Misinformation in the Abortion Debate
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лют 2023
- Today let's take a look as some of the "misinformation" within the abortion debate.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=3308388
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/stores/professo...
Original Video: • Debunking Harmful Misi...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
"You don't win this debate by manipulating definitions"
Sadly, while words manipulation isn't very helpful in scientific debate, it's quite useful in winning people's support.
I grew up in an orphanage. I really hate when pro lifers try to explain the system to me. They have a severe disconnect with that reality. I lived in 4 orphanages and several fostering situations. It's anecdotal but I didn't meet the first person who was actually adopted till I was in my 30s. The rest of us spent our entire childhood in the system.
"Hug" getting adopted ain't all it's cracked to be either... I hope you're doing better... Because I am not...
@elizabethmoore4025 I'm sorry to hear that. The fostering situations as I call them weren't very good in my experience. But I've managed to make a decent life in spite of it. Now i have my own family. I genuinely hope life gets better for you. I've heard much worse stories than mine and it's always hard to listen to.
@@mrhappykillz8450 it's not going to... But I truly appreciate the thought...
@mrhappykillz8450 Would it be better for you not to even born? Cus a hard life is way better than being dead..
@@makeithappen526 not being born is not the same as being dead... And I'm on the fence about that... Because I'm having a very hard time convincing myself not to end my suffering...
His arguments seem rather dependent on highly emotionally charged language
Of course they are. They have very few rational arguments. So all is left to them is appeal to emotion.
And because he only has emotional arguments. He doesn't have any logical arguments because his position is already going against logic because it is taking whey autonomy from another individual. If we can take away autonomy from one individual then we can take away autonomy from all individuals.
Thats every single pro life argument
You must be new here.
Same with most of the pro choice arguments.
Everyone forgets the third perspective. Abortions are ending a life but there's already 8 billion of us and childcare is meant to be taken seriously.
If you are not mature enough or financial secure enough for contraception you probably wont do well raising a functioning human.
And obviously always put the life of the mother over a life that may not even survive.
It doesn't even have to be about maturity if you don't want to have a kid that doesn't mean you're not mature enough means you don't want to have a kid. You can be mature enough that you recognize that there are too many people on this planet and you're going to feel regretful every minute you're raising that kid. being regretful is not a good way to raise a kid either.
I agree, it shouldn't be illegal to get an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. It should still be seen as something to be ashamed of tho.
@@t.m.2415 why? Why should a person be ashamed for having an abortion?
What is shameful about removing an unfeeling collection of cells from an uterus, that may or may not at one point in the future develope into a human if not removed? What is the actual moral difference between menstruating and getting rid of an early stage pregnancy? Its just some cells, that are not able to feel anything at that point.
And if its a later stage: why should a person feel shame for making the hard decission to better end a pregnancy, then have the child for reasons of their own? What is shameful about that?
@@hannajung7512 It's shamefull because you admit that you could not bare the though of carrying out one of the most basic functions a human being posesses. Therefore admiting complete failure.
@@t.m.2415 way to shame infertile people while you're at it
Calling people murderers is a great conversation starter.
I will use his strategy and call him a poopy face, now present actual facts!
There is no need for personal attacks. Actual poopy faces deserve much more respect than that. 😛
There are other ways to terminate a pregnancy that don't involve destruction of life. By only wanting abortion, these people *are* murderers. A fetus can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks and considering most people probably wont know they're pregnant until about 4 weeks at most after conception, waiting 16 weeks before removing a baby isn't that bad.
@@sods2731 I wish your mother wouldn't leave you alone with her computer.
Fact: babies are being murdered
@@RDeathmark Yeah, good thing that doesn't happen at abortion clinics. Other people get murdered there though.
When one side has to lie in order to be persuasive then that side has the weaker position.
But what about in this case where both sides lie and sometimes what is being called a lie by one side is just their opinion?
Yeah, like lying that fetuses aren't babies, and babies aren't being killed, and that a fight for a babies life is a fight against a woman's right.
@@OmniscientWarrior And do you have objectively verifiable evidences that each side lies?
@@Apollorion
By having to ask this question, you demonstrate your own bias.
@@OutOfTheBoxThinker So what?
I notice the speaker didn't address cases where the pregnancy isn't viable.
Because the argument is "This is a life, you should not be able to just destroy it because it's an inconvenience." not "This is a life, you cannot kill it even to save yourself, you shall now both die." There has to be good reason to destroy life
@@sods2731 “there has to be a good reason to destroy life”
Meanwhile pro lifers: destroy the lives of women, want to lock them up for healthcare
@@kingofgrim4761 depends on what you think healthcare is. In the case of pregnancies that threaten the mother's life, then yes abortion is healthcare and is criminal virtually no where. Where as on-demand abortion (the majority of abortions) is not healthcare.
@@sods2731 by this same logic, it’s not healthcare to get rid of a clump of cancer cells before it becomes life threatening. Since apparently the vast amount of medical complications associated with pregnancy (more than stage 1 or 2 cancer) is not enough for you.
@@kingofgrim4761 Did you even read your comment before you sent it? In what world is cancer ever not life threatening? Have you ever seen someone make a decision with their significant other to have a "cancer", set up a "cancer" nursery, have regular visits with their doctor to make sure the "cancer" is growing and healthy?
The majority of society values and protects the baby in the womb. No one views cancer the same way they view pregnancy and a baby except the few radical ideologs like you on the internet trying to connect dots that don't even exist.
The dude who went around a pro-life protest trying to get those people to sign adoption/foster papers was an awesome video. No one signed. If pro-lifers want to force people to give birth to unwanted babies, you'd think that they'd be the first ones to sign the adoption papers and any health costs the person occurred during pregnancy. They're the ones fighting for it to happen, so they should be forced to take care of the result.
Yo got a link to that video or do you remember the name of it?
Get real. Adoption is a serious decision and isn't for everyone.
That just goes to show you they don't really give a shiit about anyone, including the fetus they think they want to save. "Prolifers" are just pawns of some abstract emotional skullduggery.
@@michaelschaefer1904
... ah yes, and pregnancy is a flight of fancy and for everyone.
In the western world, Christians are the ones typically opposing abortion, and Christians are statistically the ones most likely to adopt, and among that, newborn babies are most likely to be adopted regardless of religion / opinions on abortion
Definitely right about the terms having a meaning in science that is different from their daily meaning. Just last week, I had to explain to my AP Psychology students that “retarded” has a specific meaning when we are talking about IQ and older terms for the test results. Words like “idiot” also came from these terms.
I am frustrated when people who are very, very overweight decide that they don’t classify as “obese” because “obese people just sit around all day” as if that is part of the diagnostic process.
I wasn't even aware that "obese" had a colloquial definition that differs from its clinical one.
A man has no choice of independence from reproductive responsibility if the woman deems he must contribute. The man is held to a higher standard having no equivalent right to his body and life, but is to be held legally and socially accountable for the family he helped create. There was never any "pro choice", just cold anti human selfishness.
Your offspring are literally not parasites.
Never heard obese people claim that definition, usually it's other people assuming fat folks just sit around all day. But some of the worst fat-shaming comes from people who are just a little less fat than their target.
@@donkeyparadise9276 Men don't get pregnant.
Besides, based on what women have told me, 18 years of financial responsibility is nothing compared to uncontrollably bleeding out of an orifice every month for 50 years.
Always remember a pro lifer will happily sign a petition when it comes to abortion. Give the same person a petition for stuff like free lunch at school and other things that would help and support especially poor families then they will tell you it's the responsibility of the parents. Pro lifers aren't pro life, they are pro birth, they don't really care about the children once they are born.
Because they are not pro life the are pro indoctriated christian beliefs
In essence, it technically isn't pro-life responsibility to come up with a solution. They simply put their view and their facts. It is like scientists. It isn't scientists' responsibility to spend millions on technology equipment to help climate change, they only report and make an analysis of the problem.
@@ManDrinkingMilk
That's a really bad analogy!
For starters the scientist bases their opinion on factual observations that are evidently true. Whereas it appears the Pro Lifer appears to base their opinions on a view point that most of the time is evidently untrue. They have far more in common with a religious cult than following any objective reasoning based on facts and evidence.
The "Technically it isn't for them" point is so off it's laughable. The Scientist may well be engaged in research to try to solve climate change. They are however under no obligation to find a solution although, their aim is to find one if one exists.
Whereas the Pro-lifer is promoting emotionally charged rhetoric with the intent of changing laws that effect other people without evidence, based on nothing more than a misguided sense of morality.
In your analogy if they were scientists, they would be causing climate change and then blaming the people suffering the effects because they live in the wrong part of the world. The OP is quite correct, Prolife is not "Pro-life" it is anti abortion and that is about all it is. There is no concern about the quality of those lives that anti abortion laws effect.
