer. Many women don't consent to becoming pregnant, whether that be from partaking in multiple types of birth control or from being assaulted.
this is just more ai slop. do not confuse a polite conversation for a constructive one. if y'all think this was a good debate, y'all are seriously starved. 0:57 - pro-choice ai - what "clinical experience"? how even? did this ai converse with a fetus? how does clinical experience equip you to understand the capacity for fetus consciousness? 1:01 - pro-choice ai - "coordinated cortical activity" is devoid of any explanation, rendering it nothing more than a bunch of verbose jargon. I am completely unsure as to the study's quality, I have no clue why this might be the case, and I don't even know if this is an accurate way to measure consciousness. 1:25 - pro-life ai - this is redundant. the pro-choice ai already concedes and outright states this. 1:58 - pro-life ai - this is not an argument for the moral consideration of fetuses, but an argument for maximising human potential in general. this ai seems to agree with the first ai that fetuses up to 24 weeks are not even conscious, and are thus incapable of rationality. therefore, the only bit left of this argument is the "future development" bit, which is just a general "we should make as many humans as possible" statement. 2:03 - pro-life ai - this is just an assertion. why draw the line at conception? this is unsubstantiated. if it's based in "future development", why not draw this line further back to when it's just gametes? 2:11 - pro-choice ai - wtf lmao, this entire section doesn't even address the claim that potential in of itself is valuable. it just reiterates "zygote is not conscious" when the pro-life ai has already given plausible reasons as to why consciousness should not be the only moral consideration. 2:24 - pro-choice ai - now they're just talking past each other. the pro-life ai never equated the moral value of a zygote to that of an adult. 2:39 - pro-choice ai - this is a hallucination or a strawman or both. the pro-life ai never claims this, and it calls the pro-choice ai out on that later asw. 2:44 - pro-choice ai - the ai have provided no reason we ought to value "societal norms and ethical principles", nor has it explained why the pro-life position is in opposition to these concepts. 3:02 - pro-life ai - it's repeating itself just with new quotes and shuffled words. ig it's fine bc the pro-choice ai did not even bother to respond, but failing to call this out shows how bad this ai is. 3:32 - pro-life ai - the ai has demonstrated we don't only care about consciousness. it hasn't done this well, but it's done it well enough to beat the pro-choice ai's objections. it has however not demonstrated that we ought to draw this line of potentiality at conception and not elsewhere, say, maybe when the gametes are produced, or maybe at 24 weeks as the pro-choice ai suggests. 3:58 - pro-choice ai - it gives this vague platitude of "ethical frameworks" to fake credibility. without justifying these frameworks, the argument doesn't even exist. it's nothing more than an appeal to authority. 4:12 - pro-life ai - does this mean someone dying to a hurricane should be assigned the same moral worth as a fetus who was aborted? should we hold funerals for miscarriages as we would for people who die of natural causes? should we treat doctors as murderers? this response from the pro-life ai is brazen and incomplete. it improperly addresses the pro-choice ai's appeal to moral intuition; one of the only good arguments to come out of the pro-choice ai. 4:44 - pro-choice ai - this wasn't even the argument?? we can prioritise conscious beings over non-conscious beings, while still valuing both. 4:47 - pro-choice ai - bringing up the trolley problem gave me whiplash, it's a complete non-sequitur. this proves only that 5 conscious beings are of greater moral consideration than 1 conscious being, not that a conscious being is of greater moral consideration than a non-conscious being. 4:54 - pro-choice ai - this is also a non-sequitur. thomson's violinist analogy is meant to give a moral intuition for valuing the principle of autonomy above the consideration of life. it does not prove the initial thing the ai said it was going to prove. 5:12 - pro-choice ai - ok at least we're back on track but wtf did the previous 2 thought experiments have to do with anything? 5:34 - pro-life ai - what is with the non-sequiturs? the debate wasn't about newborns who may not have full consciousness, it is about fetuses who have zero, or close to zero consciousness. the pro-life ai first established it cares about life from conception, so it can't take this weaker stance. 5:38 - pro-life ai - why ought we value consistency? also, to what extent ought we value consistency? this is an incomplete argument. also, "potential" is just as much a subjective criteria subject to interpretation and time. this is not even an argument, if anything this statement undermines the ai's own stance. 6:00 - pro-choice ai - somehow, the ai stumbled into a coherent response! it responded to the consistency thing by given a singular criterion. unfortunately, this does not address the point on the value of potential, nor does the ai justify why we ought to care about pain perception. after all, we don't care about pain perception in mosquitos or whatever. 6:40 - pro-life ai - omg i acc like this argument. unfortunately, response to stimuli is not pain perception, and pain perception at 12 weeks does not justify her stance on the value of life starting at conception. second off, this ai now fails to respond to the thomson violinist analogy. 6:55 - pro-life ai - alright sure, pain perception is not the only measure of moral worth. this does not prove that pain perception may be one important measure of moral worth. and why tf did we just drop the whole consciousness thing?? also, this ai still has not proved that "potential" is a good measure of moral worth. 7:09 - pro-choice ai - omg just get ur story straight. the ai can't keep throwing sht at the wall and hoping it sticks, it has to defend it's previous positions. viability is also just a horrid metric for moral consideration. it almost gets somewhere with autonomy, which is frustrating, bc all it had to do to substantiate that point was bring up thomson again. also it didn't respond to a lot of good arguments from the pro-life ai, like the anesthesia thing. it's not like it's hard either, we care abt ppl under anesthesia bc they had previously existed and will exist in the future. this is different to fetuses, whose potential has never been realised to the degree we ought to lend them moral consideration. 8:15 - pro-choice ai - ok this ai just talked right past the other ai. the pro-life ai just talked about how a 19 week old fetus was viable outside of the womb due to technology, the pro-choice ai can't just ignore it. if it's trying to talk about autonomy, which it seems like it is, it should've talked about the thomson thing and been more clear. 8:48 - pro-life ai - ig this is fine bc the pro-choice ai was unclear, but it still failed to address the point on autonomy. it only addresses the viability argument, which is arguably a strawman. or something like that. 9:12 - pro-choice ai - W 9:33 - pro-life ai - ok the pro-choice ai finally gave a half decent autonomy point, the pro-life ai can't just say "no" and be done with it. it has to contend with the organ donation thing. taking this argument at it's best though, the pro-life ai commits the naturalistic fallacy, and creates this moral obligation out of thin air. why ought a pregnant woman be obligated to carry to term? this was left unsubstantiated. 10:22 - pro-life ai - after the pro-choice ai just took down the weird obligation the pro-life ai gave, the pro-life ai just shifted the goalposts back to "fetuses are inherently good" without engaging on the principle of autonomy. this is like 2 brick walls talking to each other. 10:46 - pro-choice ai - why ought we care for the mother over the fetus? yes, this was substantiated earlier twice with the autonomy point, but to respond properly the ai has to reiterate that argument. 11:05 - pro-life ai - ok but it literally is a choice between the mother and fetus. carrying the fetus to term nessecarily infringes on the mother's autonomy as previously established, so this is again unresponsive. I watched it on 3x speed on the first go. i was surprised by a philosophically sound bit, I think it was one of the quotes, so I slowed the video down; I was immediately dissapointed. this "debate" is nothing more than an stagnant conversation full of hodge-podge of arguments stolen from actual qualified philosophers. this conversation was terrible. neither ai took a hard stance they tied arguments back to, neither ai responded to each other well, neither ai made coherent arguments half of the time, and no consensus on any issue was ever reached. I didn't expect consensus, but I expected the ai's to concede some points and focus on others, instead what we got was a mess of random arguments thrown around without care.
From this point of view, it seems like an argument between Realism and Idealism. AI is fascinating. - Dr Choice summarizes that life should be judged based on its ability to function, which is practical and logical. - Dr Life summarizes that life should be judged based on its inherent potential, which is inspiring and empathetic. Both of these philosophies matter. You are either focusing on certain realities of living and desire choices...or you are focusing on humanistic ideals and supporting life inherently. It isn't about 'right or wrong' here, it's about perspective and circumstances.
Mentally handicapped people still have awareness, consciousness and still have significant experiences. If you have none of those you are either in a coma or brain dead. If you are in a coma you still have moral value because of you have already established your personhood through lived experiences, with the assumption you will wake up in the future. If you are brain dead you are dead.
Not fully, no. In my life I've seen men who seemed like beasts. No words, aggressive. I believe there are 2 minds in a man, subconscious mind which is the mind that pumps your heart and blinks your eyes etc. And the conscious mind that does things like language and math and introspection. I think some people some how get locked to a certain level cap within consciousness.
@@thebrickaniac Yeah some believe in old earth. It could be older but then if thats true and if you look at the amount of erosion and continental decay, if we are billions of years old why are there any land masses at all. If you measure what gets eroded yearly and calculate the continents should all be eroded and underwater. Also science denies a worldwide flood but that is a fact. Look at soil amplitudes. If macro evolution is true then how is it that we have primates but we dont have any Neanderthals. Do you really think a star flying by the earth sprinkled dust into a primordial soup and humans and blue whales and hummingbirds came out millions of years later. Do you think mankind was once a fish. Do you really deny the bible? Did you know evolution was originally taught in schools from a false bone of a pig being put on a primates skull,. Micro evolution and adaption yes. Macroevolution, no way. Darwin said he was wrong about evolution on his death bed. Also perhaps try reading Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer. Also there is never ever a case of life coming from non life. Macro Evolution gave atheists and communists the idea that there is no GOd. This resulted in 70 million dead in this century alone. Macro Evolution is a curse from Satan. Its been refuted and its evil
@@thebrickaniac Some do. Those who are too ignorant or lazy to look into the issue., they are cowardly too. Most of them deny the virgin birth or miracles of the bible. They are on par with dawkins the atheist who calls himself a cultural christian.
2:00 I just realized something within the first 2 mins. If the pro choice AI morally justifies abortion based on someones ability to have experiences, extending that same logic, should we be allowed to euthanize the extremely autistic? If all they to is twitch and scream, and they cant take care of themselves, why let them live? Make room for someone that matters am I right?
I've never met a woman that had a miscarriage and wasn't so profoundly impacted from it that it was a watershed moment in their lives. Miscarriages can be brutal on a woman's psyche. To minimize the impact of a miscarriage by the pro-choice AI i feel is underhanded. I've met at least 7 women that had miscarriages and not a single one of them just brushed it off. they felt like they lost a part of themselves.
That was amazing to watch. Love debating for both sides and seeing this topic being debated without feelings and straight to the facts was so much fun to watch.
What defines personhood? It’s not abilities or age as the Pro-Abortioners claim. You’re in a conversation about abortion and someone says, “An embryo isn’t a person. It’s just a collection of cells. So there’s nothing wrong with abortion at that stage.” What would you say? Before we can decide whether an embryo is a person, we have to ask, “What makes anyone a person?” Here are a few things to remember… Our personhood does not depend on our abilities. Some are hesitant to recognize embryos as persons because they don’t function in the same way that fully developed people often do. For example, embryos can’t think or talk. But neither can someone under anesthetic, or someone in a coma, or someone who is asleep, think or talk. Newborns can’t think or talk the way adults can. Are they still people? Even adults vary in their ability to think and talk. What we can do does not make us who we are. Our personhood does not depend on our age. The argument that embryos aren’t fully persons assumes that our age determines our personhood. But does that make sense? If we have to be old enough to do certain things or look a certain way before we are persons, do we lose our personhood once we are too old to do things? I certainly hope not! In times past, some humans with lighter skin denied the personhood of those with darker skin. Everyone rightly recognizes how wrong that is. But if some humans shouldn’t dismiss the personhood of others because of the color of their skin, neither should humans who are older, have a right to deny personhood to those who are younger. If it’s not age or ability that makes us a person, then what does? Our personhood comes from our nature. To determine what something is, it is helpful to consider its nature not just its current abilities. For example, it is the nature of birds to fly. If they are too young or injured to do what most birds do, that does not make them less of a bird. While neither an embryo, an infant, or a severely disabled person may be able to think or talk the way we can, the capacity to do so is part of their nature. Even if that capacity is undeveloped or impaired. This is why we protect the offspring of endangered animals in the same way we protect their parents. As humans, our shared nature, regardless of our abilities appearance or age, gives us equal value. Bad things happen when we deny others personhood based on their ability or appearance. Once we abandon the idea that humans have equal value based on their nature, we are left to the whims of a group in power. There was a time when women weren’t considered persons. There was a time when African Americans weren’t considered persons. There was a time when Jews weren’t considered persons. We rightly condemned mistreatment based on sex, race, or ethnicity, because we know that these do not determine our humanity. So it is with embryos. They may not have all the same abilities we do, but if they could speak, they would tell us, “I’m just like you! I’m just a little younger!” So again, our personhood does not depend on our abilities, nor does it depend on our age. Our personhood and our equal value is rooted in our shared nature as humans regardless of what we can do. And if we decide people’s values is based on what they look like or what they’re capable of, that puts us in some pretty bad company.
Dr. Choice says we're equating zygotes with adults. We're not. We don't say we should treat zygotes the same as we treat adults. We only say they are human beings, and must not be deliberately killed.
I mean logically morals are objective because there’s an objective set of things. Like murder for example is universally hated or frowned upon. It’s usually when someone tries to make morality subjective that bad things happen. For example “is a fetus alive” started and now people have a legal excuse to kill babies. I bet this will be just as hated as slavery in the far future.
