Helping Michael Knowles Talk About Abortion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
- In this episode Trent breaks down Daily Wire host Michael Knowles's defense of the pro-life position in recent dialogues and shows what works and what needs work in his approach to the issue.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Timestamps
00:00 - Introduction
02:32 - Being real
03:51 - Getting off topic
7:25 - When life begins
8:47 - Back-alley abortions
10:33 - What about adoption?
12:14 - Consciousness
13:49 - Problem of jargon
15:03 - Bring up religion?
19:59 - Deceptive abortion images
23:05 - Bodily rights arguments - Розваги
A big thing, too, is that Knowles is very good at being charitable in these situations. He never seems to lose his cool.
It's honestly amazing, lol. I could never.
@@stefanielozinski charity is an act of will. It is difficult for some, but it has nothing to do with how you feel, it's a decision you make
Nothing wrong with this, but I'd add that if he were to get angry, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is such thing as righteous anger. If he were to get angry he wouldn't necessarily be failing in being charitable.
@@dbbiggs1042 Yes, but it takes a very virtuous person to imbue that sort of righteous anger. And I don't know if he's angry or not. He may be, but he definitely does not seem to show it. Hence, I said he never seems to lose his cool. You can also be angry and not lose your cool. I am referring to the exterior actions that indicate maturity.
@@youtubecharlie1 I didn't say he was angry. I'm merely stating had he been visibly angry, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he's being less charitable or less mature.
He's the best brain at the Daily Wire as far as I'm concerned. I hope he sees this and gets even better at what he does.
I love how often he brings up Catholic philosophy to reason through moral philosophy. He brought me back.
@@IG88AAA same bro! I like it!
@@IG88AAA same here. I was an atheist when I started watching him, he’s the reason I’m catholic again.
Andrew Klavan is another very smart man on DW
Shapiro is a much better debater
My key takeaway is Trent Horn needs to be on the Whatever podcast 😂 Daniel in the Lions den.
trent and Laura, married couple vs degenerate modern women
I can't even begin to imagine how that exchange would go down lol
Knowles would still do better.
@T S Maybe but that's not really the point. It would still be fun to see Trent on the show.
Lions den = thot cavern
Also, in the podcast, it was a 6 vs. 1.
Knowles deserves credit for handling it so well, even if there is stuff that we could've loved to hear him say that he didn't.
With their intellect compared to his it was basically 1 vs 6 in favor of Knowles lol
Michael Knowles is the one who switched me to a pro-lifer in my 30s when I'd been pro-choice since I was like 13. These are some great tips. Thank you.
Peace and blessings
Lila Rose on Pints with Aquinas did it for me. ❤
Out of curiosity, what was it he said that changed your mind?
That's also my experience. Not that Knowles changed me, but i suddenly started thinking about the abortion debate around 20, and realized that all my pro choice views were programmed into me.
Also, wtc7.
Same here. It as actually the daily wire abortion doc that Knowles was apart of that did it for me
I've grown in my admiration for MK over the last couple of years. Trent is correct here, though.
Eh, Trent makes good points and it’s definitely great feedback. But for example, he brings up that it would be wrong to kill a person for x reasons.
But there are people who would say it wouldn’t be. Ultimately Knowles is right, what is right and wrong is determined by God alone, and so to say we can determine by natural reason that it is wrong to kill a guy for x reasons is impossible.
@Arkangilos true. I don't think there's any reason to avoid bringing theology into beliefs because you can't really justify even basic moral beliefs without God. Why shouldn't I stab a man for 50$ if I know there won't be consequences? I obviously think that's wrong because God says murder is wrong but if you don't believe in God there's literally no reason I should care.
@@GumbyGoons
The problem is that people want to frame the discussion or disagreement about abortion to be about something other than the fact that at its heart it's a deeply ethical and even religious question. It's a question of how you fundamentally see the world.
And I'll argue that even professed Leftists are low-key advocating for a religion, even if they don't necessarily know what it is. So it's almost literally impossible for either side to not bring their religious ethics into the discussion.