Clearly you don't subscribe to the validity of the "Violinist" thought experiment.
Prof Stick makes a similar argument when he says "he isn't obligated to give up a kidney to save his sons life!" Many people might find that descision harsh but, it would be a slippery slope to bring in legislation to force someone to give up part of their body to save someone else.
An unwanted pregnancy is by definition, an unplanned and unwanted child in the making. Putting the religious BS about the morality of sex to one side as again, what is right or wrong. Is down to misguided ethics. We arrive at a situation where someone has a choice (or should have) to go through with, or terminate a pregnancy. There are many factors that they may consider. Their age, their future plans, the suitibility of themselves to be a parents are but a few. And whether or not you agree with their reasons they are their reasons which if they are good enough for them then it really is nobody elses concern. As it is there have always been laws about when a termination can and cannot be carried out. And is usually based on the viability of a fetus.
Again that isn't something plucked out of the air it is based on Scientific facts as to when a fetus has developed enough to survive on its own. If we ignor that then we fall into such beliefs that are held by catholics that evey sperm is a potential life therfore wearing a condom is sinful and tantamount to murder.
Yeah sod the fact that it protects people from STDs or a young girl becoming pregnant from a syphilitic male and then having syphilitic children and a marriage that they are stuck in.
As I stated already Pro-Life is a view put foward by those indoctrinated with misguided religious ethics.
@@ManDrinkingMilk Yes that is true, it is technically the responsibility for the parents to care for their children, but they have no problem forcing poor people who can't afford the childcare into the position of having to care for a child, they also don't really do anything for the children already in the system.
I personally believe that they probably would reduce the number of abortions far more effectively by ensuring that poor families get the support necessary to ensure their children never go hungry and everything else they might need.
@@Neonsilver13 Exactly. I 100% Agree with you. We should take money from abortions to programs that can help families that can’t afford childcare.
I hate most people...keep it up, Stick. there are 3 stages before pregnancy after semen and an egg interact
Huh? What? B-b-b-but I thought god farts a soul into the "baby" the moment the sperm penetrates the eggshell. 🤨
@Imran Zakhaev you have that backwards. My hyperbolic statement is the effect of people like you, not the cause. I have a wife of eight years and am almost 40-years-old. I would never hate something before experiencing or understanding it.
Life is not life because of pregnancy. That's completely absurd.
Also, semen and sperm are different things. Please research this and let us know what you find.
@swingadamhiphop well the semen has to interact with the egg to deliver the sperm.
Also 2:49
0:31 funny thing is, an adult human is also a clump of cells
Well, yes, our bodies also consist of cells, but that's like comparing apples and oranges and claiming they are the same because they are both fruits. A blastocyst is a cluster of stem cells, which comes closer to an organ than an organism, while an adult human is a conscious, independant organism.
Then put it this way: A blastocyst is *only* a clump of cells. A person is much more.
Professor Stick would not disagree with you
@Imran Zakhaev Maybe some people are, but the rest of us have a brain and a consciousness and a bunch of organs and stuff.
You've correct adults are a bunch of cells, the difference between us and a blastocyst is the ability to self sustain once seperated from my mother I could successfully breathe when on my own, my heart beat on its own and I could imbibe and digest the food provided. This food provided wasn't exclusively by one person (I was bottle feed, due to complications with my birth) and didn't leach off these peoples body's to sustain myself.
Before you come back at me with prem babies or the old or infirm this is because WE as a society and as family members have a desire to protect our loved ones and IMHO sometimes our own selfish desires allow other people's pain to continue for too long.
Who was that idiot who said a particular embryo was a "person" and then was called out when it was revealed to be a DOLPHIN embryo?
Good ol Charlie “small face” kirk
@Kyle Buckner I thought his face was photoshopped. I gladly found out it was not.
People should use their emotions less and think more about the effects an action has when it comes down to morality. Abortion has more positive effects than negative effects on the person who gets one, especially if they're struggling financially, emotionally, or they would suffer physically and psychologically after giving birth as well as not being able to support the offspring when it's actually a child. Hell, even if they're not ready to have a child.
How does one determine if an effect is positive or negative in moralistic sense?
Personally, I feel that a woman should have the right to an abortion. I recognize that those who consider having an abortion may be considering financial and emotional reasons to support their decision to terminate a pregnancy. However, the United States FEMA estimated the value of a statistical life at US $7.5 million in 2020. So terminating a pregnancy is a potentially a large loss in utility.
As an analogy, the mother grows a thing worth about 7.5 million dollars on average. Should she be the sole determining factor of if the fetus grows to adulthood or should the father have some input? What about the government, should it be involved in this decision?
@@mesplin3 So what are you basically saying is that conservatives and capitalists are valuing human life as monetary gain instead as a human being. Noted.
@@aureliodeprimus8018 I'm saying I'm not aware of way to go from what "is" to what "ought."
..and that life has value. Not just in an abstract sense but also in a monetary sense as well.
@@mesplin3 no what you are saying is, that you are either out for a fight or lack the basic human empathy to reckognize harm reduction, and improvement of live quality as a valuable moral goal under which you can make decissions based on facts.
@@hannajung7512 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.
Until their concern doesn't stop at the birth. They should just shut the hell up.
This isn't about the child. It's about controlling sex. If they really wanted to reduce abortions they would support every other option. But they dont. They don't want any option other than abstinence. The most idiotic position ever.
Preventing what you believe is a murder does not make your position "idiotic". I personally do not believe that early stage abortion _is_ murder, but for everyone who _does,_ not wanting it to happen is a perfectly reasonable stance.
Preventing the murder of a person meanwhile does not make me responsible for the life of the person from this point onward.
NOR does an anti abortion stance make the claim to be a panacea for how shitty society is as a whole. I can be pro or anti-abortion. Taking this stance does not require me to have a solution to all of lives problem.
@@Alexander_Kale
You would have had a point until 195 republicans voted against the bill to protect the right to contraceptives. Telling us exactly what their future plans are.
This isn't about abortion, it never was. They could care less about any child, well except their own. It's about creating their own religious theocracy. Using bull shit, idiotic interpretations of some ancient text they can't even agree on. Just like they do with just about everything else they do. Projecting a moral superiority that doesn't exist in their theology and more importantly their history. Putting women back under their theocratic boot. Blaming all of our problems on women being allowed to exist as equals.
The states that focus on issues like abortion also have high levels of teen pregnancies. Among the highest numbers of children living in poverty. And a higher than expected love of porn. 🙄
They don't want to destroy ISIS, they want to be ISIS.
@@thomasridley8675 The problem I have with this statement? If ALL of what you said was true, then your initial statement was STILL bullshit. Because everything you just said has nothing to do with what you said before.
And yes, I noticed you stealth editing your intial post.
@@Alexander_Kale
So tell me where i am wrong. Not just put it out there with nothing to back it up.
Great job and thanks for doing it
Why do anti-lifers not celebrate conception day instead of birthday? If one thinks that a human life is made at conception then why don’t they consider a newborn 9 months old? “Conception day is in 3 months!”
Ask them if you are owed child support. In Germany you get Kindergeld (literally child money), a fixed amount of money paid for by the government each month to pay a few of the related bills. I once asked someone who was firmly stating that in their mind, the fetus is a child from conception, if that should be paid through the pregnancy.
They said no but wouldn't elaborate for some weird reason...
@@evem6154 hahaha 🤣 of course! Upvote!
Get real with the labels. What do you think of "pro-abortion" people.
@@michaelschaefer1904 freedom of choice or do you support christo-fascism?
They don’t want to think about their parents getting jiggy
Point blank: adoption is categorially NOT the best alternative to unwanted pregnancy, because it's not an alternative at all. Aoption is an alternative to parenthood. Since it doesn't get the woman out of carrying the unwanted pregnancy, it's never an alternative to the pregnancy. That's why abortion is an alternative to pregnancy and adoption is an alternative to parenthood.
Don't use pro-choice and pro-life. Those terms were picked to keep the argument going forever because life and choice are both good things making it difficult or impossible to argue against them
Say legalized and criminalize.
Legalizing criminalized are still terrible labels. The legalized is still talking about the legality of the situation when the legality should be completely out of the discussion. You don't get to tell a woman want to do with her own body. You don't get to legalize what she can do with her own body. The better phrasing is still pro-choice because the woman absolutely gets to choose what she does with her own the alternative is forced birth though because they're not pro-life they're just forced. You can absolutely argue against someone taking away a person's freedom and autonomy over their own body. You can absolutely argue that a person has the choice to do what they want with their own body.