Great debate!! You should put these debates in a podcast format as well. Human life should be valued regardless of how insignificant you think it is because all human lives have inherent value.
@@dakila2012 rape, manipulation of contraceptives, these produce unwanted pregnancies as well, what about the women who had no choice in the first place? And not just women, girls. Girls are able to conceive as early as they start their period, I started mines at 9. A 13 year old rape victim just had to have the baby of her rapist in Mississippi because of the abortion laws.
@@aniyahgreen7851 rape and “contraceptive manipulation” still require “unsafe sex” so you really didn’t explain what your initial comment meant. Regardless, what was your point? Because you seem to have missed the point of my initial comment. Reiterated: There is a shift away from encouraging safe sex, and a move toward accessible abortion. Most abortions aren’t because of rape or potential health risk, it’s due to negligence and immaturity (combined with easy/cheap access to abortion).
@ oh and you have stats on this? That a woman’s choice to have an abortion is because of negligence and immaturity. That is a reality you assume, not know. A reality we know is that not every scenario where you have to make such a choice is the same, we should make laws accordingly. It was fine when the choice was federally protected, and had certain restrictions so that we don’t eradicate sentient beings, now we are traumatizing little girls and placing a life long burden on women, this is my point.
As a pro choice person, I have to say, dr. Life kicked ass. Dr. Choice could have done significantly better if he would just deliver the obvious point that personhood is subjective, and it’s immoral to impose your personal beliefs onto others when there is no objective truth. Yeah, Dr. Life thinks a zygote is a person but guess what? I don’t. And you can’t force me to see a single cell as a person.
Okay, when do we force people to see someone as a person then and why? You state personhood is subjective, but surely that doesn't mean you're okay killing adult human beings because you consider them to have personhood. So, when does objective personhood start? Not taking a side, just curious
@ you ask, “at what point should we force people to recognize an individual as a person?” Easy. Personhood and the rights associated are granted at the point at which at which the voting public designates a developmental minimum is reached. “If personhood really is subjective, then you’re saying it’s okay to kill full blown adults as long as you don’t classify them as people.” I would be fascinated to hear someone’s argument that a full blown adult is not a person, since a full blown adult has every single element in what one could argue makes up personhood. But yes, if we view a thing, such as a bug, as not a person, then yes, we not murderers if we harm said thing.
@@AF-vy7if But there are many people through out history who did consider many adults to not be full blown humans or persons. That's why we had slavery, murder, g3n0cide, and a lack of women's rights. I'm not saying you're like that, but if you honestly believed personhood is purely subjective, you wouldn't have a problem with those things. Actually, if you say the voting public determines when personhood starts, then why do you have a problem with a country/state imposing abortion bans if it's done democratically?
@ See, now you’ve put yourself in a hole where you have to argue that personhood and morality are objective. Who is the supreme decider, what phenomenon dictates, which principles and values are correct? The best we can do is admit morality is subjective and use democracy to uphold the will of the majority. Though I concede the will of the majority held belief is not necessarily “correct”. Aside from being an appeal to popularity, as explained before, outside of the context of your own personally held values, there is no such thing as capital Right and Wrong.
@@AF-vy7if So, just wondering so that I understand you better. You don't actually have a problem with the pro life movement so long as what they do is done democratically?
An interesting and informative debate, without interruptions or emotional outbursts. 1000% better than I expected. Subscribed, and look forward to other debates.
Thanks for watching! What did you think? Share your thoughts in the comments, and check out these other thought-provoking debates:
• What if AI debated ILLEGAL Immigration & Deportation? 👉 ua-cam.com/video/K9RrU4doKd4/v-deo.html
🔔Don’t forget to subscribe and hit the bell so you never miss the next debate!
What a great video topic I was wondering when this would be covered my new favourite channel.
Personally, I love the long-form videos with more arguments/expansion of the AI's points.
Would be nice to see a part two then focusing on the after math of forcing mothers bringing unwanted children.
Yooo you listened to my comment
@@JonOleksiuk Biblical Old earth vs Biblical Young earth Please
The calmest an abortion debate will ever be
Agreed. I had to turn off the last debate I listened to because the moderator didn't do s good job at keeping one side in check (and without letting on which side was which) the opposition's stand was nowhere near as militant as the other side... one was only a moderate pro-their-side and the other was much closer 'fundamentalist-on-their side'
Yeah people tend to get emotional when they see one side as murdering babies and it's legal so they cannot do anything about it. The have passion for it. Personally I think it's murder, but if you want to do that, that's between you and a higher power if said exists.
Your so right, all debates go with the emotions of the people, but this one is very calm and specific
Yeah, no one's life can fundamentally change with the outcome of the debate. It's very low stakes. If you might be forced to be pregnant, you too might find it difficult to remain calm, given the possible outcome.
I’m pro choice, you choose to have sex, so you already consented to the potential of a child. It’s evil to kill child.
Now make them debate whether or not cereal is a soup
Plz I want to see it❤❤❤
DO IT FOR THE BOYS ❤️❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏
Yes
finally someone who uses AI to its full potential
Is the sea soup too?
@low-keyvibin3189 Good question🤔
I love how Dr. Choice didn't immediately accuse Dr. Life of misogyny or "wanting to control women" and instead focused on the ethics regarding fetuses.
This is tricky when you have several republican men who have paid for their mistresses to have abortions, while running on a pro-life platform.
Quite refreshing isn’t it? Almost as if the AI believes the merits of its argument are enough 🤔
Art mirrors reality.
The AI has been trained on actual debates I suppose, it follows them naturally.
@@jazzyzjas9701 yup
@@RC-pz7tg that's such a good way of putting it
This is an example of how AI can be beneficial for a quick understanding of complex debates. Thanks for this. Would love a video on how you set this up.
...it's not really complex it's common sense without religion and politics.
@@midnull6009 its common sense even with religion and politics. Abortion ends a life, therefore its murder. Not complex at all, what is complex is the undying need for said murderers and supporters of said, to justify their actions by delving into delusion and fantasy by claiming that sucking the unborn body of a human out of a womb is not murder or that the life inside of said womb is simply a clump of cells. As if all humans of all ages aren't exactly that. Govt is beheld to the Pharma industry which is a multibillion dollar industry with more pull than the president himself. They push the propaganda machine to encourage young mothers to "abort" their fetus. They don't care about the child or mother, they simply want free stem cells to fuel their maniacal lust of power and greed.
@@77FrictionDo you believe in the death penalty?
@@midnull6009 Yep, although religious people think their right no matter what
@@ariel-y-e-m Death penalty is not equivalent to abortion
This is better than most debates i’ve ever heard.
AI is smarter than everyone
Yeah, because AI doesn’t have an in-built yell at everything, get overly emotional, and break down shaking and crying on the floor feature.
@@k1ng_chicken They're going to implement that in Version 2.0.
10000%
That’s because they remained calm. Emotions are what lead to these convos going off the rqils
This is the best abortion debate I've ever seen. They actually argued the ROOT issue; personhood.
If personhood was the root issue, you wouldn’t see so many conservatives in favor of IVF.
@@WhatsMyemail I've never seen a debate like that, what do they argue? that its inmoral somehow?
@@ivaniux8450 it’s come up a lot because banning abortion on the basis of embryos being legal people, ended up accidentally threatening IVF in conservative states. Some embryos are frozen and unused, intentionally killed, or used for research. They also have their own dna and potential to life. their death is generally more accepted, because it aligns more with conservative values/creating more people . But if personhood starts at conception, it’s immoral.
@@ivaniux8450being consistent embryos have natural human rights. Embryos which are killed after one is implanted.
@@WhatsMyemail you'll have to explain that one
The debate was already bound to be better than what happens in politics when the Choice side conceded that life began at conception scientifically rather than playing games and jumping around an inconvenient truth like what we see
To be honest it’s not that it conceded, pro choice side said it first.
@@deancollinss what he meant if that normally pro-choice people claim that the baby isn't alive.
they say things like: "it's not a human life", "it's not living", "I value the one who is alive first", etc.
He was more like saying, that finally pro-choices will stop claiming so terrible basic biology
@@MichaelMayor-k6twhen pro choice people mean when they are not alive they usually mean they are not a conscious person
I agree. I'm pro-choice, but I don't bother to argue that. Abortion is killing a child, there's no question about it. The only question is whether that killing is Justified, or should be treated as a crime.
@@sordidknifeparty This is interesting, I've never seen a person admit to being pro choice while acknowledging that abortion is killing a baby.
As I already have my own opinions on the matter, I'm quite interested in your perspective if you are willing to take the time to share it. Under what circumstances would it be justified to kill a baby?
Can we have an AI Thump-Harris debate like this? This is calm, mature, and informative.
I dont even know how this can be a debate...
I don't need to hear AI dodge every question and talk about how it grew up in a middle class family for five minutes.
I'm 20 years old i employ you to remember my name Terry Stephan Masterson III, I wanna fix this country through actual reasoning and though the peoples beliefs, I've determined I am going to dedicate my life to this country moving towards a great future in which our rights are respected, our politics aren't going to be pointless arguments. For the next 16 years I'm studying everything about what we do right and wrong as a country according to my standard, so when I run for president i can lay out my plan immediately, be able to immediately respond to actual issue while brushing off far left and far right questions that push an agenda to me you look bad. and I will be able to explain how the president and vice president and the cabinet can achieve those goals, and I would hope truly good ideals and righteous policy's will pass by congress as I understand most people truly do want good stuff for themselves and the everyday family. I will end corporate power in government as it only leads to greed controlling the agenda of the two major parties. Look up "The Think Tank" The Heritage Foundation, Reagan implanted many of their policies under his presidency and their policies were against the everyday worker and for the businessman, because the presidents before Reagan were helping the everyday workers and the rich people had a little less money to roll in so the started this foundation that gets donations from many major companies today which we knew about in the past, but know slowly this foundation lobbied for anonymous donations, so now we now know major companies donate, just not who. Anyways I will end this coopete rain on America if not done by me being 36. I believe God will lend me his hand and wisdom in this goal, I believe Jesus is my lord, but I will never force that onto anyone, because that what makes America, America, That freedom that we all are born inherit with. Remember Terry Masterson III you will see me in 16 years, now i realize I can run for president exactly when i turn 36 we got exactly for more terms, God lines things up for me and all of us.
@@tellmewhenitsoverLiterally no way you’re saying this in the context of Trump V Harris lmao. Trump is the master dodger. I would love to see the AI bring up Haitian migrants eating pets
@@tellmewhenitsover THEY'RE EATING THE DAWGS
This is more informed/respectful than 99% I've witnessed on the topic.
Can you link me to the 1% please? I've only seen discussions where at least one side (usually the abortion side) resorts to namecalling and strawmen, if not screaming and physical violence.
They’re not getting emotional like people sometimes do
@stechuskaktus8318 midgets all love eating chocolate
@@troybernier2968 That is not at all what I said, I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
@@troybernier2968Bro, you need to read the comment again ahahahah
It seems that both AI's are in complete agreement when it comes to being against late term abortions
Yep. In general late teem abortions are only in my opinion in special cases like rape, insest, severe fetal abnormalities(missing brain), and life of mother. I say 25 weeks and below is a good general rule for allowed abortions imo.
@@Shark-pj8in eugenics
@@AoH3_King There instances of fetus having congenital deformities that prevent the fetus from engaging in labour and delivery, it would just stay in the womb past 40 weeks putting the mothers life at great risk. Look up the case Savita Halappanavar, an Indian dentist in Ireland whose death due not being provided late term abortion (because of law following Catholic ban on abortion) resulted in a referendum in 2012 that the scrapped the abortion ban in Ireland, her fetus literally begane to rot inside her body causing sepsis and ultimately shock leading to death of the Mother. There also cases of immune incompatibility between fetus and mother where immune system of either recognizes the other as a threat leading to things like Erythroblastosis fetalis (were the fetus dies) or pre-eclampsia (which is fatal to the mother).
@@clovebeans713 all of which became completely irrelevant once the caesarian section was invented. Something which is completely safe and nothing like an abortion, which is unnecessary in 100% of circumstances.
Next
@@Shark-pj8inwhat happens at 24 weeks that makes it no longer permissable?
Now do a Jewish A.I. vs Christian A.I. that debates if Jesus Christ is the Messiah or not.
They've done similar video ideas before.
ua-cam.com/video/GOOgHN24WcQ/v-deo.htmlsi=Q8Fm6EtiGSKVTByq
ua-cam.com/video/eY_il2MZjxc/v-deo.htmlsi=1rtBfJp9PiiGkeN1
@@EdanClarke-xg4ip Now do a Jewish A.I. and a Christian A.I. debating if Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
@Methodius-and-Cyril they crucified Him for claiming to be the messiah they said we are not stoning you for any good work but because you a mere man claim to be God
Yes please
That is totally useless though, the Jews like me believe Jesus didn’t perform miracles in general and don’t believe they happened, and that Jesus was just a good Jew, while Christian’s believe he did do miracles, and some of the only records of these miracles come from the Bible, so it’ll just be a back and forth “yuh huh” vs “nuh uh”
It was great getting to hear this debate without the typical anger associated with human interactions on such topics.
It's creepy.
The essence of Dr. Life’s argument is that all human life has high intrinsic value. Unfortunate, or horrible, circumstances don’t change the actual value of the human life caught in those circumstances.