No in this scenario life is not a good thing because life means taking away choice. A person's life does not override another person's life.
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite the point of talking about criminalization is that it gives women who want to criminalize abortion or reason to fear criminalization
Because any woman can have a miscarriage
Call them "in favour of human rights" and "actively working to increase oppression, suffering and misery."
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite you're only thinking about what motivates you. There's a ton of women out there who don't care if people are telling other people what to do with their bodies.
You're not going to reach them with that argument and you haven't. If you had roe v Wade wouldn't have been overturned.
You're losing try something else
@@jeremygregorio7472 yes a woman can have a miscarriage and then you have the legal issue of did she have a miscarriage or did she cause it intentionally. Hey your position opens an even larger can of worms and we'll still see women going to jail for a miscarriage. Legality needs to be taken out of the discussion because of bodily autonomy and because miscarriages happen. Talking about criminalization will criminalize women for having miscarriages because you can't tell the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.
I hecking missed seeing your videos!
"When used outside a scientific setting, these [terms] can be very offensive. But within a scientific setting ... they are only used for their definitions, without any baggage behind them. *_It's hard to get a feel for that unless you're a scientist yourself, but just trust me on this one."_*
Shade thrown.
Conservatives catching strays
It may be shady here, but, he has a point. Colloquially many scientific definitions take on a new meaning (often counter to the original). The common one I see here on the 'tubes is "theory", which trips up every Flat Earther. Colloquially it means a guess or idea of what the case is, scientifically it's a well established, tested and proven idea (but still open to further improvement, as per ALL scientific discoveries)
👍
Are you a scientist? If so, then you can dismiss this statement. If not, then I understand why you feel like you're in the shade.
@@glennpearson9348 lol who told you I feel like I'm in the shade?
@@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394 No one. Try again. This time, answer the question first, then consider the rest of the statement.
Embryos are technically humans 👥👥👥👥, but so are cancers ♋️.
So unless they plan on keeping all cancers from surgery alive (which would be much easier), it does not actually matter. 🤷♀️🤷🏻♂️
Cancer is more skin to bring a part of a person that s whole person. Like skin or organs. But it is a part that if highly destructive to the rest of the body.
@@OmniscientWarrior Cancers don't seem to believe so.
The prof. is a "stickler" for logic, good arguments and since 😁
Another good video. Thanks Prof.🙂
I see what you did there. :>
I like to pose this mental exercise to pro-birthers: a building is on fire, and you have time ONLY to effect a rescue is one of two rooms. In room A is a one-month old infant. In room B is a container with 5 frozen embryos. Which do you save?
The argument consistently comes down to, when do you assign personhood. If you do this at conception, then every miscarriage MUST be investigated as a potential homicide, or at a minimum a "human" death. The moment a woman is impregnated she'd have to register that "human" inside her. Can a woman be charged with negligent homicide if she has a miscarriage? Will every one require an inquest? Let's go to the logical conclusions of your position IF you're going to try and defend it.
@Imran Now you're changing the parameters of the exercise. Only one can be saved. The other will not be saved. And I presume, you would of course choose the infant. Because I presume you're not a monster.
If you don't like slavery, don't own a slave. They made the same arguments back then. Personhood is a religious term.
@@michaelschaefer1904 Ok help me out and explain how slavery came into this discussion? Are you cool if someone ELSE "owned a slave?"
If a woman is pregnant and takes illegal drugs, she can be charged with endangering the child.
Also, of someone adults a pregnant person and the child dies, they are charged with homicide. If both die, it is double homicide.
For the first question, you save the baby. This container for the embryos is fairly fire resistant and the embryos must be kept very cold and thawed in a slow and controlled manner. So unless you had some sort of means to be able to place them in a freezer that is cold enough and fast enough, you would have likely killed all 5 of them resulting in 6 lives being lost. It isn't a question of personhood but probability. Do you take the maybe save 5 that has low chance or the save one with a very high chance?
@SelfimportantWarrior You're going to have to show me case law on your first two points, as I looked there's never been charges such as you mentioned during pregnancy.
And again, you want to change the parameters of the exercise, like many try to do. Sorry, no options there. Only ONE of the two will be saved. The other will NOT be saved. And yes, you choose the infant, because despite the fuzzy knowledge about case law, I wouldn't think you're a monster.
Exodus 21:22 “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely (a miscarriage) but if there is no serious injury (to the woman), the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life." (Hence killing a fetus is not murder!)
Biblical advice on testing a woman for fidelity involves possible killing of a fetus:
Numbers 5:22 "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries" (or her uterus falls which would cause a miscarriage).
if abortion was such a grievous sin Jesus would have mentioned it. He said nothing. (He also said nothing against homosexuality)
There are many people of the Jewish faith (and others) who believe that abortion is medical care for women, hence laws restricting abortion is unfairly restrictive on their religion (1st Amendment violation)
Being homo is a sin and is revolting
@@madmanjay2458 there is no such thing as sin
No serious biblical scholar interprets it that way. Early Christians were unanimously pro-life.
@@michaelschaefer1904 So christians are the only religion that matters, have you heard of the 1st Amendment? And they weren't unanimously against early abortion.
Ownership of slaves is also part of many faiths...
The two sides in the abortion debate: pro choice, the good and educated side AND anti-choice, the side of liars who are against children.
Yes, Democrats are the party of science and the fetus is a blob of tissue. Ultrasound is obviously a right-wing trap.
@@michaelschaefer1904 That second sentence makes no sense.
@@HotDogTimeMachine385Nothing about the "pro-choice" (aka anti-life) side of the debate makes sense.
@@OutOfTheBoxThinkerHow so? Women should have the right to chose what happens to their body. What part of that doesn't make sense to you?
Pro-life people constantly talk how clumps of cells have more rights than women, but the moment the child is born it can starve. Really, not a single "pro-choice" person ever cares about the millions of children abandoned in foster care, or left to be raised by unfit parents.
You are free to ask any question, but stop lying about people you disagree with.
@@OutOfTheBoxThinker you clearly don’t think out of the box then. Or think much at all
Thanks for the video :)
This is why I like actually knowing what I’m talking about, it doesn’t require me to make up quotes to argue against.
0:25: Joe Rogan had him on as a guest, as if I needed any other reason to suspect everything that's about to come out of his mouth was anything other than shit.
Joe? Just for clarification. Thumbs up!
@@chesswithadhd6280 Yeah, Joe Rogan is an idiot, don't know why I typed Seth, must have been me temporarily catching Joe's stupid, anywho, fixed it, thanks for the catch..
As if Joe Rogan doesn't also have scientists and ppl with all kinds of opinions on his podcast
@@Dredfullart meanwhile the scientists in question: *disgraced former scientist who thinks covid is fake*
@@kingofgrim4761 Also ppl like Neil Degrasse Tyson and Bian Cox.....but yeah only nut jobs 🙄
I'm not denying he has wack guests. But dismissing someone because he was on Joe Rogan or diamissing Joe because he talks to ppl you disagree with is plain idiotic
Interesting question for you. What are your thoughts on parents that have another child specifically so that they can use their blood , bone marrow, organs help a sick kid they've already had?
I think that while it is understandable it is also immoral and a gross violation of the rights of the second child.
Do they wait until the second child is 18 and never mention it or pressure the child? Do they never let it influence their behavior or words or ever let the second kid know why they were conceived? Or maybe even give the kid to another family to raise (so it doesn't influence them) and later ask them when they are an adult?
Would they easily accept a 'no'?
That's damn near impossible but the only moral way.
I'm not sure if your question is relevant. You can use blood from any compatible human and you can use artificial bones. Organs from unborn children are normally not fully developed so you couldn't use them anyway.
That doesn't make any sense. You'd have to wait months for as much of a guarantee as looking for a donor. Where'd you find that?
@vishtu Has this happened? Can you cite sources for it?
Keep up the good fight!
Great content!
My argument is much simpler: Even if a fetus is a human, even if it's alive, even if you consent to the pregnancy, you can still choose to kill the fetus because the benefit that the woman get from killing it far outweighs the negatives experienced by the unconscious and undeveloped (very young) fetus. Do you think the fetus remembers anything going on in the womb? No. So if you want to kill it, do it as early as possible.
A simple reason I am pro-abortion is because I value the time and freedom of conscious women much more than the right of unconscious fetuses that aren't yet born. If you don't kill the fetus, the woman will have to undergo pregnancy, experience psychological suffering, lose time and lose money raising the child. That's a huge punishment. It cannot be understated. If pro-lifers don't think it's a punishment, they must adopt the child once it comes out or they must shutup.