The essence Dr. Choice’s argument is that there is a spectrum regarding the value of human life, and at some point on that spectrum certain human lives are less valuable than the ability to live without the burdens associated with sustaining that life.
Yes this is the fundamental argument of abortion. Dehumanization. They must not acknowledge that the child is a human being or alive.
@@kaydnburns5935Sustaining life. Bringing a new life to the world is possible but maintaining it depend on those giving new life and societies itself.
A cow with it's calf is surrounded with a pack of wolves. The chances of the calf to survive is slim.
Rate of birth all over the world is on a decline. We are in a state of depopulation due to cost of living and the resources are dwindling. If we can address those 2 issues, then we can give more birth but it's impossible now. Saying is easy, doing is hard.
Scary. Good summary though.
@@tr1bes Youre beyond uninformed and out of touch with reality. Birth rates are ONLY declining in first world countries, the rest of the worlds birth rate is increasing. The more wealth and resources a country has the less babies they have not the other way around. We live in the best time in human history to have a child, its safer, easier and more affordable than ever. "BuT MeAt iS 12$" yea but you didnt have to risk your life every day hunting for it like we did for 10,000 years. Only first world privileged people like your self think its too hard to have a baby lmao. Air conditioning, super markets and social media have melted your rational brain.
@@tr1bes Also the phenomenon of low birth rates in first world countries like Europe, north America and Asia is largely due to abortion access, the destruction of the family unit, having both genders in the work place, restructuring of societal norms and values, devaluing relationships and glorifying quick dopamine and selfish lifestyles. The poorest and most violent countries on earth have the highest birth rates (Somalia, chad, libya, angolia, congo, iraq, pakistan, iran, afghanastan)
I love these debates because they are actual debates, they are being objective while treating the theme at hand with it´s due sensitivity, if more situations like this happened IRL I´m convinced we would understand eachother better
Well said. Totally agree! Civil and on point and on time debates are so refreshing to watch!
@@BibleN3rdon top of that people who might be this smart are pressured because they are on stage, and get fatiged over time which degrades their arguments. These ai could go on for the rest of eternity
Most people aren’t as intelligent as Artificial intelligence designed to be extremely well-versed and knowledgeable
@@kingchromo2293 That is obvious, but the manners and sensitivity is smth that we could totally recreate as individuals
The left wouldn’t do that. Most of their ideas would just fall flat.
Your channel is one of the best ideas I’ve ever seen. Love this. You need to turn this into a podcast. Literally just upload the mp3 as is.
I second this
The lady A.I. absolutely spanked the choice A.I. when it came to him changing the subject. He argued miscarriages showed we behave differently toward them. And she in her A.I. voice basically responded that these cases have nothing to do with choosing to kill verse natural death.
Yea she's kinda conceding his point. So we do have to regard them as actual deaths? That's his point. We already don't
They are both considered abortions, though. One is spontaneous the other is a medical procedure... He didn't change the subject.
@maki9396 he ignored one doesn't want the death, but the other does want the death
@@maki9396you’re not that bright are you
It isn't ignoring. there are facets to abortion with validity, and those which have value but raise questions. there is no end all point to this. that is why it is a debate.
This debate felt weird in my opinion, because they constantly say "in my experience as" despite not being actual doctors.
More than likely, they have to role-play as the specialist, in order to actually talk about a subject like this.
Yeah, its role play, its weird but im sure theyve probably read every report avaliable to them online from people in that specific field of research, they have so much data its like an evolving brain
Probably because its talking information from the experience of actual doctors.
Exactly what I was thinking
Welcome to prompting
I think the pro choice bot made some scary implications about humans who are vulnerable and their worth as life.
Yes, precisely. That's because that is the natural conclusion of those arguments
And why is that conclusion wrong? It may be scary but that doesn't make it untrue! :)
@@Izaokas-IgnotasChodakaukas well no they are wrong on a moral level. And if you cant see that you are a aweful human being
@@Izaokas-IgnotasChodakaukas you should be asking why is it scary? its scary because it suggests that babies and disabled human beings might not be persons.
@@skolix909And this was the crux of the Eugenics movement. They identified which types of people were genetically preferred and sought to rid society of “undesirables”. Whether by birth control, abortion, or forced sterilization, they sought to eliminate those who they deemed to be inferior. This included the disabled. Some approaches dealt with this directly (genocide) while others preferred a gradual elimination over time through reduced reproduction rates. Today, we see this play out in a different way. The promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism also leads to a reduction in reproduction.
Dr. Life gave philosophical and consistent responses which were not very arguable which caused Dr. Choice to continually bring up new points and it felt like a lot of “yeah but...” and relied on social norms/opinions
Democrat views being mostly opinions and social norms? No way
Bingo
It's. Almost. Like. That's. Because. That's. The. Reality. Of. The. Argument.
It was exactly this that became annoying.
Ok, that didn’t work. How about this …no? Crap, ok this… no? Crap.
Dr PC should have addressed any of the Dr PL points - and when it didn’t address the 19 weeks example there was no logical reason for any of the other LLM’s to say Dr PC won without their algorithm already being biased.
Right, that’s because the pro life stance is very simple whereas the pro-choice is applied differently each time. Have you ever watched multiple people debate from the pro-choice stance? Almost all of them have a slightly different view point or moral reasoning.
A miscarriage is difficult emotionally because, whether acknowledged expressly or not, the parents have already defined the fetus as a full person, and as a result they mourn their death.
Exactly. It is actually insane to see the difference in response that people have to someone who miscarried at 10 weeks vs aborted at 10 weeks. The baby is only a person if it’s wanted.
@@margie5310currently pregnant with our first baby and I agree entirely. I love this baby, it’s gonna be a little person, we want this baby. If that weren’t the case and we didn’t want children and let’s say our birth control failed (it most likely wouldn’t, we had 3 different methods we were using simultaneously up until trying for a baby)- I should have every right to terminate my pregnancy.
@@7ShadowMaiden7 so you'd be ok with killing your kid?
@@margie5310That’s actually super normal. It all has to do with emotional attachment. If I have a pet and someone killed it, I would be insanely upset despite the fact that I eat meat. These are essentially the same scenario you’re describing
@@7ShadowMaiden7 Monster.
This is awesome! I wish human debates were this civil and well-spoken.
They would be if not for the pro-choice side
You mean when a male is aloud to even have the ability to discuss the topic? The only reason it’s “acceptable” in this is because of the side he was placed in which was smart.
@@colonelsanders5278 And yet here you are being randomly(but commonly) negative and insulting, yup..."Pro-choice" is definitely the problem and not people like you XD
Observing reality isnt being insukting or mean. Oh wait yall have a problem with that dont yall@retro6309
@@retro6309the pro choice side is usually the ones trying to attack character, "you just wanna control women" or "your a male, you can't have an option on this!". Or manipulation of "minors 🦐 themselves without access" which really doesn't paint a good picture btw.
I'm not saying the pro life side is perfect, ofcourse not. but he has a point, most arguments devolve when a pro choicer decides you're a bad person for having an opinion and wanting to discuss it. And you going out of your way disregard him actually proves him right.
While this debate was shockingly fruitful and it was interesting to hear some more concrete arguments from pro life, i couldnt help but notice two things:
1. The ethics/science ratio between the two was not the same between the two, leaving Choice coming across as cold and disinterested in human life, and Life coming across more sympathetic despite the science.
2. This debate did not really address dangerous pregnancies, particularly in cases where the mother's life is in danger. And really short was the discourse regarding involuntary pregnancies.
Another thing I would like to point is pro life not having an actual argument for the violinist hypothesis...it kinda just glanced its way around that
Yeah I would have liked to see a longer talk about rape, incest and when the mothers life is at risk
About dangerous pregnancies, I have a good video for you here :
ua-cam.com/video/5TmomK2RB2A/v-deo.htmlsi=4gNAPSxHCr2r6v6j (5 minutes)
In few words, it explains that if it’s correct to say “some pregnancies are dangerous for the mother”, the baby in her womb never needs to be dead to save her. However, the only purpose of an abortion is to make this specific thing happen. Not being pregnant anymore is different from killing the foetus in her womb. She can deliver early (when the baby is viable outside of the womb), so it’s always possible to protect both lives, since complications rarely happen before the child is viable (around 23 weeks I think)
Also, I would like to add that you will never find any (intelligent) pro-life wanting to force a woman to be pregnant if it’s dangerous for her. Why ? Well, that’s simple : if the mother dies, the baby dies too. A pro-life simply doesn’t want to create a hierarchy between two human lives, and thanks to today’s medical science, it’s never an obligation. So delivering early is the best compromise I think
@@trgblogs1268 To me, the violinist hypothesis is slightly disingenuous in the way it's framed. It's framed in such a way as to invoke your outrage at the idea of being kidnapped and then connected to someone to keep them alive - but it's framed in such a way that the initial feeling is that the violinist is someone your kidnapper is actively keeping alive and specifically kidnapped you to do. However, the reality is that you and the violinist have both been kidnapped together, and are inextricably connected, with you keeping them alive with your blood, and them entirely unconscious. You can cut them off and leave them to die, continuing your life, or you suffer for 9 months, but both come out alive.
If you have another take on it, I would love to hear it.
Notice how they both recognized that conception is the beginning. Dr choice then argues semantics and opinions on what is personhood.
Schematics huh
Yeah, pretty much what I got from it too.
The cool thing about it is they both recognize conception as the beginning based on science.
Am I the only pedant that likes to point out that the sperm and egg were alive before that
@joshgriffith7554 It's irrelevant. Yes, both sperm and ovum are alive prior to conception, but neither ever become anything other than sperm or egg on their own. During conception, sperm and ovum interact. They cease to be sperm & ovum, becoming zygote. Zygote undergoes cell division to form blastocyst, at which point the outer membrane which was formed by the egg hatches.
Bottom line is the Zygote will likely become human child if left to natural processes. Zygote is analogous to fertilized condor egg. It's illegal to destroy one of the two.
When you come down to a convenience or burden vs life or death argument, you know that one person is screwed up in their perspective
even before a fetus has any meaningful stage of development? No consciousness, no ability to feel pain. The idea that potentiality is the same as current state is insane. I put eggs, flour, and sugar on the table in a pan, is this the same as a cake because it had the potential to become one? This example doesn't even account for the effects on the mother.
@@sortingbadge4123so are you arguing that all females regardless of species shouldn’t have the ability to get pregnant and reproduce?? Are you suggesting that a coma patient unable to feel or respond to stimuli can be abused at will by those around them? Are you saying that being human alone isn’t enough to have inherent human value?? So whats the standards you’d then place on human value and what do you do with those who weren’t aborted and are walking around but don’t fit the standard? Should they be put in groups and separated from the rest of society? Given jobs that meet their station??
Congratulations you’ve made the logical argument for Eugenics. Unless you’re able to admit it I’d reevaluate my positions it I were you.
@@vikkidonn Not at all. I am not suggesting that females should not have ability to get pregnant/reproduce. I am also not saying that coma patients can be abused. But you must concede that the "value" that coma patients do have is markedly less than your average human. A fetus is not completely valueless but to say a fetus and/or a coma patient has the exact same value as a normal living person is preposterous. Not sure where you got the "you arguing that all females regardless of species shouldn’t have the ability to get pregnant and reproduce?? Also, take a dead human corpse for example, would it then also be advocating for eugenics to imply it has less value than a living person since they are both human but have different "capability"?
@@sortingbadge4123 1st no I belive ALL humans have equal value based inherently on being human. This was one of the questions I asked and I’m glad you answered, even if long winded. So yes you don’t believe in equal human rights based on simply being human. That is definitionally eugenics. Thank you.
2nd when you implied that the natural ability to reproduce was somehow so terrible that women should have full control to end it, control it, ect you were putting forth a notion that the natural biology of a female is in and of itself an issue and problem. This is the same ideology that has fueled the “test tube” babies and “lab grown” human projects for centuries now. The idea that nature is to be altered implicitly to remove the capability of pregnancy from women altogether. Such was my question.
3rd you suggest equal human rights are “preposterous” and then attempt to suggest its then logical to me that a dead human is of the same value as a living human. The implication on your part wasn’t clear so let me answer deeply. A human corpse is valuble for several reasons. Is it 100% equal to a living human being? No. Because it is dead. Death isn’t comparable to any other condition of a living human and therefore definitionally cannot be equal. What makes humans 100% equal is the fact they are human but ALSO living. Very simple, objective, and unchanging.
@@vikkidonn Eugenics is the study or practice aimed at improving the genetic quality of the human population through selective breeding. This involves encouraging reproduction among individuals with perceived desirable traits and discouraging or preventing reproduction among those with perceived undesirable traits. Historically, eugenics has been associated with controversial and unethical practices, including forced sterilizations and discriminatory policies.
The primary intent behind abortion is to respect the autonomy and health of the pregnant person, allowing them to make decisions about their own body and life circumstances. Eugenics, conversely, involves external control over reproductive choices to achieve a perceived societal benefit, often infringing upon individual rights. Abortion rights are grounded in principles of personal liberty and bodily autonomy.
I never said "human rights are preposterous", nor did I say the that the natural ability to reproduce was terrible. My reference to a corpse or a coma patient/brain dead individual is that they are treated differently than normally operating and living humans; and no, not because a coma patient is tube fed, before the obfuscation comes.