I use the word "kill" because I want it to be blunt and direct. That's how to end all the pro-life arguments. I think all the analogies are distractions. The crux of the issue is about what you value more: freedom of a living person or right of a human that isn't yet born. When you point it out like this, most pro-lifers wouldn't have any response. How is it possible that someone value the right of an unconscious undeveloped human more than freedom of a living woman? Maybe they think someone must take responsibilities or must be punished for doing unprotective sex? Why?
Your argument is quite subjective.
@Imran Zakhaev It's not moronic if you think about it a bit and expand on it instead of nitpicking the words and trying to disagree just for the sake of it. Here is a more elaborate explanation: the fetus doesn't have the ability to feel anything at that moment. It is unconscious. It doesn't have the desire "I don't want to die" like grown people have.
So if you think about killing it, the suffering you can cause to its feeling is nonexistent. Of course, there's probably a bit of feeling there, so if there are no benefits to killing it at all, then it should live. The problem is that there's a strong benefit to the woman who has the pregnancy. It stops their actual suffering. So the benefits is much greater than the negatives.
And it seems you are being distracted talking about something else instead of addressing the main crux of the argument. This pro-life pro-choice conflicts shouldn't last centuries. It's when the belief becomes your identity that cause the problem.
Do you see that you didn't explain why you value the life of unborn unconscious fetus much more than the woman having the pregnancy?
Maybe it's based on emotion rather than logic. And if you analyze it further, I think it's because you want to punish the woman.
@Imran Zakhaev I don't care about a live abortion video. The video can be cruel and harsh. The world is not perfect. We still eat meat and kill animals every day. The existence of lives on this universe is already the cause of suffering. There are choices to be made and none of them is perfect. Thus the question you should ask more is which choice is the least bad? Which choice gives higher benefit? Which choice has the least negative side effect?
The problem with people who argue on both sides is that they don't compare the choices fairly. They only look at the benefits of their choice and look at the negatives of the opposite choice. A rational person must look at both benefits and negatives of BOTH choice and see which one makes more sense. I ask you to do that.
@@michaelschaefer1904 And yes, it is subjective. Otherwise this conflict wouldn't last for centuries. The point of arguments is to address the main fundamental crux that people disagree. When you argue superficially about analogies and stuff like that then you don't have the chance to address the crux. And I repeat again that the crux is simply what you think is more valuable and why. I've explained mine already in the original comment. Now it's time for yours to explain why you value fetus more. Or you could do something that other people on the internet have never done before: change your mind.
Thiers no way in hell I'm allowing my hypothetical children too be raised by "Christians" like these. I grew up with them I would never expose a child to that!!!
It literally doesn't matter where you draw the line at when it's a person. No one has the right to use another's body without consent. Even if you stabbed some-one and the only way they survive is a direct blood transfusion between you and the victim. You would get charged with murder for stabbing them not for denying a blood transfusion. No matter what you have the right to your own autonomy.
Thats the one thing that I really dont understand from pro-lifers. How could they not take the position to make criminals pay for their crimes (even with their bodies)? Wasnt it all about personal accountability? Like with how the mother knew the risks of sex. Welp, a dude that is speeding way over the speed limit and almost kills someone should now be ready to give up their body to help that other person live. After all, they knew that speeding could lead to serious harm. Yet they never talk about the implications for their "personal accountability".
Bodily autonomy in our world 🌍 is conditional on if it is to save yourself. Harming yourself gets you locked 🔒 up.
So... maybe edit the first but. 😅
That would make some sense if the woman did not participate in reproduction herself but I don't suspect you make a distinction.
A man has no choice of independence from reproductive responsibility if the woman deems he must contribute. The man is held to a higher standard having no equivalent right to his body and life, but is to be held legally and socially accountable for the family he helped create. There was never any "pro choice", just cold anti human selfishness.
@@donkeyparadise9276 HUH? What are you on about? in what way does a father lose the right to their body?
@@FR099Y
I would say that it does kinda matter where you draw the person line. To get to being a "baby", it must first pass through stages of being "Not yet a baby". Frankly, in pretty much all cases, it's reasonable to expect the woman to know she's pregnant before it reaches generally accepted "baby" level. So I think that letting it develop to baby level, and then seeking an abortion is immoral, as the same effect could be accomplished without "loss of life" by acting earlier.
3:50 you said the same thing twice.
Thanks for the video!
Adoption is an alternative to child rearing, abortion is an alternative to childbirth, that distinction needs to be made.
Abortion is to have responsibility of the cold taken away. Adoption is to have the responsibility of the cold taken away.
Not that different really.
Many people don't adopt though; or even make the effort to try to do it. They'd rather just make their own batch.
@@alan62036
Considering how many children never get adopted, I can only imagine how it must feel growing up knowing that not only did your parents not want you... but nobody else did, either.
Abortion instead of giving the child up is a kindness, in my opinion.
I wonder if he (Seth Dylan) is a registered -doner- donor. If he has given tissue samples to match with someone in need of a kindey, or a lung. If not he is a hypocrite.
I doubt his heart could be considered for donation. If he has one at all that is.
I would hope not - who wants a transplant of organ meat from a registered kebab? (it's donor, not doner).
Flippancy aside, that's not how organ donation works. Usually the donor has to be dead. For living tissue donation, it's probably not good for the living donor to have samples cut out of their organs; you definitely do not do it on the off-chance that someone somewhere might need a donation for the purposes of a register. With that in mind, how is not providing samples hypocrisy? A close genetic match between donor and donee is ideal, but a simple prick on the finger can determine that. Have fun making up your own jokes because I said "simple prick".
Lastly, to give your comment some context (it certainly needs it), who is "he"? Do you mean Professor Stick or Seth Dylan?
@@avaggdu1 Thanks for the correction and advice. (have partly edited my comment accordingly)
Disregarding the minutiae of how a donor match is made:
The point that I was, and am trying to make, is that a pro-life advocate should also be an advocate for forced donations.
"Children are dying because some people doesn't have the decency to provide organs by dying, or being christian enough to be content with one kidney or lung." /s
Denying a woman the choice, should translate to the denying of people objecting to having a kindney removed, as that kindey would save a (hypthetical) child's life.
"Handled with skill, even a simple prick can be a delight."
3:20 - Most people on both sides agree that we should not be allowed to forcibly leech off of other people's bodies even if it's for our survival. However, I think the question which anti-abortion people are trying to express (poorly) is: if you put someone into a situation where they will die without the use of your body, then surely you should be liable for putting that person into that deadly situation in the first place, right? The government of course cannot punish you for refusing to save the other person's life once they're there, just as it doesn't punish you for not donating a lung to a dying person on the transplant waitlist, but surely the government should punish you for putting the other person's life in danger like that? That's the argument I think these people are trying to make... again, poorly.
I made this comment already, but I wanted your opinion on it too:
Your kidney analogy is poorly thought out. Okay, go with me here:
We have understand the principle of bodily autonomy first. It says that you should never force anyone to use there body to support someone else’s. When I’m the context of abortion, the principle is pushed a little further to say that, in a scenario where someone (baby) else is using your body (woman) for survival, and the only reasonably safe way to stop the support is killing the individual (baby), you are justified in doing so. If you want to learn more, read Thompson’s original essay, or skip the boring stuff and watch philosophy tubes video on it.
When thinking through principles, we can provide evidence for them by showing where they are make sense, like the kidney example. However, it’s always good to see how strong it is by applying “pressure” to it. In philosophy is takes the form of “Reductio Ad Absurdum”. Reductio’s try to take the principle, and find areas where the principle leads to a conclusion that is absurd. So, are there any for the bodily autonomy principle? The answer is yes- a lot- but I’ll go over the one that’s most convincing for me.
Suppose that a baby is born that requires the use of the umbilical chord for 1 hour, while surgeons fix a congenital abnormality in the lungs. During this hour period, the baby is absolutely reliant on the mothers body for survival. In order to prevent symmetry breakers, we need to add that the mother will be endanger if the baby is disconnected, without first killing the baby. Also, the mother is absolutely no pain or distress while the operate on the baby. 30 minutes into the operation, the mother decides she does not want to have the baby anymore (psychological distress, financial reasons, etc…). She requests that the doctors stop the operation and kill the baby. Should the mother be allowed to kill the baby after the baby has already been born?
The reason why this is difficult for bodily autonomy is that if the bodily autonomy principle is infallible, we must accept the mother should be allowed to do this. However, we all know this is absurd. We should “force” the mother to be inconvenienced for 30 minutes in order to save the life of the baby. We inconvenience people like the all the time, especially in child neglect cases. So it seems that the principle has at-least some difficult hurdles to overcome.
This does not prove that the bodily autonomy principle isn’t useful, only that it isn’t always useful. It forces us to rethink bodily autonomy, and come to a more accurate conclusion about it. I think bodily autonomy is a scale, where we have to balance convenience and safety carefully. I honestly haven’t thought far past this, it gets a lot more murky after this point. But I hope this gives a good, jumping off point for deeper thoughts.
@Imran Zakhaev
"only a very sick people in his mind would call having a baby something "leeching off other people's body". Very sick, twisted and dark both in the brain and soul. I fear for the people around you."
*That is literally what a fetus does. Nothing sick, twisted or dark about it. It is just a straight up fact.*
remember yer bibul says the soul does not enter the body until they take their first breath. bibul says abortion is ok when the husband suspects his wife was unfaithful.
I find it strange that “Herb Tarlick” is here giving the speech instead of his wife in the first place.
Professor Stick, I’m very interested in your opinions on the transgender debates. I’m talking about for example the new gender recognition law in Scotland. Would love to hear what you think!
Don't count on it buddy, he cares more about debunking fLaT EArtHrs than actually helping people
@@bobkane432 look at you being all negative about his content, when he just released a video on abortion.
@@bobkane432 you say, on one of his videos talking about abortion
@@JustARoamer But no videos about climate change
@@JustARoamer He has more videos about flat EArtHrs than abortion
Would you be willing to talk about Boston Childrens Hospital's Gender Multispecailty Services (GeMS)? They provide and are innovators in gender affirming care for minors and young adults and have recently faced a lot of hate (including bomb threats) and misinformation put forth by far right politicians. There have been rumors about the hospital preforming gender affirming surgeries on minors, of which all have been proven false (the hospital does preform surgical procedures, though you need to be 18 and need to have a documented history of dysphoria and non surgical care). The hospital does some really incredible work in all of their departments (I was a patient in oncology and they are the reason I am going into medicine) and it is just disgusting seeing such an amazing place being put under such hate. It would be wonderful if you could use your platform to both stamp out the hate and explain the importance of gender affirming care for transgender people.
Mutilating a child's genitals is not healthcare.
@@Rosivok They do not mutilate children's genitals. All surgical procedures happen after the age of 18. Nobody supports doing surgical procedures on minors, as surgery is a big decision that not all are prepared for, though surgical procedures are one hundred percent proper healthcare when used in adults. There is far more to gender affirming care than surgery, including therapy, hormonal treatment, and puberty blockers amongst many others. Both puberty blockers and therapy are reversible, and are both very good treatments for trangender minors for if they which to stop treatment (which is very rare, especially with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria which is often required for treatment to even begin). Studies have shown that the early you can treat gender dysphoria, the less likely a trans person will experience depression and suicidal thoughts later in life.
This and other health issues are examples of how policies are driven by politics instead of the science (or even learning perspectives off all people).
All these pro life people are coming on stage with their opinions and nowhere are they consulting any doctors on the subject of abortion
There is no hate like christian "love"
Is abortion an act of love?
@@michaelschaefer1904 it's health care!
@@robertl4824
Murdering a newborn is also "health care", by that same standard...
In fact, the very distinction between murdering a newborn and aborting a fetus is arbitrary at best...
@@OutOfTheBoxThinker what,, a fetus inside the body which could end up hurting or killing the mother in childbirth as well as causing the mother to have 9 months of completely different chemistry,
Is the same as a child which can be put up for adoption and all downsides are gone
??
professor stick is thumbs. up
There are TEAL LIGHTS!
Regardless of your view point:, I think we can agree that it is unsettling that you aren’t obligated to donate an organ. On a similar note, if you see someone drowning, you aren’t legally obligated to save them either.
Now the question is, assuming you are an able bodied individual, should you exercise that legal non-obligation? If you can donate a kidney (assuming no complications) or are a good swimmer to save a drowning person, don’t you feel some incentive to make a sacrifice?
To conclude: The choice is yours.
No I do not agree that it is unsettling, that you cannot be forced by law to undergo a surgery to remove one of your organs.
I would find it extremly unsettling if it were any different.
Just think about the implications.
@@hannajung7512 Donating a kidney is one thing, what about organs that are only donated when you're dying? Organ donation should at least be opt-out instead of opt-in.
@@hannajung7512 It makes sense when you explain it, but when I mean unsettling, it seems so counter intuitive that it sends a feeling of anxiousness. As a child I never imaged that a scenario where a person dies because no one is going to give him an organ is even possible. You can explain me why not being obligated to donate an organ makes sense, and I will vehemently agree, but it still doesn’t change my immediate perception upon revelation (takes time for it to sink in) , hence the counter intuitive aspect and by extension an unsettling feeling
@@KGH3000 absolutly, I think after death organ donation should be opt out at least for adults. I am not sure about children, though.
Because it is a lot to ask from parents to think about what to do if their child dies in advance, and it would be unnecessarly cruel to the parents of the dead child to ignore their wishes of how the body of the child is handled just because they did not think about it.
But I think any person above, let's say 25, should be opt out donor. They had enough time to make a decission.
I also think that it could be worth considering to encourage blood donations more. Making donating more excessible, something you do on a day in the city, when you feel like it, you know.
@@abhiramn474 I understand your perspective.
How long is it a blastocyst?
Day5-Day10.
When can you test to see if you are pregnant?
After your first missed period.
Hummmm....
How far along are you when you've missed your first period?
In an average menstrual cycle of 28 days ovulation occurs 14 days before your next menstrual period.
In otherwords during the "clump of cells" phase you don't even know your pregnant.
Yep, most don’t even know they are pregnant for a couple months sometimes.
I HATE it when people spout feelings as though they are facts.
Hmmmm… that lightning bolt….
Before i watch this vid i gotta ask....are you reading the News headlines right now about where the C-virus came from?
Every human, plant and animal is literally a clump of cells all of the time, not just during gestation.
This guy is so weak haha. It's like he walked around the women's march with a pen and paper and wrote down everything he heard.
Oversimplification and comparing apples and oranges here.
Yet developed humand and animal are capable of concience and suffering
Yes but there is a point where an organism knows what emotions are and suffering.
Rich men telling women what to do. It's like we took a trip back to the 1800's.
So, a broker in harmful misinformation complains about harmful misinformation. Can anyone appreciate the irony ? He need to take a good look at his mirror.
He's not pro-life, he's anti-women rights. Anti-choice. Anti-right of women to decide for themselves and have a say in their fertility.
A fully grown human is also just a bunch of cells
If I see another comment like this I swear... Just because they are both made of cells, doesn't mean they are the same thing. It's like saying apples and oranges are the same, because they are both fruits.
Yeah, and they don't get to use my body to sustain their life without my consent. I didn't want a fully grown human sucking the nutrients out of my blood. And I also don't want an embryo to do that. Glad we agree.
@@darkner2390 Only If you disbelieve in souls.
The difference between a fetus and a newborn is arbitrary at best.
As is the difference between a child and an adult.
Life starts at conception and it ends at death.
I never understood why it's illegal to kill a newborn but not to commit an abortion...
The notion that you are free to end a life up until a certain arbitrary point in time but not after never made any sense to me...
Humans are such weird and irrational creatures...
It's your child
End of story
It's so simple
could be your child in the future is more accurate
If it was that simple we wouldn't have child protective services
that doesn't solve the problem at all. What are you talking about?
Oversimplified to the point of being wrong. Ya can't hit your 12 year old son with a baseball bat just because "It's your child." Meanwhile, a clump of cells or a barely developed being are to be dealt with in basically any way.
No one gets to use another person's body against their will.
End of story
It's so simple
What is with the SS symbol on the podium? Yes the SS symbol had two symbols like that but that still doesn't mean that what is on the podium is not an modified SS symbol.
That's almost certainly an intentional reference to the Schutzstaffel yes.
Dillon, and the forced-birther movement at large, are tightly connected to modern white supremacist and neo-nazi groups.
If a color is closer to blue or green is not subjective, it can be objectively measured. LOL
It's not really whether it's closer to blue or green, it's whether you would categorize it as blue or green. That may seem like a subtle difference but it actually makes a big difference. How colors are named or categorized is cultural and linguistic, it doesn't have much to do with wavelengths of light. For example prior to contact with the west Japan didn't distinguish between green and blue. They were different shades of the same basic color. So suppose you showed colors to a modern day American and a 17th century Japanese person. If you show them light blue and dark blue, they would both say they're the same basic color (blue). If you show them blue and green, the modern day American would say they are different but the 17th century Japanese person would say they're the same. That's subjective. How the color spectrum is actually divided into categories of named colors is all subjective.
Interesting video
conservatives are such triggered snowflakes when it comes to issues that don't even affect them. It would be so funny if it wasn't so sad
Yeah I'll grant personhood from day 1. Doesn't change a thing. Still the woman's choice, because bodily autonomy.