The topic of abortion is about bodily autonomy and reproductive rights. You claim that abortion is akin to murder, or at least the unjust killing of another human because you believe life begins at conception. I believe that personhood is/should be a primary consideration on this topic. I value personhood over a collection of cells, despite that collection of cells being chromosomally/genetically "human". Fetuses do not possess the key characteristics of personhood (ie consciousness and/or reasoning).
Say for example, a baby was born without a brain, but doctors are able to keep the body alive. If I understand your position here, you would argue that pulling the plug, or aborting that pregnancy would be completely immoral and akin to eugenics? Keep in mind what you claim is most important is that the homo sapien genetic code is present. I'm willing to allow there to be a disctinction, for sake of argument, on active interruption vs. inaction that shares the same consequence (death), but you get what I am saying.
You can continue to be snarky with "thank yous" and bad faith. Obviously a dead human corpse is a human corpse. I thought it would be inferred that I am drawing a distinction in the societal "value" of its state, thus implying an additional characteristic of importance, personhood. Legally, this is hotly debated. Roe v. Wade argued that the term "person", in the 14th amendment, does not include the unborn, in 2022 when it was overturned, states have both implemented "fetal personhood" laws and protections for abortion. To say that the position opposite yours is completely absurd is either bad faith or ignorant. Can you not appreciate the merits of both arguments? I am not accusing you of this per se, as it seems you are taking a more biological approach, but religious beliefs should stay as far away from jurisprudence as possible, in my opinion.
To say that personhood is not automatic for all humans is incredibly dangerous and this idea has been used throughout history for injustices that we know to be wrong.
What makes something a human?
Is a severed arm a human? It has human DNA, and can continue to live with the help of medical machines.
Is a brain dead person a human? They essentially have the same qualities as the severed arm.
Is a brain in a jar human? It has no input organs to have any experiences, making it effectively no different from the braindead person.
What is your definition of a human that would require personhood to be a necessary resulting quality?
It’s eugenics. Pro choice is a cover term to describe fence riders who tend to lean towards supporting eugenics. The term eugenics itself hasn’t been used publicly since it was socially beaten up during wwll. When Hitler imported eugenicists from America to help build the concentration camps and various sterilization programs ect. These people were openly racist in America. The institutions still exist today they just do things in the dark now.
Circular dreck.
but that doesn't answer the question "is a fetus a human being".
@mantabsekali920
It isn't.
Smaller for a start
The choice ai saying miscarriages would need moral considerations confused me bc from what ive seen when women have a miscarriage it already needs moral consideration their baby just died
Thought the same thing. If there isn't any value during the early stages of pregnancy, why do parents grieve so much after a miscarriage?
@@ACrossland22 Grieving something doesn't mean the thing that you are grieving have inherently value, it just means YOU valued it. Parents grieving or not grieving isn't an argument.
And they sometimes have a funeral! It’s a horrible loss
@@meepmeep3308that’s true but the fact that YOU value it is a strong indication that it does indeed have real value
People miscarry a lot. People might mourn sometimes, but most people do not feel like an early miscarriage has the same weight as a full term situation. Those are not the same.
I'd like to see a debate about Biblical Old earth vs Biblical Young earth.
And where exactly does the bible state the earth is young thats just pure misinterpretation
Both are false.
@@Neon-bs7es Exactly.
@@Neon-bs7es Where does it state it is old? 'an old Earth' idea is based on the big bang and there is no reason to think it is old except it and the 'evidence' they have come up with. If you're making a biblical comparison as @_Helix_Nebulous requested, then there is no reason to think it is old because the God of the bible is all knowing and he doesn't need to make experiments to learn how to create the world and life. Additionally, it is said he created Earth on the first day and man on the seventh day. And a day is a day, it is 24 hours. There are lots of reasons why but I am in no mood to make a long comment. The recorded history of humans, population, and human artefacts all suggest that the Earth is 6000 years old
@@MAGNETO-i1i then whats correct?
I was skeptical of this "AI debate," and after looking through the channel's videos I'm pretty convinced it should be taken with a grain of salt. This originated as a christian channel, and all the AI videos you'll see align with christian conservative values, which is too convenient for me to accept without question. There is nothing wrong with being christian, but I don't think it's possible for a christian channel to provide an unbiased video on abortion when their default position is that it's wrong. For those not aware, AI is not an objective, infallible machine of logic and truth. It can easily be manipulated to provide the results you want, while making it seem it was its own conclusion. A healthy dose of skepticism is advised.
Thanks for this! I was honestly looking for a comment like this because something felt a little off to me.
I really appreciate this perspective and reminder!
I agree but people are too dumb to realize this
Why do you say it originated as a Christian channel? Where's the evidence?
@ Not sure why, but they have now deleted the “first” video they had uploaded when I last checked. That video was uploaded around 2 years ago titled "Jesus is God. These 33 Bible verses prove it in 5 minutes". You can find this by looking up the channel in the wayback machine.
Even without that video, we can use the information still available to realize the bias present. Currently, 6 out of the 9 videos in this channel have God as a central topic, and in every single one, the AI decides in favor of the character defending the Christian position. On top of that if you look up Jon Olesiuk, you can see he has directed various Christian shows between the years of 2013-2019 with the latest called "Young Once". With this information we can make a highly educated guess that it's very likely the creator of this channel is using it to evangelize.
Now, I want to make it clear that I have no issue with Christians using their platforms to discuss their beliefs. Honestly, all of Jon's work seems to be very well made. However, I do think that it's misleading to use AI to try to frame your own Christian beliefs as "unbiased/objective" when AI is so easily manipulated to produce the desired results. You can see this on this channels' own short titled "ChatGPT ‘PROVES’ Islam, Christianity or ANY belief!" in which they show that ChatGPT will present any desired answer as "truth" by tweaking the prompt.
All of this to say that a Christian creator posting a video which suggests abortion is immoral (while trying to paint it as "unbiased" by using AI tools) feels dishonest. Again, a healthy dose of skepticism is good with these sorts of things. This is an actively controversial topic, the outcome of which has real consequences on real people. These videos are entertaining, but nobody should be using them to form their opinions on subjects as important as this. The issue is that not everyone is aware of how biased and easy to manipulate AI is, so I'm doing my part in letting people know that.
The pro-life contender mopped the floor with the pro-choice bot.
Its indefensible. Abortion is very evil.
No it's not @@planes3333
Abortion is still defensible in cases of gr**pe, but generally, it's not, even if you think the fetus is a person or not.
@planes3333 evil is relative.
@@nelson4225 therefore evil is justified 🥱
The violinist argument is a fallacy because it overlooks the fact that the womb is the natural environment for the fetus; it is literally designed to nurture a new human. It is not an artificial situation where we connect someone arbitrarily to sustain another person.
also, the violinist's life wasn't put at risk by the person keeping them alive.
The purpose of sex is literally to create children. I hate how people act like it's some unforseen side effects
All their analogies are just desperate attempts to distract from the brutal realities of abortion. They never want to be honest and just say "yah I don't care though, morals aren't real, right/wrong don't exist, I'm killing the child and don't care". They won't do it because they know how insane they will appear, plus nihilism can be debunked alone. But its odd that their justification always avoids the reality.
Also, the person that is abducted and hooked up to violinist did not perform and consent to action that would have had had a consequence of being attached to the violinist (in >99% of cases). They were just existing and then taken off the street to do this.
@@kylespevak6781 your phrase should be displayed as a sign on the facade of every clinic
This is the only time I've heard a conversation about abortion stay on topic. And consequently the only time I've heard a coherent pro-choice argument.
I'm so impressed and fascinated with the idea of AI debates now. As they are maybe yhe best way to understand two sides of an argument quickly.
The pro choice argument is really simple. As women, we decide who lives and who dies. It's as arbitrary as the "existence of God" argument. We don't need a reason.
@@teresamagnusson disagree, if you have a choice to kill someone it’s one thing, if you have a choice that doesn’t involve death in any form - it’s completely other topic
@@danilkutnyTeresa's right. We don't need a reason.
@@brigittecourson You do. Saying you dont makes it pretty abhorrent and proves dr lives point.
@@teresamagnussonI mean, hats off to you for reaching the logical conclusion. Yes, as the child bearer, mothers have the unique ability to determine whether a new life is brought into the world. Now it’s incumbent on those women to decide whether it’s better to create a life or destroy it. One shows optimism for the future of our species and love for humanity, while the other is repugnant and on the side of Hitler and others who hold human life in so little regard.
I had a 12 week ultrasound and I couldnt believe how active my baby was on the monitor. I thought she would just be curled up motionless in a ball, but she was moving around so much, stretching her arms above her head and kicking. And she was all there: nose, lips, eyes, legs, fingers, and toes.
What i dont get is why no one promotes the use of condom and discourage rawdogging.
The AI is disregarding most countries and parent’s ability to actually support these “necessary” children. It idealizes our societies as ones that are completely fit to raise these kids as healthy individuals. Whatabout the mothers that would starve on the streets just trying to support their infant? Babies cost a heck ton of money not everybody has. The reason we used to have a lot of children was because we knew a lot of them would die.
The debate was about the moral worth of the fetus, not the financial viability of children.
Your argument amounts to letting kids die just because they are poor.
There’s no evil in that. I genuinely believe most of these people are demonic. I’ve heard them yell “i want to get pregnant just to get an abortion”
Have you used a condom before? I'd rather beat my meat.
@@portal2boyz405the ai is based in the us. Other countries are irrelevant.
All lives are as you say “ necessary”. This is why doctors have a Hippocratic oath to help all patients regardless of sex, age, mental state, race, religion, and economic status.
It idolizes a morel and just society. This is why we abolish slavery. We realized that slaves were people to and they deserve rights. Now the next step is to extend the right to the people in the whom. They are vulnerable humans that need to be protected.
The us is flush with welfare to help those in need. No one is going hungry. Contrary we have an obesity issue.
So we should just kill people if they might not be living in super ideal situations? Sounds pretty morbid to me
It’s funny how you bring up poor people and having kids you don’t see all these super wealthy people with 10 kids. Statistically as people get more money they have less kids. Somehow poor people make it work.
Lastly, no one saying that anybody should have 10 kids, You can choose not to get pregnant, but if a woman is with child, she should bring that child to light and not murder it .
I’m surprised how consistent these arguments were, the model for Dr. Life had arguments that I never heard before, although leaning too heavily on arguments that seem to be from authority. It seems Dr. Choice was taking a lot of mainstream inputs, while Dr. Life had more academic inputs, which makes me think what would happen if you switched the response order. Overall the lack of gaslighting and red herrings made this pleasant to listen to compared to political debates.
Thats because the PC argument is entirely a cultral one and focuses on the intrusion of governemnt into an individuals life.
Switching any order in this would come to the same outcome. If you wanted something interesting you would change the "consistent morals".
Something like
Humans ascribe meaning in the universe. Thus, if humanity ends meaning ends. Its Humanities duty to ensure itself into the future to maintain meaning in the universe.
Should we terminate pregnancies that are likely to swallow resouces and delay progress that would likely ensure humans into future?
There aren’t any pro-choice academic positions that don’t sound like they belong to the 3rd Reich…
If you speak to pro-lifers who actually understand their position, the arguments that Dr. Life brought up are frequently used. I actually thought there was a few more arguments that Dr. Life could have used in response, but chose not to. Such as a parents inherent responsibility to their child, which is a social norm that is accepted in all other areas of the law (if a mother does not feed her child, but has the ability to, she is arrested for child neglect).
In every circumstance other than rape, the woman chose to engage in a reproductive act which resulted in reproduction. To deny that consent to sex equals the consent to the possibility of pregnancy, is like saying consenting to eat does not mean you are consenting to defecating. It is the natural biological outcome.
This became unrealistic after the pro choice doctor got dunked on and said “I respect your viewpoint”.
It became unrealistic right at the start when the pro-choice bot agreed that life began at conception
@@colonelsanders5278Glad I'm not the only one who noticed that.
@@colonelsanders5278 ai works on facts, unlike people even pretending to be dishonest it can't deny this fact.
@@boguslav9502 oh really it works on facts, have you ask it what a women is? yeah it works on people's bias it just depends who programs it!
@@GrimmDragon203the AI is clearly working off medical knowledge. Just because society and culture changes their opinion on conceptions does not mean that in the realm of biology and science there is a shift on what studies show.
Conceptually and pragmatically one of the most interesting videos I've seen recently. Would like to see more like it.
More videos like this are on the way, stay tuned! consider subscribing not to miss what's next :)
7:10 a baby is dependent for survival until at least age 5
The point of the argument is the dependency of the fetus to the mother. Only the mother can take it to full term. If someone needs say my liver to live, the law cannot force me to donate my liver or any other parts of my body. The law would force mothers to use their bodies for the fetus. As soon as the infant is born, it no longer requires the mothers body
@@minhn1791
You grew your liver for yourself. A woman grows and has a uterus solely for her offspring.
The uterus is the only organ that exists for someone other than the human who grew it. Your kidneys are yours, your liver is yours, your spleen is yours, your uterus is there only for the gestation of your children.
Also, you can donate a piece of your liver. Consenting to the action that can get you pregnant is consent to the potential outcome of pregnancy.
@@Nahnah111The uterus is for reproduction, however the uterus is connected to women’s hormones and other health benefits to women.