3:57 im having a dejavu right here.
"Vee Ess" is "versus."
The main problem: pro-life in many cases also means pro-suffering. But I guess that pro-lifers don't want to hear this and will throw every straw at you that they can grasp. Because it cannot be what must not be: that pro-life is not inherently good.
On the other hand, the discussion is not based on actual numbers. What is the actual abortion rate. In relative numbers, not absolute numbers.
And even if it the abortion rates are high (by what standard?), shouldn't that tell something completely different? If abortion is the only option, something upfront went really wrong. What about sex-ed, use of contraceptives and so on? Oh wait, those pro-lifers also want to ban sex-ed and contraceptives. Because... [insert arbitrary reason here]
So in the end there's only a few options for pro-lifers: deny/suppress your sexuality, don't have sex unless you want to get pregnant. Or be forced to give life with all the potential consequences of and for an unwanted child. Maybe the potential parents would actually love to have a baby, but the financial conditions simply don't allow children.
A BS claim however is that abortion is a form of contraception for some people. This might be true for a miniscule minority of cases (probably due to lack of information), but those people tend to blow this up. A hot-air balloon type of argument.
A guy ranting about abortion.
I have always said it isn't about a woman's "right to choose" but a guy's right to get laid and not have to pay child support for 18 years because of it.
He sounds soooooo bitter!
Dude! Don't seduce pro-life women!
Probably had twins.
Some folks just prove there may be something to the idea of retroactive abortion!!
5:35 Human beings ARE clumps of cells.
Who uses the word retard in the scientific community? That is old language used in the field that was eventually deemed derogatory.
It is still wildly used. It was never deemed derogatory. Just people have chosen to use it in that way. A person can be mentally and/or physically retarded.
Retardation refers to the slowed or stunted growth or development of something. Like fire fighters wear clothing that is flame retardant.
I know in law they do use a different term for mental retardation, but law isn't science otherwise bees are a type of fish; as ruled by California supreme court.
@@OmniscientWarrior Language did change at some point, however. Look at 3 min. 30.
ua-cam.com/video/kCQg-EU29dI/v-deo.html
I think what he’s attacking is the philosophy behind people characterizing a blastocyst or a embryo as a clump of cells, because most pro-choice people deliberately use the term clump of cells to try to decorate and undermine its status from a human being merely to being a clump of cells. No I disagree I would say calling it a person would be the most biased calling that human being would not. Most pro-choice people do assign meeting to that and that is why they prefer to use that rather than just say human being.
They are a clump of cells I'm sorry you don't like science and I'm sorry you don't like reality but they are clump of cells and they don't have any more rights then the woman carrying them. But women carrying them has rights to her own body and does not have to allow anything to use her body against her will. These are clumps of cells that don't have consciousness or awareness but you're willing to go ahead and sacrifice of women for the sake of the unconscious clump of cells
The guy just deflects any scientific thing off of him, and his followers do it as well, that´s it... A baby is outside the womb. A fetus is inside the womb, be it 3 weeks old or 8 months old (then depending on how far along in it´s development it is, the stage at where it is currently, will receive a name/term. Blastule, gastrule, etc). A fetus needs the mother´s body in order to sustain itself so it can grow (a parasite). It can cause problems to the woman, especially if it´s an ectopic pregnancy (no future for the fetus, only pain for the mother). They just don´t want to get into the nitty gritty and more complex things that can happen, which they don´t understand anything about. Their only argument is "live good, abortion bad", but never explain in even superficial level of thinking skills, why, and in what circumstances...
Chibi robi should be here
With all the new "Covid came from a lab in China" again, any chance you can revisit the "man-made covid" issue again?
0:52 "A clump of cells is very objective because it doesn't assign meaning behind it, which it shouldn't."
As someone who's interested in this debate because of what's going on with IVF (i.e., thousands of discarded embryos per year), I was hoping you'd be more objective. Calling something "a clump of cells" literally assigns the thing a meaning that obscures the fact that the thing can result in a human being delivered from a uterus.
(Note to you as an UA-cam content creator: if I know in which camp you fall within the first minute of your video, then it makes me wonder whether you'll be a reliable source of information. Just so you know, I haven't been convinced by either side at what point "life" begins, but you surely haven't helped sway my belief in the later-rather-than-earlier direction.)
Stick is right, though.
@@Diviance Stick is right about what?
@@paulthompson9668
I am sure you can figure out what I mean by context clues.
@@Diviance No, I can't, and I'll leave it to you as an exercise to tell me why you were wrong.
@@paulthompson9668
Well, if you can't even use context clues, I am afraid I don't have the time nor inclination to walk you through things. Figure it out.
Your kidney analogy is bad, dude. You are absolutely obligated to save your kid.
No, you are not. Just like how you are not obligated to donate a kidney to a random person. Yes, it's the morally correct choice, but legally, your kidney is still your own, since it's your body, therefore your choice.
@@darkner2390 Yes, legal =/= moral
@@darkner2390
I would argue that it _might_ be the morally correct choice. I mean, I would say it was the morally wrong choice to give up your kidney to save your child if they were someone like Dahmer.
No you are not. You might think someone SHOULD donate their kidney, but they are not required to. Since the issue is what a pregnant person is legally able to do what someone thinks they morally should do is irrelevant.
Both sides are wrong! Teal is closer to aqua.
I'm pro-choice, but I have nothing to add.
Forced birthers are taking the position that the right to life is more important than the right to control your body. Okay, fine, but they need to eat that one. If I need a kidney or I'm going to die then the state should force you to give me your kidney -- just for 9 months and then it will be transplanted back to you, of course. After all, my right to life is more important than your right to control your body. Also, everyone should be required to donate blood every 8 weeks -- after all, many accident victims will die without a blood transfusion and their right to life is more important than your right to control your body. How many conservatives do you think would accept those arguments?
6:33 Ah, the logic, or rather the lack of it.
The solution to unwanted pregnancy is going through pregnancy?
I could pick the narrator's points apart relentlessly one by one leaving absolutely no meat on the bones but it's 11 minutes of regurgitated rhetoric that everyone is tired of hearing. It's so easy to put it in a video and speak confidently into a microphone when there's no one in the same room to argue your points. I'd bet my next pay check that this guy wouldn't hold up in a debate if he didn't have his script written in front of him.
F hen why don't you do it 😂😂
You're being too calm.
Okay, my biggest question regarding the pro choice argument has always been, what is it about being born, or even making it to a certain stage of pregnancy that gives a person more value than they had five minutes ago. A lot of people seem to address this by simply stating that the reason abortion is ethical is the same as the reason the government can’t force you to donate a kidney. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is the fact that kidney failure isn’t exactly easy to ascribe fault for. Pregnancy, on the other hand, is the direct result of actions taken by the mother and father. I know it’s not a perfect analogy, because nothing is a perfect analogy for pregnancy, but what do you suppose the government could have to say about your obligation to donate a kidney if you were the one to blame for the subject’s lack of kidneys? Obviously it’s a different situation in the case of sexual abuse, which is where I draw the line on government intervention. Also extenuating health conditions, because obviously there should be exceptions there. Basically, acting like there’s nothing wrong with abortion just feels like ageism to me. Sure, it’s just a clump of cells, but they’re human cells. I figure that from a legal standpoint, the only category in which legal discrimination works is when it’s based on innocence. Basically, the young have done the least wrong and are therefore the most valuable humans. A clump of human cells can’t make mistakes any more than a slightly older hoard of human cells can. Based not only upon what I value, but on what I think a society has to value in order to function ethically, I can’t see how a one month old baby is any more valuable than a one month old fetus. I get that there are complications, but I think working out those complications for the sake of viably protecting our most innocent should be the focus of society. It will never be perfect, but I can’t consider feeling the need to allow abortion for any reason whatsoever to be in any way ideal. Especially so long as one of those reasons is simply in the name of shameless sexual promiscuity with no consequences. Abortion is at best a necessary evil and should be handled with extreme caution.
“shameless sexual promiscuity with no consequences” huh? Buddy there ARE consequences for that. One of them being that everyone around you will know you’re a ho plain and simple. Another one being STDs. Anyway, until those complications you mentioned finally get worked out, abortions should remain accessible to those that desire it regardless of the reasons. Honestly even with the issues worked out, it still should.
So your view is "If the girl didn't keep her legs closed, she should be punished for that". Gotcha, gotcha.
Abortion is just a necessary evil unfortunately. Until society has progressed to where it's not needed (sex-ed, contraceptions etc) in the first place, it's the best of a bad situation. As far as I see it, the whole cut-off date thing is more about being informative about how the fetus wouldn't even feel anything from the procedure. Even if it did, it wouldn't have the mental capacity to process the sensations into anything meaningful. As in it won't be thinking, "Oh shit, I'm being killed. Panic" even on a basic animalistic level.