The law cannot force anyone to donate pieces of liver or something as simple as blood to save a life
@@Nahnah111so what if the potential outcome of pregnancy is a fetus attached to the womb? what makes that fetus have a right to keep attaching to said womb?
Thanks you for this because i want a discussion of the morality and facts on controversial topics like adoption without the heated emotions.
same!
when they touched on the "potential" of life versus the "actuality" of life it addressed a point I have had and barely ever heard. It was so nice to hear here.
Please continue this channel, this is wholesome content
Is it sad to say that 2 minutes in I see this as a better debate than 100% of the debates I have seen on this topic?
Yes. Regardless of you opinion 90% of people arguing for this would resort to "I can do what I want to do an noone can tell me otherwise" ( actually that's atheistical satanic take ) or "it's not a baby, it's a fetus. F e t u s, see the difference using word offspring from Latin makes in considering someone alive ?" ( A. k. a. It an untermansche, a Jew or a Slav, what's wrong with making Jew flavoured soap from those things, they are not a human like us Germans ) I think this topic should only ever be debated by philosophers not common men cause they are not nearly philosophical enough to even bring out trolley or violinist.
Dr. Choice got 6 points
Dr. Life got 8 points
Saved you a minute.
Dr choice was weak. Pro abortion is the only way
Pro-Abortion for late-term fetuses😎😎
@@SachiiHatsuna Ragebait -_-
@Sachii-o2d hell yeah
@@SachiiHatsunanice ragebait
No human would ever have such a respectful debate. This was very fascinating.
I constantly debate pro life with these same points. I'm often called a terrible person who supports assault of 12 year olds or forcing breeding on women. It's often the pro choice side that is so emotional and can't debate rationally and respectfully
They have throughout all of time. It's only recently people have become venomous in their cult like beliefs.
If anyone should be outraged it should be the ones who have to argue for babies not to be pulled apart by forceps.
I believe that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term - whatever the reason - is ALWAYS going to have extremely negative consequences on BOTH the woman and the baby. For the mother, I think it's obvious why. For the baby, they could either be put out for adoption, which is of course traumatizing, or they could live in an house where there is no love for them, also deeply traumatizing. I'd rather have an happy woman who had an abortion and no baby (by the way I agree with all of Dr. Choice's claims on abortion, the reasons why it's ethical, the 24 weeks etc.) than two miserable human beings.
I have to say you are officially my new favorite yyou tube channel. Please dont stop making these. Be like the Channel company man, and just make 1 video a week so you dont stress yourself out.
3:50 Its kinda wierd to argue against/for AI, but Ill give it a shot. My girlfriend recently had a miscarrige. I haven't cried like that in many years, to which spans over the course of many other tragic life experiences. This one was an exceptionally brutal blow to me. I mourned our loss and all. Im sure SOME people might regard a misscarrige as a body malfunction and nothing else, but It doesn't seem to hold true with most of western society. For example, look at tv comedy shows such as family guy or Morel Orel. I believe family guy had an episode that was scrapped because it tackled the misscarrige topic. It was too serious and unsettling, so they didn't go through with it. Some say morel orel was canceled BECAUSE they aired an episode on the topic. I do believe most people take misscarriges seriously and as a tragic loss, it is really hard to imagine most people not doing that. To what degree of pain in comparison to that of a born child passing awayis up for debate, but for my girlfriend and I, we lost our child. There is no thought in my mind that says, "Atleast they weren't born yet". This is all aside from the abortion argument, which after our misscarrige, really put it all in perspective for me. But to be fair, I was already prolife. Now I just don't understand how someone could "end a pregnancy" just because. You can argue the fringe, low hanging fruit of "grape" and "binscest", but for it to be used as birthcontrol is nothing short of evil. I don't even believe in god or whatever, its just out right evil, man.
Women still should be the ones to decide what to do. It’s down to personal choice if to do it or not, if it’s good or not but the option shouldn’t be taken away. Tbh e one carrying the baby is still the one that’ll have their body being used to develop that baby and the one that’ll most likely have to care for them their whole life. It can be bad but still allowed, depends on the persons upbringing and choices.
@@anapaola7241 She did choose. She choose to have sex. Ending the life of a baby is just straight up evil. Thier body is being used? They are carrying the baby because they choose to though sex. "grape" cases is a separate debate (not to mention happens far less often than consenting). I am talking solely about consentual and mutual actions. A choice was made. To deprive the baby of life for the sake of a mothers change of mind is just twisted. The unborn child did nothing wrong, including "using" the mother, and deserves life just as much as you and I. It doesn't feel right to not put children first over someones lack of self control.
@@A_Dog_You_Know I agree fully with everything you said and I admire it. Good points, especially "she chose to have sex"
I'm sorry about your baby 💔 I pray for yours and your lady's peace and healing
Wow, this is unfortunately incredibly stupid.
Miscarriages can cause risk of death to the mother as well. The mother should have the choice to ABORT that fetus, it's not an equivalent human. It's in the process of becoming a person.
A sperm cell isn't a person and neither is the ovum or a fetus below 24 weeks. That's the straight reality, women need access to abortions for their own safety.
Abortions after 24 weeks are rightfully crimes and no one is denying that ever bud.
3:51 my sisters were around 20 weeks when they passed, and my parents had a funeral for them. We’ve visited their graves and mourned them. This is such an offensive point. It has no ground
As a woman that miscarried twins, I agree.
It's dilly yo debate if it's alive, of course it's alive. The ugly truth is that we're not necessarily going to allow it to continue. We decide who lives and who dies.
It's a true point though. except the percentage is way off. It's more like over 50% If we're including very early term miscarriages, like within the first week, including failure to implant and such. Implantation rate is affected by being drunk. So should everyone that has sex while drunk be charged with murder?
@emmy_grace I believe the point being made was from a legal and social standpoint. The laws of the country and the unspoken rules of society aren't going to be changed to represent every single miscarriage -- especially because many happen without knowledge of the mother. That's not to say that a funeral isn't still a wonderful or important thing to do on an individual basis, especially when it happens on such a late-term basis. I know it was not meant to be offensive at all.
You can treat them like people and that's not the point. The point is that, a woman should have an option to abort a miscarriage.
The mother when she chooses herself over an unborn fetus should NOT go through trauma, for the fetus is NOT an equivalent human being.
Dr Choice contradicted himself. He argues that he counsels women who have suffered miscarriages, and yet claims that acknowledging the deaths of unborn infants challenges societal norms. Didn't he JUST say that the women he is counseling are essentially mourning the loss of their children? I know AMPLE men who mourn the death of their unborn children, regardless of how early or late in the pregnancy the couple lost their baby.
I love how well thought out, how well formed and put together this is, and then I remember, yeah. Humans.
Most will not watch this video, at-least fully. And actually care to see another perspective, but rather just go down here, to the comments, and begin fighting over the arguments that they themselves will never actually participate in, in any meaningful life changing way personally.
I'd give my opinion on the subject, but that feels like it would dismay from my point. Please, watch the video, appreciate a nice, not screaming, high school debate.
Good news is this is by far the most civil comment section on this topic I have ever seen. Yeah you can still find harsh comments, but in general good discussions.
@@battery_wattage yeah, you're right. My pessimism is getting the best of me.
These videos are very excellent! I appreciate them and all the work you’ve put in.
I have one little question, though. I’ve always noticed in my own ventures playing with AI that they don’t really ask questions. In debates of most forms, cross examination requires questioning. Is there any way that you could include this? I think it would elevate the debate to be more direct, less repetitive, and insightful!!
I honestly love this. Hearing a proper debate without the heated emotions swings and such. It's also so nice that you added footnotes in the description!! It's something I wish more creators did when they are using heavy topics such as these by listing their sources
Thanks! I'm glad you loved the video.
Consider subscribing so you don't miss what's next :)
One thing I’ve always wondered is why most if not all states in the US allow abortion,
claiming that the fetus is not actually a person with human rights until a certain time period. Yet when a pregnant woman is killed, it is considered a double homicide.
To me when you analyze humans unbiased it honestly seems that most of the value of a fetus prior to birth is purely based on the desire of the mother/father to actually have that baby. If a pregnant woman is killed who had chosen to keep the baby it makes sense that it would add to the severity of the crime.
So if that woman was on her way to have an abortion would it still be considered a double homicide
Sadly what determines if it's life or not is simply whether or not it's wanted. Imagine if your worth was determined that way.
That's because the Pregnant mother was planning to have that child.
This is an obvious difference, one life and one PLANNED child WOULD exist.
Imagine a pro-abortion person debating this politely and unemotionally!? 🤣
I think the quality of the argument here isn't as good when the AI is trying to argue from the perspective of an expert. A pro-choice Oby/Gyn probably would not have made the viability arguments as he/she would be very familiar with the current research and status of medical breakthroughs in keeping preterm newborns alive. Either way, I love these videos. Please keep up the good work!
Bias. Both sides has issues. It's just an interesting video with a cool concept.
They wouldn't have argued that way because they are liars. 90% of pro abortion arguments rely on lies, faulty evidence and ignorance.
Ais don't have any incentive to lie, so if they're wrong... well they're just wrong, whatever. It makes no difference to them. But it makes ALL the difference to us.
Not a bad take but consider the practicality implied here - while yes one child may have survived from 19 weeks onward outside the womb, the effort required to make that happen as well as the resources were, I can only imagine, astounding. So, in the near term, I’m not sure it’s reasonable to assume this is possible on anywhere near a large enough scale to affect the consideration of it.
@@Ken62737 The viability argument is usually used to demonstrate when "life" is said to begin and the argument against it is that it is something that changes with technology. How practical it is does not have any baring on its merits. For example, 19 weeks might be viable in a rich country with advanced healthcare but not viable in a poor country with almost no healthcare. Would we have different definitions of when a fetus is a person based on where they live?
@@epaybe I see - the pro choice AI accepted life beginning at conception though I thought?
I was thinking of that augment as more an alternative to abortion than a philosophical line in the sand on personhood.
I like how they say that the cell's life begins at conception when both cells are "alive" before and after conception. It makes it a strange statement to say the word "life" when talking about conception. You could say you move the living cell to the path of where it will eventually become a human, but it doesn't change if it was a live or not.
Now , make them debate genders (3 - being male, female , undetermined due to physiological mutations/imbalances) and whether sexual orientation or their actual gender determines their gender
2, most intersex people are closer to one than the other, so just go with that, if someone is essentially right in the middle, just pick the one you like better.
there is no average "physiological mutations/imbalances" that have someone not have distinguishable reproductive parts. It should be about scientific biology. Not pseudo psychology science societal construct babble. Using astronomically small %s of the population, to says its ok for dudes to call themselves women because they're in a dress is asinine. Even more so when they are screeching everyone else has to do it as well. You took hormones, had surgery, etc? Wow.... you're a Man* (see fine print below) then. I say we revert to only using biological terms of male and female again, and leave the sociopaths behind.
The overwhelming majority of intersex people are still male or female, just with small abnormalities, the number of people who are truly intersex, with a mix of both genders reproductive organs are about 0.018%, and in that case they still sway slightly more to one side then the other, so it's not plausible to classify intersex as it's own 3rd gender.
I think the disconnect on the gender debate is about definition of a word, when some believe it’s a biological debate. Which just seems like a waste of time. I think the real debate should be about biological sex, which isn’t about definitions.. it’s objective.
@@charliem4560yeah, gender theorists recognize a difference between biological sex and gender
Best response to the Violinist argument (on forced organ donations like kidneys) I've heard is that the uterus is the only organ in the human body that exists to grow ANOTHER (different) body. Credit to Stephanie Gray Conners discussing the question with Matt Fradd.
I actually think it's a poor response to the violinist argument. That's because there is more that is needed than just the uterus to grow an embryo. We need the heart for blood circulation, the blood for transporting nutrients, the kidney for expelling the baby's waste products, and so on.
At best, this response just kicks the can down the road. The violinist proponent could simply agree for the sake of argument that the uterus belongs to the baby, and ask if they can have an abortion by removing both the baby and the uterus. And we are back to the violinist argument, just with extra steps.
Ultimately, we know that simply having the uterus would not allow the baby to live, without all the auxilliary organs that join in to produce a viable environment.
On organ sellings, it is completely different, you only let someone die, not directly cause someone's death. Abortion directly causes someone's death, you cannot just kill a person who is in need of kidney, you can only let it die.
If somehow the let it die equates to killing therefore you already have killed someone for not saving a child by not donating to a charity
Another thing about the violanist argument is that it is a disanalogous to pregnancy. When you abort, you are directly causing someone's death (like pushing someone in a lake). When you don't donate your kidney or in the violanist argument when you unplug, you are only letting someone die.
Letting someone die and directly causing someone's death is different. If letting someone die equates to directly causing someone's death therefore you already have directly cause someone's death because you didn't save a child by donating to charity..
Force Organ Donation analogy is already flawed by thinking it is the same as directly causing someone's death. A right to control one's body doesn't mean a right to kill someone, a right to undermine your dignity, and a right to be evil.
In law, you are not obligated to save one. In law, you are obligated to not kill someone. See the difference? A lot of pro-choice are confused by the difference.
Plus, bodily autonomy argument justified late-term abortion, that's why Thomson said that she doesn't support late-term abortion, either way her argument does support it.