I’d say it’s the ability to feel pain that really matters. If an abortion literally doesn’t hurt them or anyone around them, emotionally or physically, then how is it bad?
If you’re going to talk about misinformation I cannot think of a worse place to talk about it than on Joe Rogan’s podcast.
Your kidney analogy is poorly thought out. Okay, go with me here:
We have understand the principle of bodily autonomy first. It says that you should never force anyone to use there body to support someone else’s. When I’m the context of abortion, the principle is pushed a little further to say that, in a scenario where someone (baby) else is using your body (woman) for survival, and the only reasonably safe way to stop the support is killing the individual (baby), you are justified in doing so. If you want to learn more, read Thompson’s original essay, or skip the boring stuff and watch philosophy tubes video on it.
When thinking through principles, we can provide evidence for them by showing where they are make sense, like the kidney example. However, it’s always good to see how strong it is by applying “pressure” to it. In philosophy is takes the form of “Reductio Ad Absurdum”. Reductio’s try to take the principle, and find areas where the principle leads to a conclusion that is absurd. So, are there any for the bodily autonomy principle? The answer is yes- a lot- but I’ll go over the one that’s most convincing for me.
Suppose that a baby is born that requires the use of the umbilical chord for 1 hour, while surgeons fix a congenital abnormality in the lungs. During this hour period, the baby is absolutely reliant on the mothers body for survival. In order to prevent symmetry breakers, we need to add that the mother will be endanger if the baby is disconnected, without first killing the baby. Also, the mother is absolutely no pain or distress while the operate on the baby. 30 minutes into the operation, the mother decides she does not want to have the baby anymore (psychological distress, financial reasons, etc…). She requests that the doctors stop the operation and kill the baby. Should the mother be allowed to kill the baby after the baby has already been born?
The reason why this is difficult for bodily autonomy is that if the bodily autonomy principle is infallible, we must accept the mother should be allowed to do this. However, we all know this is absurd. We should “force” the mother to be inconvenienced for 30 minutes in order to save the life of the baby. We inconvenience people like the all the time, especially in child neglect cases. So it seems that the principle has at-least some difficult hurdles to overcome.
This does not prove that the bodily autonomy principle isn’t useful, only that it isn’t always useful. It forces us to rethink bodily autonomy, and come to a more accurate conclusion about it. I think bodily autonomy is a scale, where we have to balance convenience and safety carefully. I honestly haven’t thought far past this, it gets a lot more murky after this point. But I hope this gives a good, jumping off point for deeper thoughts.
Thoughts?
She cannot force the doctors to stop working on the born child. But she can cut the umbilical cord.
Edit. You did not make a good argument.
@@justmeandi8256
Can she kill the baby?
Can she have the doctors kill the baby?
This is why I added the line about symmetry breakers. What do u think.
Edit. Remember, When the principle extends to abortion it changes slightly. You are allowed to kill the person relying on your body, if there is no reasonably safe way to “disconnect”. (For example, in the violinists case, if removing the IV would put you endanger, you’d be allowed to shoot the violinist in the head, then disconnect the IV.) this is why I added the line that disconnecting would be unsafe for the mother.
@@is44ct37
She can disconnect the baby from herself. Cut the cord.
Edit: that is the option she has, that or do nothing. I do not subscribe to the "violinist case" way of thinking as such.
@@justmeandi8256
When you say the mother can cut the chord, you are agreeing to the core tenets of bodily autonomy in this scenario. The issue is that bodily autonomy’s base isn’t applicable to abortion, it needs the extension.
If you don’t agree that the extension (that the mother/doctors have the right to kill the baby); you are saying that the bodily autonomy principle is not applicable to abortion (in all scenarios).
So anyways, thats why this is a good argument 😎
@@is44ct37
You are still missing the point.
Bodily autonomy= as long as her body is being used it is her decision to allow or disallow the continued usage.
Your analogy is flawed.
I said it, I'll say it again, the best secular arguments against abortion are better suited as pro-vegan ones.
I have yet to find the criterion (beyond being human, but that's speciesism) that grants the unborn personhood.
Most traits we use to define personhood in other animals aren't seen in humans before they're already a few months out of the womb. The unborn aren't even part of the equation!
@Imran Zakhaev
It _might_ have personhood. It is actually a surprisingly low chance.
And so what if it _might?_ Some random guy's next ejaculation might contain the semen that will mix perfectly with some woman's egg to create the most intelligent person who will ever live that will cure cancer and produce a universal vaccine....
Should we start banning masturbation, punishing wet dreams and forcing certain people together to produce children because it _might_ have a good result?
❤❤❤😊🥲
Look at all of you fighting over words that have many meanings and definitions. Your playing into the game.
Professor Stick you should appear on Joe Rogan.
That would be really interesting, it would just need to be done over zoom to make sure Stick can retain his privacy as I know he doesn't really like to be in public.
@@yelljal2764 he's literally a stick what does he need to worry about?
@@Gfish17 yeah. You're right.
I would rather he didn't. Appearing on Joe Rogan is a mark of shame.
@@Diviance People watch Joe Rogan. Professor Stick could challenge the Bullshit Joe Spreads on his show.
Abortion needs to be legal purely from a self defense perspective.
edit: that's not the reason I support abortion. I'm saying it alone would be sufficient without any other factors.
Many people use abortion as contraceptive. And there are people literally saying that they can't wait to get an abortion, not even pregnant yet.
No, many people don't use abortion as contraception. That is bullshit that has been making the rounds by pro"life" people for ages. Doesn't many there are not people that have an abortion because of not using contraception, but it's not a case of a lot of people go "can't be arsed to spend 2 bucks on a condom, let's just have an abortion in a few weeks if you get pregnant". Let alone the US being absolut shit at teaching kids about contraception where schools forbid teachers to teach them about it. Rules made by the same pro"life" wankers that are against abortions.
The whole concept of the pro"life" movement being actually in favour of life is one large pile of hypocritical bullshit anyway. First of all it's driven by politicians that cheat on their wife's, get their mistresses pregnant and then encourage them to have abortions. Secondly outlawing abortions will never stop abortions, it just drives them into illegal territory where they are performed in settings in situations that are not in medical facilities, done by doctors that know what they are doing. Which then can lewd easily to the death of the woman that is trying to get an abortion. Or woman throwing babies away because they are desperate and so no other option and no other way out. The US is so ridiculous and many people have to work more than one job to just barely survive. That would be unthinkable over here. Outlawing abortions is also just punishing poor people by forcing them to become even more poor by forcing them to have a child by taking the option of abortion away. Rich pro"life" woman can just fly to another country and get an abortion there because they can afford it. The list goes on and on and on and on.
Not your business if they do.
Even if this were true, which I doubt, how is it an argument against allowing something that many people want to be able to do it?
I'll just say this my ex had a abortion and not a day goes by that I don't think about all the things I missed out on by her not having the baby. I regret everyday that I told her that I agreed with her having the abortion
Not your body, not your choice.
If you want a child, foster or adopt. Plenty of kids out there looking for a loving family.
I really doubt the term parasite is used in a scientific context most of the time
When studying the symbiotic relationships of 2 different organisms, one of them is called "parasitic". So yes, the term is indeed used in scientific context.
"Most of the time" as in normal speech? Yes, many scientific words are used incorrectly by lay people so I'm struggling to understand what your point is.
it depends. Usually in scientific works an embryo or fetus is not called a parasite. Because that would be unnecessarly loaded in most contexts.
But if the very specific relationship between a female mammal and their offspring is the topic, then "parasitic" is the correct term.
But that is irrelevant. The term is used in this discussion mainly to convey the message what it actually means to force a person to stay pregnant, that doesn't want to be
@@Gandhi_Physique that literally the point only scientific people use it properly everybody else just kinda uses it in the negative way which makes me hella uncomfortable
Fetuses are not parasites. They do not fit the definition.
The "pro-choice" (aka anti-life) side needs to make up false analogies like that to sound anything but sociopathic & utterly selfish...
@@OutOfTheBoxThinker I am not pro-life. Your side does it too. Abortion does not fit the definition for murder. I just don't like these lazy statements. The video author knows full well how saying fetuses are parasites is manipulative and playing on feelings.
I am sorry you thought you found an ally. Wish you the best, though!
@@OutOfTheBoxThinker “you’re anti life because uhhh the fetus is a whole person even though it’s nothing like a person for months and months
@elijahbuck6499 This is another lazy statement. A fetus has DNA, and quite early on develop a functioning heart and brain. If you take it upon yourself to not count a fetus as a person because they lack certain features and functions, you run into a deeply problematic issue with certain handicapped or otherwise malformed people. Don't go there.
@@rolfkarlsson276 wait what? You seriously can’t tell a difference between a fetus which is alive only because it’s inside of another person and using the resources they have, and a handicapped person, which at worst uses medical equipment?
You can’t see how one is by definition, parasitic on a person, and one is just someone using medical equipment?
SHILL ‘TILL YOU CAN NO LONGER SHILL
Personally I like the argument that if life is to be valued and cherished, than it should be only acceptable to bring in life in with those who will value and cherish it. An unwanted life simply shouldn't be forced into this world.
A man has no choice of independence from reproductive responsibility if the woman deems he must contribute. The man is held to a higher standard having no equivalent right to his body and life, but is to be held legally and socially accountable for the family he helped create. There was never any "pro choice", just cold anti human selfishness.
Roe v Wade isn't coming back
No it's not but we'll get a different one instead because women have autonomy over their own bodies and no one gets to tell us what to do with our own bodies
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite Not until the supreme court becomes majority Democrat again
@@bobkane432 and we can figure out how to deal with that one
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite By making sure Democrats win every election?
@@bobkane432 that will help
"No matter what we talk about, the most neutral way to call something is always going to be the most objective"
so would you call your parents, friends, and/or significant other 'clumps of cells' instead of people because it's more objective and less emotionally charged?
Shouldn’t the conversation be about responsible sex instead of consequences of irresponsible sex? Only exception would be sexual assault
0:39 - nothing about saying “clump of cells” is scientific. Unless you can point me to a single biology text book that refers to any life form as a “clump of cells,” you’re wrong on this point. Also, if you want to promote objectivity, then calling it human is about as objective and scientific as you can get.
1:39 - this attempt at turning this guy’s argument against him demonstrates a fatal lack of awareness of what actually happens during an abortion. An abortion is the intentional termination of the unborn human life. In contrast, there’s no intent to end the life of a woman who tragically dies due to medical complications. Intent is the key distinction and it’s astonishing that you either don’t know the difference or refuse to acknowledge it.
3:16 - no, indeed, the woman’s body and the unborn child’s body, while connected, are still verifiably distinct and separate bodies with neither being part of the other. If it was the case that the unborn’s body was part of the mother’s body, then it would be medically accurate to say the woman has two brains, four lungs, twenty toes, etc. which is clearly absurd.
3:45 - this is about the best argument the pro-choice side can make but it still fails. Of course no one can force you to donate an organ against your will, but the metaphorical donation in the context of pregnancy has already occurred from the moment of implantation. Forcefully detaching the unborn from the uterus would be more comparable to an organ donor ripping the donated organ out of an innocent donee’s body knowing the donee would certainly die.
4:19 - no, an unborn human being is not “by definition” a parasite. Parasites are organisms of a different specifies which invade and deplete a host of nutrients. An unborn child is the natural offspring of the mother and of the same species.
5:40 - Again, you’re proving this speaker’s point by deliberately dehumanizing an objectively human life. In fact, you’re outright stating a scientific falsehood-that the unborn child of a human parent is somehow not a human being (it absolutely is)-while touting a non-scientific “clump of cells” quip as somehow medically legitimate.
6:24 - under this logic, a woman should be able to kill even born children as well so long as they are solely dependent on the mother for survival. Clearly, that wouldn’t fly this side of the womb so your going to have to explain why it should work on either side of said womb.
7:05 -nobody’s saying that adoption is the only solution. There’s also motherhood/parenthood. All the pro-life side is saying is that intentionally killing the child in question isn’t a legitimate solution to any of the problems you’ve pointed to in the same way that sacrificing other members of our populace isn’t a legitimate solution to alleviating or solving any of our current societal ills.
8:14 -I was going to correct you here, but you corrected yourself already. Oftentimes abortion is in fact pushed by the father directly or indirectly, and very commonly in an abusive or coercive context.
8:48 - maybe you haven’t thought this through, but nobody actually wants to live in a society where nobody can be told what to do in any context. That’s how we get societies where slavery, murder, rape, genocide, and every other imaginable atrocity runs rampant. The question becomes “what limitations should we place on personal freedoms?” Arguably, the most important limitation would be one that serves to protect innocent (as well as particularly vulnerable) human beings if we give a damn about human rights. And as it turns out, nobody is more innocent or vulnerable than the unborn.
9:39 - again, no, the unborn human being isn’t a leech, it’s a human. If you’re going to advocate for medical and scientific accuracy, you don’t get to sling around medically and scientific falsehoods.
10:47 - this contradicts your logic earlier where you argued that a woman has no obligation to continue giving money to someone demanding money from her. But……that’s exactly what you’re now stating a parent has an obligation to do with their children on this side of the womb. However it doesn’t matter too too much because the issue actually isn’t about whether you have a duty to continuously care for a life at personal expense. The question is actually whether you have the right to inflict lethal harm against an innocent human being, which is exactly what abortion does. And simply put, even if another human being is causing some degree of personal detriment, be it physical, financial or otherwise, that, in and of itself, isn’t legitimate justification to end the life of an innocent human being. If it were, there would be a lot more people being killed for a lot less than the crime of existing which we punish the unborn with via capital punishment.
Literally your only real argument here is that "It's a human life", which insinuates that it's a person. It's literally not. Looking at it objectively, it's a clump of cells, or, put less crudely, a cluster of dividing (stem) cells made by a fertilized egg. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't think, it doesn't speak, it doesn't observe its environment, it does nothing an independant organism can do. Calling a blastocyst a person is about as subjective as it can get. You can twist the meaning all you like, but that doesn't mean it's true.
"no, an unborn human being is not “by definition” a parasite. Parasites are organisms of a different specifies which invade and deplete a host of nutrients."
Yes it is. The definition of parasitism goes as follows: *Parasitism is a symbiosis in which one organism, the parasite, causes harm to another, the host, which the parasite utilizes as habitat and depends on for resource acquisition.*
The fetus uses the body's resources for its own benefit and it utilizes it as a habitat. And parasitism within the same species does exist. Look it up.
"nobody’s saying that adoption is the only solution."
Neither does Stick. He literally said the word "option".
"There’s also motherhood/parenthood."
So you're basically saying that people who don't want to have a child to begin with, should just do it anyway? The solution to not wanting to be a parent is to become a parent? This literally ignores the main problem not-wanting-to-be-mothers(with lack of a better word) face to begin with. Financial problems, emotional or mental problems, or age problems(i.e. being too young). You pro-lifers care a lot about a clump of cells when it's in the womb, but not when it's outside the womb. Exactly how many parents have you helped? How much have pro-lifers actually sacrifised for children that are in terrible situations right now, because they were never supposed to be born to begin with?
"maybe you haven’t thought this through, but nobody actually wants to live in a society where nobody can be told what to do in any context."
Maybe you haven't thought this through, but you're literally trying to make the choice for them. Even though it's in no way your child or seem to actually sacrifise yourself for the children you want to be on the world. Yes, there should be some rules in society like Don't Steal and Don't Enslave/Manipulate, but at the end of the day, we are still talking about a person's body which is hers and not yours.
"And simply put, even if another human being is causing some degree of personal detriment, be it physical, financial or otherwise, that, in and of itself, isn’t legitimate justification to end the life of an innocent human being."
This majorly understates the actual consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. Think of it like this: You have a fulltime job that barely pays enough to keep you in a basic living condition. Suddenly, you get a child and there's nothing you can do about it. Do you have the money to feed him? Clothe him? Give him an education? No? Well, what do you think this will do for the child's upbringing? Not to mention, that since you already have a fulltime job, this is mentally exhausting.
In short, both the child and the parent are the ones suffering the consequences.
You want to give them a chance at life, but you forget that that life is potentially really REALLY horrible. All because you don't want to allow the soon-to-be-parent a choice.
Did you really just say that many women die from pregnancy complications? Such cases are so rare that they don’t even register statistically. Whoever is writing your script needs to get their facts straight stickboy.
It's easy to look at low percentages/numbers and believe that it doesn't happen often. But in reality, you're talking about hundreds of thousands, if not millions. If you say that 1% of women die from giving birth out of 1 million, that still means there's 10,000 deaths.
And here's a fact for you: In 2020, nearly 800 women died per day from preventable causes related to childbirth and pregnancy. Look up "Maternal mortality World Health Organisation". I'd post the link, but UA-cam would auto-delete my comment if I did.
@@darkner2390 that stat you cited literally proves me right. 800 cases a year is extremely rare.
@@gunpuppy3533 Sorry. I made a mistake in my comment. It should be: Nearly 800 women died *per day*. That's nearly 1 every 2 minutes.