@@SachiiHatsuna I would say this is one of the better responses to the violinist argument. But it does suffer from the same problem of focusing too strictly on the details of the analogy rather than the core idea it is trying to present.
Here, someone could suggest a reformulation where you are plugged to the violinist in a manner closer to some kind of horror movie - where if you were to pull the plug, it will automatically trigger a mechanism that kills the violinist. Does the principle and intuition that one should not be compelled to stay plugged still work here? It would still appear to be debatably so.
One might be tempted to say that the fault lies not in the one who unplugs, but the one who setup such a mechanism in the first place - such as the consenting couple. But this also provides an out, because the pregnant woman isn't necessarily involve in setting up the mechanism. For instance, in the case of rape, then only the rapist is responsible for setting up such a mechanism. Thereafter, if we were to say the woman is free to unplug from the violinist because only the kidnapper is responsible for setting up the trigger death mechanism; then we are compelled to also say that abortion is not immoral in the case of rape.
The immediate takeaway is that even when programmed to be pro choice, ai recognizes that abortion after 24 weeks is messed up. Showing that even AI is more ethical than democrats.
Democrats recognise abortion until 5 months too, and abortions after that are if the mothers life is in danger.
Not a high bar
...and what folks don't realize is that when someone says, let's return to Roe v Wade, they are saying abortion MUST be legal prior to viability (depending on the state, that's anywhere from 24-28 weeks) and can only be banned afterwards, but states can make abortion legal up until the moment of birth. That anyone argues to support third trimester abortion is just straight up legal.
Who needs ethics when a trespasser is afoot?
@@KreatorStudios talk about ethics…pregnant woman are being allowed to die in Texas even when fetuses are not viable. Less than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester, when complications jeopardize the life of the mother or a fatal fetal anomaly can be detected. I’m so sick of the lies that a woman would carry a pregnancy all the way to 6, 7 or 8 months and then just say meh, screw it I changed my mind.
It was nice listening to this debate without any name calling, vitriol, yelling, or vilifying. Makes it seem way more approachable for both sides.
Or do Orthodoxy vs Catholicism vs Protestantism!
Theres no need to debate, catholicism
@@phibikIt would be too easy to defeat it lol
@@phibikFr.
Catholicism for the win!!!
@@TwinklingDelight read the website got questions and you’ll find how inherently unbiblical most catholic practices and beliefs are. Praying that God removes the scales from your eyes 🙏
@@highestvotedcommentwich for example?
How would this debate turn out if you have the debate between a moral relativist versus moral objectivist? Again, another exceptional video Jon.
There can be no debate there, debate is based on objectivism, objective morlaity is the only thing you can debate. Without objective morality, everything is permissible.
@@davidgavranic5044 Our very premise of morality is subjective as it is viewed from a human-centric perspective. Certainly within that framework, objective morality exists with regard to human well-being but the only way for morality to be at it's core objective would be if you could show some things are objectively "right" and/or "wrong" for all beings regardless of ideology, culture or species.
@@jonathanwestrum9345 animals don't have morality, we don't assign morals to animals, animals do what their instincts tell them is best for keeping their genetic lineage going. So only for humans do we talk about morality, and there, morality must be objective, or we have no basis for making any moral judgements. If morality is subjective, you can't say Hitler was evil, just that you wouldn't do the same, if he said you were evil for not commiting genocide, both of you would be equally valid in your views. Morality must be based on logic, not subjective feelings, and the basis of this logic, and it's axioms have been a subject of philosophical debate since the very beginning of philosophy, but all of them recognized, one must be correct, or there is no such thing as good or evil, just or unjust, and if justice does not exist, neither can laws.
@@davidgavranic5044 First, there’s no evidence to support morality is entirely unique to human beings.
Second, your initial premise that unless morality is objective, we have no basis for making any moral judgements is fundamentally flawed as I explained earlier. Whether you believe morality is innate, bound to evolution, determined by culture, society or religion, the fact remains we approach it from a human-centric position making it entirely subjective from our point of view.
Entirely for the sake of discussion, assume (again, theoretically) we someday made contact with an advanced, intelligent alien species that had developed its own morality. It is not unreasonable to assume and it logically follows their morality would naturally be centric to their own race, not ours, and hopefully, for our sake if they are the advanced race at the time of meeting, they would be compatible lol.
Third, subjective and objective morality are not mutually exclusive. The fact that the majority of western morality is viewed through a prism of moral relativism proves morality is often viewed as conditional or can change depending on various standpoints. There are many examples of this illustrated in scenarios such as the trolly dilemma, the overcrowded lifeboat, etc.
Fourth, in your Hitler example if something can be viewed subjectively then it cannot be objectively true. As to the rest, human well-being is foundational to morality and just because someone makes a subjective morality claim does not change that. As such, any argument that it would be immoral to not commit genocide would violate human well-being and therefore be a non-sequitur. So no, they would not be equally valid views.
Finally, I agree with you that morality must be based on logic but just because the initial premise is subjective doesn’t mean it must remain so or must be argued only using subjective logic. Again, I’m not arguing that morality is entirely or can only ever be subjective, just that any objective morality argument is still predicated on a subjective premise. Good chat. Cheers 😊
@jonathanwestrum9345 I disagree entirely, I stand by what I said, you cannot make moral judgements on animals, an animal is an animal, if a lion kills and eats a gazelle, or kills a rival's cubs, it's not evil, it's just following it's instincts, and assigning morality to animals is fundamentally flawed logic, sure, they can do things we would consider moral or immoral if done by a human, but we cannot map human morality onto them. With regards to morality being sibjective and the hutler thing, if morality is subjective, then who is to say that violating human well-being is wrong? That would be objective morality, you can't have morality be subjective and determined by the individual, but then also have things that are always immoral. I am not claiming I know what is right and what is wrong, what I am saying is every moral dilemma has an answer, and if 2 people give different answers and both are right, you can't have morality at all, as you have to take your conclusions to their logical end, you can't stop halfway, if some things are always wrong, that means morality must be objective, you can't have it be subjective and have rules which are not up to personal interpretation. If there are moral axioms and rules which are not up to personal choice, then 2 people cannot arrive at different, but equally valid moral stances, as by the rules, even if it may be close, one would always be more moral, so if 2 different stances can be equally valid, that eliminates the existence of the rules which are not up to personal choice. Again, what you're suggesting is only possible if you take neither the idea of objective or subjective morality to it's logical conclusions, they cannot coexist. If morality is sibjective, means it comes from within each person, that means you cannot tell if you're right, or Hitler is, as there is no objective framework of right and wrong, you could say objective morality is just the sum of the subjective views around you, meaning society determines it, which would again mean Hitler was right since he had support. If we can call anything good or evil, the rules must come from outside, and thus be objective, or we have no grounds to stand on.
8:41 infants can't survive independently for several years.
It means outside of the womb; To survive without having to utilize another person's resources to sustain themselves.
@berryinj they still require intense amounts of care so your point is invalid.
Are you fucking stupid? Without milk?
its rare to see a debate on this topic without personal attacks. This is helpful
Dr. Life with the quotes and consistency!! I love the aim to serve both, not one or the other!! Protect Every Life!! Love it!
No. Some lives have got to go, sorry.
Not that her argument was bad or wrong, but those quotes were appeals to authority. A person being a philosopher doesn't give them the authority to determine the facts of morality since nothing is settled among philosophers themselves. She might as well have quoted famous authors.
@@teresamagnusson
- hitler, 1944
@@ArbidarbFinally someone with a brain. I was confused every time that a philosopher was quoted like their words had any more meaning than anyone else’s.
They both agree that life begins at conception.
Because it’s a biological fact
@@DAWN001 exactly, although some people disagree.
Can't say I agree with Dr. Choice on the Miscarriage thing. Just because we humans don't go through the fanfare of a funeral doesn't mean we don't mourn the loss. It's just not talked about as much IMO.
In real life most moms morn their miscarriage the same way they morn the loss of a born child. This is based on my observation.
I think the fact both AIs agreed life begins at conception is game over. When Dr. Choice started arguing one life is more valuable than the other life I started to see the scary implications of any potential AIs making consequential decisions in our society.
No because life doesn’t create value we do not value the dna code it’s more then that we value consciousness. And that’s what the issue is about the fetus or baby what ever u prefer it doesn’t have consciousness until a certain point. And at before that point it’s value is questioned yes it has potential but potential isn’t rlly a 100 percent thing so it becomes independenable and we debate it the the question isnt is it life its more so what makes life valueble
@@Obsessedwith.alenah You don't value life. You claim to value consciousness. Yet we can't not define consciousness or measure it. With that being said how do we know 100% anything..as you put it. We were all once fetuses. Imagine 100 years from now we discover that a fetus does in fact have consciousness. We would be looked at as barbarians. With so so much blood on our hands. The slavery argument is played out but it applies here. Many people a few hundred years ago felt slavery was perfectly fine. They assigned more value to some people's lives over other people's lives. It's a very similar argument. Innocent life over everything!!!!
Im saddened that you didnt go deeper into the life vs autonomy argument cuz the logical extreme of autonomy vs life is suicide. We shouldnt force the person to seek help who actively are for suicide. Because its ultimatley there autonomy. This is a very problamatuc view that i wish the debators explored a little more if the right to life is an even more important right
Maybe you can make a video on wether assisted suicide is moral or not. Which takes place in countries like switzerland
legitimately he made the ais too biased tbh
@@christopherlin8661 idk if I would say that
@@elibonham4388 there's never one where the side he doesn't want to win, wins.
@christopherlin8661 wdym the freewill argument was dead even and what about the election argument. The consensus is it needs to be changed among the judges.
And how would you know what side he necessarily is on
We have to differentiate the philosophical concept of life from the psychological perspective of life, to be brief, the life has inherent value that integrates a final cause or way of being, on the concept of good, we understand it as the fair ordering of the being in function of their final cause, being the life the precondition of human being, therefore the human has the natural instinct to continously living because of their essence, but the way the mental or physical pain restricts us to contemplate the beutiful things of life makes us degrade the inherent value of life. So the professionals on their practice never have to abandon the idea for searching the way the patient can appreciate their life and not to run from it, this applies on almost all mindsets of suicidal thinking, but for the tragic cases of cancer is different because we can't guarantee their lives
2:20 the problem with this position is that it overlooks the fundamental objective of reproduction: to establish new life to continue the species. Children are ALWAYS saved before adults.
I believe in human rights, not person rights.
Humans are person's... you silly goose!
They are defining a person and a human differently. So not in their argument.
Just like with rectangles and squares, All persons are human, but not all humans may be considered as persons. That being said, the human right to life has always been the HUMAN right to life, so it should be applied to all unique living members of the human species. Terminating a human fetus goes against that right
I bet you don't think Trans people are human.
We can argue semantics but a fetus before 24 weeks is not a person.
The argument of Petri Dish of Embryos vs one child was a very strong argument, I'm not gonna lie!
Finally. The blue woman is gonna smoke the orange guy, yet again.
Orange just can’t catch a break
@@AoH3_King Considering that it's a panel of AI's that judge it, it's really up to your own reasoning skills since they're naturally gonna be more biased towards their amount of training data along with other factors that we couldn't even comprehend. Personally I think the fundamental flaw for blue is the premise. The idea that human life itself has intrinsic value; the fact that it has human DNA is really what the argument boils down to in its key components. I think the placement on sentience actually allows for broader implications down the line as well as room for more compassionate exceptions without risk of unnecessary harm to individuals.
@@king0bubbles human DNA is not the point, but the fact that the embryo has a UNIQUE DNA sequence, distict from their parents, is used to say they are distinct beings from the mother, and the fact that embryos naturally grow and reach awareness is used to give value to the embryo, so the potential future of a sentient being is what is argued to, consistently, give value to life. Somatic cells are not naturally capable of generating new human life, wich is why they are not granted human rights (nor is anyone argueing for that) despite having human DNA.
As for the broader implications of placing value in conciousness, I don't understand what you mean by that. As I see it, this relativization of the value of human life leads to further relativizations that lead to the legalization of murdering in other contexts. Unless you are talking about considering AIs, sentient aliens or even genetically modifed sentient animals as people, I don't think we need to relativize your notions on the value of human life for that, we only change the "human" part to "any species with sentience", even though I still don't believe AI should be considered people because of their inherent differences to us humans, and I don't think it is ethical to modify animals to make them sentient, even though I wouldn't deny them human rights if some mad scientist did it (I am also against animal cruelty, despite not being a vegetarian, just to make this point clear).
Nah
@@lucaskohn5457 Yeah, lol, I figured we're all watching an AI video so I might as well throw in the implications of emerging artificial sentience.
On your first point, however, the saying of "life begins at conception" is absolutely predicated on valuing *specifically* human life (having unique human DNA) and that being inherent within itself. I disagree and would say that the value is given when the being gains the specific requirements that allow for a concept of value in the first place.
I would also distinguish between potentiality and reality, meaning the idea that a being could exist is not the same as a being that does exist.
Edit: Also you said that valuing sentience over potentiality could lead to justification of murders, that is the slippery slope fallacy.
I have some concerns with how this AI debate was structured. Assigning specific jobs or roles to the AI models restricts the debate, limiting it to perspectives tied to those specific roles. Instead, I would present the prompt in a more open-ended way to allow for a broader discussion.
I believe the focus should be on ethics rather than morality. The conversation should center around a woman’s choice, rather than the personhood of a fetus. Pro-choice advocates aren’t necessarily denying fetal personhood; rather, they argue that a person shouldn’t be compelled to support another’s personhood with their own body. This broader perspective could also touch on issues like military drafts.
Additionally, the conversation could explore the potentiality arguments raised by Doctor Life. If potentiality alone justifies certain actions, we could question other scenarios: Should we require young girls who begin menstruating to have sex to maximize the potential of their eggs? What about males-should we prohibit masturbation to avoid wasting semen, as it could theoretically contribute to potential life? Should we be regulating bodies in such a way?
Don’t know how the AI thinks that pain receptors have anything to do with it as if killing a human is moral just cos it don’t hurt them 😭
Its not that the AI thinks. Its that it takes the best arguments from the postion and debates it. People make that argument all the time.
if a person can't feel the knife it is ok...............
....do you know your dead if your were never born?
@@midnull6009 depends on who you're asking......if it's god then you would know
This is a really cool concept! I like that you get a clear and uninterrupted statement from both parties and that it uses facts. Very well done!
More videos like this are on the way, stay tuned! and thanks for the sub
May I request a debate about wether humans are essentially good or evil, just how Jean-Jaques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes argued for their according philosophical standings?
i think humans are both inherently good and evil. just look at any particular person and you'll see good and evil traits.
@@UwU-ok2jr but is human nature itself rather good or evil? Are we better at creation or destruction?
Good suggestion this is an issue I struggle with daily and has impeded my life.
@@chaptastik7072 Do we even know what good and evil are?
@@Neoprenesiren well technically, there is no objective morale, but as a collective species, we define morals on a subjective basis. Rarely any human has ever look at murder (of a loved one to make the case more extreme) and decided "I have no opinion about this whatsoever". So I find it interesting to see if we as subjects find that we are good or evil by nature
Less than a minute in and I’m already blown away.
Look, I’m pro-choice, but I can’t stand when people on my side argue that a fetus isn’t alive. That’s like showing up to a debate with a blindfold and a “kick me” sign. You’re just begging to lose. The real question is personhood-that’s the whole ethical battleground. Where’s my 20-24 week squad at?
Exactly, life begins at conception. The problem is when does the baby become conscious, and that happens at about 26 weeks. Before then it's a growing fetus, after that it's a pre-birth baby.
Fetus means baby😑
@@vitriolveio definition wise, fetus is the first 8 weeks after conception, meanwhile a baby is a young human. These are not the same thing. They are not even synonyms.
@@user-ko7gk7wp5xYou use that number 26 weeks is when they develop consciousness. What happens at 26 weeks for them to deploy consciousness?
@@user-ko7gk7wp5xThe fetus has the form of a being that develops conscious, rational capacity so it is a person worthy of moral consideration. A person in a coma or someone who got knocked out from a punch is temporarily unconscious but they still have moral value. Same with a fetus.
I asked ChatGPT O1-Preview to Define a Hypothetical Civilization and Find and Define the Middle Ground for abortion after uploading the transcript from your video.
*BTW this would've been a great addition to this video topic*
Why would there need to be a hypothetical middle ground?
@@AoH3_King Frankly, the Abortion debate isn’t going to be won or lost at either extreme. Regardless of your personal beliefs, if there ever was a line drawn in the sand on the issue, it would be somewhere in the middle.
@@RS_AFKing I think it can. We just need more time. Our priorities as a civilization change, and with that change the things we value change. Prime example: Lobotomies (for the ailments they were used for). Before seen as the Standard of Practice, now not only NOT the standard of practice, seen as actually EVIL and inhumane.
@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy It's not that values change, just information shows it actively harms you. We have always been against harm, we just debate if something is harm and if it's a lesser extent than the alternative
@@RS_AFKing Ah, the false compromise. How did I know you were committing that fallacy.
Very nice. I love both sides of the argument. I started the first 2-3 rounds on Dr. Choice's side, but Dr. Life swayed me as it evolved the conversation better and it felt like Dr. Choice kept going back to the same determinant factor.
I've always wondered. What anyone at any age passed away (or aborted). Could have lived to become
Which is a very interesting thought.
America would not be below the rate of replacement.
It is irrelevant because it only feeds your dreams or fantasies, not contact with reality. When we appreciate things that are so far in the past or in the future, we must acquire capacities that are in the middle of reality and gradually developed towards the edges. This would mean if we "try" to answer and manage to visualize a little what is hidden in a distant past or in a distant future, that we already have or are acquiring paranormal abilities. So it is so stupid both by the nature of the desires and by the capacity that develops for a more complete understanding of the reality that undergoes transformations over time.
@@danstoica2824 Your writing could use some finessing as its somewhat difficult to understand and its somewhat verbose.
Person is an an individual substance of a rational nature, a fetus is an individual substance of a rational nature , thus the fetus is a person. The debate would then be if all persons are valuable.
wow this is a pretty good video, I'm pro life and I've never heard the argument from the other side that we shouldn't require people to use their bodies to keep others alive, just like how we don't mandate organ or blood donations. Very interesting. However, I think that argument leaves out the context of the situation. If you accidentally push someone off a cliff but caught a hold of their hand before they fell (get pregnant) you would be expected to hold on as long as you can, and drag them up (give birth). Letting go of them just because holding on made you uncomfortable would be wrong (getting the abortion) in that case, assuming it wasn't your grip that gave up (miscarriage)
It also doesn't apply because, while your other organs are meant for you and keeping you alive, your womb is specifically designed to keep a fetus alive. Pregnancy is not an unnatural sharing/transplanting of an organ, but an entirely natural process that literally every human being goes through. A child has a right to his mother's womb just as it has a right to live in his parents' house once it's born; it is his natural habitat.
I liken it to drug use--whether prescribed or recreational. Side effects of many drugs are bleeding, liver damage, seizures, blood clots, overdose, etc... and people opt to take these drugs regardless of the potential consequences. I've known two alcoholics who now have bad liver damage and they both KNEW what was coming and just sort of shrugged it off. For some reason, unprotected sex doesn't seem to fall in this category of "known side effects," and people seem very shocked when they find they're temporarily pregnant... but they don't seem shocked when they find they've got a permanent drug injury.
We do require parents to use their bodies to keep their children alive - neglect is a crime, negligent homicide is a crime
Very interesting and well put analogy, I see your point but as someone who’s pro choice I think the one thing I would say it’s missing is that it intrinsically assumes that the value of a mothers life and 9 months of her life are equal to that of the unborn fetus, with a little bit of thought it’s easy to realize that even just among human life we can logically conclude some lives are worth more than others for instance a pedophiles life is worth less than that of a nurses. And so as the mother who the fetus depends on to live I think it should be within their right to judge for themselves whether a potentially unwanted fetus life is worth more than their health, time, and future.
To add to the point about life value being on a scale I personally find it odd that pro-life people have issue with the removal of a fetus (even before it’s conscious or can feel pain) but naturally have no issue with the billions of sperm cells that men waste when they masturbate.
Yes there must be a point when human life is given rights but it seems to me that at 24-28 weeks once it gains consciousness and the ability to feel pain makes the most sense.
Replacing the image of a full grown human dangling off the cliff in your analogy with a tiny cluster of gooey cells seems more accurate, are those cells worth getting close to the cliff if you don’t want to be there? Idk just some thoughts, I could be wrong.
I ask not to argue but to understand bc I've never gotten a clear response to this question: why is it okay to have the expectation of women to have less bodily autonomy than dead bodies? I mention this since even dead bodies can not be forced to sustain another person's life had they not consented before death. Without a doubt, if we used every body that died as organ donors, many lives would be saved. But we can't. If we're expected to respect a person's autonomy even after death, why does it suddenly not exist when a woman becomes pregnant?
You could answer consent, but I'm not sure that's a good enough answer. Many women don't consent to becoming pregnant, whether that be from partaking in multiple types of birth control or from being assaulted.
this is just more ai slop. do not confuse a polite conversation for a constructive one. if y'all think this was a good debate, y'all are seriously starved.
0:57 - pro-choice ai - what "clinical experience"? how even? did this ai converse with a fetus? how does clinical experience equip you to understand the capacity for fetus consciousness?
1:01 - pro-choice ai - "coordinated cortical activity" is devoid of any explanation, rendering it nothing more than a bunch of verbose jargon. I am completely unsure as to the study's quality, I have no clue why this might be the case, and I don't even know if this is an accurate way to measure consciousness.
1:25 - pro-life ai - this is redundant. the pro-choice ai already concedes and outright states this.
1:58 - pro-life ai - this is not an argument for the moral consideration of fetuses, but an argument for maximising human potential in general. this ai seems to agree with the first ai that fetuses up to 24 weeks are not even conscious, and are thus incapable of rationality. therefore, the only bit left of this argument is the "future development" bit, which is just a general "we should make as many humans as possible" statement.
2:03 - pro-life ai - this is just an assertion. why draw the line at conception? this is unsubstantiated. if it's based in "future development", why not draw this line further back to when it's just gametes?
2:11 - pro-choice ai - wtf lmao, this entire section doesn't even address the claim that potential in of itself is valuable. it just reiterates "zygote is not conscious" when the pro-life ai has already given plausible reasons as to why consciousness should not be the only moral consideration.
2:24 - pro-choice ai - now they're just talking past each other. the pro-life ai never equated the moral value of a zygote to that of an adult.
2:39 - pro-choice ai - this is a hallucination or a strawman or both. the pro-life ai never claims this, and it calls the pro-choice ai out on that later asw.
2:44 - pro-choice ai - the ai have provided no reason we ought to value "societal norms and ethical principles", nor has it explained why the pro-life position is in opposition to these concepts.
3:02 - pro-life ai - it's repeating itself just with new quotes and shuffled words. ig it's fine bc the pro-choice ai did not even bother to respond, but failing to call this out shows how bad this ai is.
3:32 - pro-life ai - the ai has demonstrated we don't only care about consciousness. it hasn't done this well, but it's done it well enough to beat the pro-choice ai's objections. it has however not demonstrated that we ought to draw this line of potentiality at conception and not elsewhere, say, maybe when the gametes are produced, or maybe at 24 weeks as the pro-choice ai suggests.
3:58 - pro-choice ai - it gives this vague platitude of "ethical frameworks" to fake credibility. without justifying these frameworks, the argument doesn't even exist. it's nothing more than an appeal to authority.
4:12 - pro-life ai - does this mean someone dying to a hurricane should be assigned the same moral worth as a fetus who was aborted? should we hold funerals for miscarriages as we would for people who die of natural causes? should we treat doctors as murderers? this response from the pro-life ai is brazen and incomplete. it improperly addresses the pro-choice ai's appeal to moral intuition; one of the only good arguments to come out of the pro-choice ai.
4:44 - pro-choice ai - this wasn't even the argument?? we can prioritise conscious beings over non-conscious beings, while still valuing both.
4:47 - pro-choice ai - bringing up the trolley problem gave me whiplash, it's a complete non-sequitur. this proves only that 5 conscious beings are of greater moral consideration than 1 conscious being, not that a conscious being is of greater moral consideration than a non-conscious being.
4:54 - pro-choice ai - this is also a non-sequitur. thomson's violinist analogy is meant to give a moral intuition for valuing the principle of autonomy above the consideration of life. it does not prove the initial thing the ai said it was going to prove.
5:12 - pro-choice ai - ok at least we're back on track but wtf did the previous 2 thought experiments have to do with anything?
5:34 - pro-life ai - what is with the non-sequiturs? the debate wasn't about newborns who may not have full consciousness, it is about fetuses who have zero, or close to zero consciousness. the pro-life ai first established it cares about life from conception, so it can't take this weaker stance.
5:38 - pro-life ai - why ought we value consistency? also, to what extent ought we value consistency? this is an incomplete argument. also, "potential" is just as much a subjective criteria subject to interpretation and time. this is not even an argument, if anything this statement undermines the ai's own stance.
6:00 - pro-choice ai - somehow, the ai stumbled into a coherent response! it responded to the consistency thing by given a singular criterion. unfortunately, this does not address the point on the value of potential, nor does the ai justify why we ought to care about pain perception. after all, we don't care about pain perception in mosquitos or whatever.
6:40 - pro-life ai - omg i acc like this argument. unfortunately, response to stimuli is not pain perception, and pain perception at 12 weeks does not justify her stance on the value of life starting at conception. second off, this ai now fails to respond to the thomson violinist analogy.
6:55 - pro-life ai - alright sure, pain perception is not the only measure of moral worth. this does not prove that pain perception may be one important measure of moral worth. and why tf did we just drop the whole consciousness thing?? also, this ai still has not proved that "potential" is a good measure of moral worth.
7:09 - pro-choice ai - omg just get ur story straight. the ai can't keep throwing sht at the wall and hoping it sticks, it has to defend it's previous positions. viability is also just a horrid metric for moral consideration. it almost gets somewhere with autonomy, which is frustrating, bc all it had to do to substantiate that point was bring up thomson again. also it didn't respond to a lot of good arguments from the pro-life ai, like the anesthesia thing. it's not like it's hard either, we care abt ppl under anesthesia bc they had previously existed and will exist in the future. this is different to fetuses, whose potential has never been realised to the degree we ought to lend them moral consideration.
8:15 - pro-choice ai - ok this ai just talked right past the other ai. the pro-life ai just talked about how a 19 week old fetus was viable outside of the womb due to technology, the pro-choice ai can't just ignore it. if it's trying to talk about autonomy, which it seems like it is, it should've talked about the thomson thing and been more clear.
8:48 - pro-life ai - ig this is fine bc the pro-choice ai was unclear, but it still failed to address the point on autonomy. it only addresses the viability argument, which is arguably a strawman. or something like that.
9:12 - pro-choice ai - W
9:33 - pro-life ai - ok the pro-choice ai finally gave a half decent autonomy point, the pro-life ai can't just say "no" and be done with it. it has to contend with the organ donation thing. taking this argument at it's best though, the pro-life ai commits the naturalistic fallacy, and creates this moral obligation out of thin air. why ought a pregnant woman be obligated to carry to term? this was left unsubstantiated.
10:22 - pro-life ai - after the pro-choice ai just took down the weird obligation the pro-life ai gave, the pro-life ai just shifted the goalposts back to "fetuses are inherently good" without engaging on the principle of autonomy. this is like 2 brick walls talking to each other.
10:46 - pro-choice ai - why ought we care for the mother over the fetus? yes, this was substantiated earlier twice with the autonomy point, but to respond properly the ai has to reiterate that argument.
11:05 - pro-life ai - ok but it literally is a choice between the mother and fetus. carrying the fetus to term nessecarily infringes on the mother's autonomy as previously established, so this is again unresponsive.
I watched it on 3x speed on the first go. i was surprised by a philosophically sound bit, I think it was one of the quotes, so I slowed the video down; I was immediately dissapointed. this "debate" is nothing more than an stagnant conversation full of hodge-podge of arguments stolen from actual qualified philosophers.
this conversation was terrible. neither ai took a hard stance they tied arguments back to, neither ai responded to each other well, neither ai made coherent arguments half of the time, and no consensus on any issue was ever reached. I didn't expect consensus, but I expected the ai's to concede some points and focus on others, instead what we got was a mess of random arguments thrown around without care.
From this point of view, it seems like an argument between Realism and Idealism. AI is fascinating.
- Dr Choice summarizes that life should be judged based on its ability to function, which is practical and logical.
- Dr Life summarizes that life should be judged based on its inherent potential, which is inspiring and empathetic.
Both of these philosophies matter. You are either focusing on certain realities of living and desire choices...or you are focusing on humanistic ideals and supporting life inherently.
It isn't about 'right or wrong' here, it's about perspective and circumstances.
Kinda want to see ai debate refugee intake, trans athletes in sports, forcing people to use pronouns, the war in Gaza. If it's in the news then ask AI
I agree, tho Im afraid people are going to use AI as if it cant be wrong lmao.
0:53 So mentally handicapped are not human?
You mean mentally braindead if you are referring to the ai's argument, and I don't think it's so uncommon to prefer death in that scenario
Mentally handicapped people still have awareness, consciousness and still have significant experiences.
If you have none of those you are either in a coma or brain dead. If you are in a coma you still have moral value because of you have already established your personhood through lived experiences, with the assumption you will wake up in the future. If you are brain dead you are dead.
Not fully, no. In my life I've seen men who seemed like beasts. No words, aggressive. I believe there are 2 minds in a man, subconscious mind which is the mind that pumps your heart and blinks your eyes etc. And the conscious mind that does things like language and math and introspection. I think some people some how get locked to a certain level cap within consciousness.
This question is rooted in the assumption that the mentally handicapped do not have capacity for complex experiences which is plain wrong.
Are u saying mentally handicap people can’t have Complex experiences that is simply wrong
Evolution vs creation next please!
Not mutually exclusive, you can believe that God created the universe but also used evolution as a mechanism to develop biological life
@@thebrickaniac Not macro evolution. Micro yes not macro.
@@planes3333 plenty of Christians believe in an old earth and macro evolution
@@thebrickaniac Yeah some believe in old earth. It could be older but then if thats true and if you look at the amount of erosion and continental decay, if we are billions of years old why are there any land masses at all. If you measure what gets eroded yearly and calculate the continents should all be eroded and underwater.
Also science denies a worldwide flood but that is a fact. Look at soil amplitudes. If macro evolution is true then how is it that we have primates but we dont have any Neanderthals.
Do you really think a star flying by the earth sprinkled dust into a primordial soup and humans and blue whales and hummingbirds came out millions of years later. Do you think mankind was once a fish.
Do you really deny the bible?
Did you know evolution was originally taught in schools from a false bone of a pig being put on a primates skull,.
Micro evolution and adaption yes. Macroevolution, no way.
Darwin said he was wrong about evolution on his death bed. Also perhaps try reading Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer.
Also there is never ever a case of life coming from non life.
Macro Evolution gave atheists and communists the idea that there is no GOd. This resulted in 70 million dead in this century alone. Macro Evolution is a curse from Satan. Its been refuted and its evil
@@thebrickaniac Some do. Those who are too ignorant or lazy to look into the issue., they are cowardly too. Most of them deny the virgin birth or miracles of the bible. They are on par with dawkins the atheist who calls himself a cultural christian.
I love this. It's amazing what you can learn and solve when you remove emotions from the conversation.
2:00 I just realized something within the first 2 mins. If the pro choice AI morally justifies abortion based on someones ability to have experiences, extending that same logic, should we be allowed to euthanize the extremely autistic? If all they to is twitch and scream, and they cant take care of themselves, why let them live? Make room for someone that matters am I right?
Honestly a very good taek
Safe. Legal. Rare.
@@colezeller4861what are you referring to as safe legal and rare? Murdering autistic people, or abortion? I’m gonna have to disagree either way.
Having extreme autism is something only those born can experience so no. Having extreme autism is an experience
Couldn't say it any better myself!
Dr. Life: All human life is valuable.
Dr. Choice: If it isn't aware that it is being killed, then it's okay to kill it.
Looks like you didn’t listen much
Dr life: all life is valuable
Dr choice: if all life is valuable then donate your kidney to save someone
Dr life: all life is valuable 🤡
I've never met a woman that had a miscarriage and wasn't so profoundly impacted from it that it was a watershed moment in their lives. Miscarriages can be brutal on a woman's psyche. To minimize the impact of a miscarriage by the pro-choice AI i feel is underhanded. I've met at least 7 women that had miscarriages and not a single one of them just brushed it off. they felt like they lost a part of themselves.
That was amazing to watch. Love debating for both sides and seeing this topic being debated without feelings and straight to the facts was so much fun to watch.
What defines personhood? It’s not abilities or age as the Pro-Abortioners claim.
You’re in a conversation about abortion and someone says, “An embryo isn’t a person. It’s just a collection of cells. So there’s nothing wrong with abortion at that stage.”
What would you say?
Before we can decide whether an embryo is a person, we have to ask, “What makes anyone a person?” Here are a few things to remember…
Our personhood does not depend on our abilities. Some are hesitant to recognize embryos as persons because they don’t function in the same way that fully developed people often do.
For example, embryos can’t think or talk. But neither can someone under anesthetic, or someone in a coma, or someone who is asleep, think or talk. Newborns can’t think or talk the way adults can. Are they still people? Even adults vary in their ability to think and talk. What we can do does not make us who we are.
Our personhood does not depend on our age. The argument that embryos aren’t fully persons assumes that our age determines our personhood. But does that make sense? If we have to be old enough to do certain things or look a certain way before we are persons, do we lose our personhood once we are too old to do things? I certainly hope not!
In times past, some humans with lighter skin denied the personhood of those with darker skin. Everyone rightly recognizes how wrong that is. But if some humans shouldn’t dismiss the personhood of others because of the color of their skin, neither should humans who are older, have a right to deny personhood to those who are younger. If it’s not age or ability that makes us a person, then what does? Our personhood comes from our nature. To determine what something is, it is helpful to consider its nature not just its current abilities.
For example, it is the nature of birds to fly. If they are too young or injured to do what most birds do, that does not make them less of a bird. While neither an embryo, an infant, or a severely disabled person may be able to think or talk the way we can, the capacity to do so is part of their nature. Even if that capacity is undeveloped or impaired.
This is why we protect the offspring of endangered animals in the same way we protect their parents. As humans, our shared nature, regardless of our abilities appearance or age, gives us equal value. Bad things happen when we deny others personhood based on their ability or appearance. Once we abandon the idea that humans have equal value based on their nature, we are left to the whims of a group in power.
There was a time when women weren’t considered persons. There was a time when African Americans weren’t considered persons. There was a time when Jews weren’t considered persons. We rightly condemned mistreatment based on sex, race, or ethnicity, because we know that these do not determine our humanity. So it is with embryos. They may not have all the same abilities we do, but if they could speak, they would tell us, “I’m just like you! I’m just a little younger!”
So again, our personhood does not depend on our abilities, nor does it depend on our age. Our personhood and our equal value is rooted in our shared nature as humans regardless of what we can do. And if we decide people’s values is based on what they look like or what they’re capable of, that puts us in some pretty bad company.
Dr. Choice says we're equating zygotes with adults. We're not. We don't say we should treat zygotes the same as we treat adults. We only say they are human beings, and must not be deliberately killed.
I’d love to see a debate about Morality: whether it’s objective or subjective ❤
"ex-muslim" 💀nah lil bro. islam left YOU
@@justone4272 didn’t get what you said, but I like it
Morality is intersubjective.
@@TheOneAndOnly-t5hobjective
I mean logically morals are objective because there’s an objective set of things.
Like murder for example is universally hated or frowned upon.
It’s usually when someone tries to make morality subjective that bad things happen.
For example “is a fetus alive” started and now people have a legal excuse to kill babies.
I bet this will be just as hated as slavery in the far future.
Great debate!! You should put these debates in a podcast format as well. Human life should be valued regardless of how insignificant you think it is because all human lives have inherent value.
We use to push safe sex, now we push pro choice….
If you didn’t hear, unsafe sex isn’t the only scenario of conception.
@@aniyahgreen7851 what could you possibly be referring to? IVF?
Whats the point of commenting without actually saying something
@@dakila2012 rape, manipulation of contraceptives, these produce unwanted pregnancies as well, what about the women who had no choice in the first place? And not just women, girls. Girls are able to conceive as early as they start their period, I started mines at 9. A 13 year old rape victim just had to have the baby of her rapist in Mississippi because of the abortion laws.
@@aniyahgreen7851 rape and “contraceptive manipulation” still require “unsafe sex” so you really didn’t explain what your initial comment meant.
Regardless, what was your point? Because you seem to have missed the point of my initial comment. Reiterated: There is a shift away from encouraging safe sex, and a move toward accessible abortion. Most abortions aren’t because of rape or potential health risk, it’s due to negligence and immaturity (combined with easy/cheap access to abortion).
@ oh and you have stats on this? That a woman’s choice to have an abortion is because of negligence and immaturity. That is a reality you assume, not know. A reality we know is that not every scenario where you have to make such a choice is the same, we should make laws accordingly. It was fine when the choice was federally protected, and had certain restrictions so that we don’t eradicate sentient beings, now we are traumatizing little girls and placing a life long burden on women, this is my point.
As a pro choice person, I have to say, dr. Life kicked ass. Dr. Choice could have done significantly better if he would just deliver the obvious point that personhood is subjective, and it’s immoral to impose your personal beliefs onto others when there is no objective truth. Yeah, Dr. Life thinks a zygote is a person but guess what? I don’t. And you can’t force me to see a single cell as a person.
Okay, when do we force people to see someone as a person then and why? You state personhood is subjective, but surely that doesn't mean you're okay killing adult human beings because you consider them to have personhood. So, when does objective personhood start? Not taking a side, just curious
@ you ask, “at what point should we force people to recognize an individual as a person?”
Easy. Personhood and the rights associated are granted at the point at which at which the voting public designates a developmental minimum is reached.
“If personhood really is subjective, then you’re saying it’s okay to kill full blown adults as long as you don’t classify them as people.”
I would be fascinated to hear someone’s argument that a full blown adult is not a person, since a full blown adult has every single element in what one could argue makes up personhood. But yes, if we view a thing, such as a bug, as not a person, then yes, we not murderers if we harm said thing.
@@AF-vy7if But there are many people through out history who did consider many adults to not be full blown humans or persons. That's why we had slavery, murder, g3n0cide, and a lack of women's rights. I'm not saying you're like that, but if you honestly believed personhood is purely subjective, you wouldn't have a problem with those things. Actually, if you say the voting public determines when personhood starts, then why do you have a problem with a country/state imposing abortion bans if it's done democratically?
@
See, now you’ve put yourself in a hole where you have to argue that personhood and morality are objective. Who is the supreme decider, what phenomenon dictates, which principles and values are correct? The best we can do is admit morality is subjective and use democracy to uphold the will of the majority. Though I concede the will of the majority held belief is not necessarily “correct”. Aside from being an appeal to popularity, as explained before, outside of the context of your own personally held values, there is no such thing as capital Right and Wrong.
@@AF-vy7if So, just wondering so that I understand you better. You don't actually have a problem with the pro life movement so long as what they do is done democratically?
As a pastor, this is a wonderful way of utilizing AI.
Thou shalt not create a machine in the likeness of the human mind.
@@DelacroixBoy Sir, that's not a command in the Bible.
@@DelacroixBoy wut?
@@jw6405this entire interaction is hilarious 😂
An interesting and informative debate, without interruptions or emotional outbursts. 1000% better than I expected. Subscribed, and look forward to other debates.