@@GumbyGoons ikr
Trent and Knowles crossover pleaseee!
Crossover? I don't understand - crossover what? They're both faithful Catholic men, (Knowles is a cradle Catholic) so they already "crossed the Tiber". What do you mean?
@@prolifepac2008 like crossover between marvel films, you know like Iron Man and Spiderman kind of thing 🤣
@@prolifepac2008 He meant a video together 😂
@@prolifepac2008somebody didn’t understand the assignment
Knowles does a good job of trying to reach the other side and dialogue with them. He's doing the legwork to win hearts and minds. In general, I think he's very effective and patient. But he has some places to improve.
Why would you want to dialogue with liberals? It's a waste of time.
@@robertcross9047 because they too are made in the image and likeness of God and loved by Him just as we are and He desires their salvation...
@@hacker4chn841 They don't engage in a good faith discussion though, they just use it as an opportunity to attack
The people who are actually effective at combatting liberals are not on youtube, they are all cancelled, because intel agencies control social media. Most of the time when you debate a neoliberal, neocon etc. you're really just debating a proxy for the US military industrial complex, "woke" ideology and lgbt stuff, abortion promotion is just an extension of that domestic policy approach, and full spectrum dominance is the concept they use to justify just arbitrarily targeting or banning ideas that threaten their power.
In effect if someone is shown online debating liberals they in some way benefit liberalism. For example Trent Horn is a liberal on vaccines and the question of racial egalitarianism. So these people are allowed to exist purely because they are more negatively impacting traditionalism than positively.
@@robertcross9047 in order to expose their audiences to arguments that they will never even hear otherwise.
@@Jamesmatise read my response above to the other guy
I watch Knowles with some regularity and I love the fact that he bring his Catholic Faith and God into most topics ! 😃
Very well said. I think we should *grant* the hardships women face in carrying a baby to term, raising him/her, or even adopting them out. And then simply ask, "What amount of hardship justifies killing an innocent child?"
This is where catholics prove they are frauds.
Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation,
compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US,
even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day.
Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion.
So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old.
You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
Sounds like a math problem
@@johanneseure6761
How is it a math problem?
@@vladtheimpala5532 Because i was doing my homework so everything was a math problem. Do we have a math problem
Pregnant women should be paid by the state. That's why childbirth is called labor. The entire pregnancy is laborious!
Knowles is a faithful Catholic.
Good
Yet he works for a Jewish supremacist
I think Knowles’ argument that it ultimately comes down to religion is rock solid. It’s grounded in the moral argument for God.
It's a secondary argument, because non-religious people do believe in morality, but not that it comes from God. Once you have established it's immoral to kill a child you can discuss about where morality comes from. That's what Trent meant.
The girl that said her morals came from common sense should know that common sense comes from Society and Society got its morals from Religion, even if Societies are now secular they retained the morals that Religion gave them. Right and Wrong came from Religion
And now, because of Secularism morals are dying in Society and common sense ...
Morality existed before religion. And secular countries are still statistically better on average in areas such as crime and poverty than religious countries. My only issue with secularism is that it opens up more freedom and diversity of ideas, which is good if most citizens can think critically, but a disaster if they can't due to the extreme diversity of ideas that are generally based on feelings. Some people believe that religious countries are better, but in reality it's the same way of thinking that unites people more than religion itself.
If secular countries are filled with smart people, it would work because of reason. If secular countries are filled with dumb people, but are still "brainwashed” to have a common way of thinking and living, then it would work for the same reasons as religion. It's just that the latter is less likely to happen.
"Society got its morals from Religion"
Which is weird, given that for the last few centuries said religions were following and reacting to changes in societies. Slavery and abortion being great examples of that. Do you even know what "secular" means? Or are that much desperate to give the credit where it isn't due?
I could never go onto a panel like the one MK just went on. My brain would melt trying to talk sense into those women.
You can never go into an argument to talk “sense into” another person because that automatically makes you a tyrant, or at the very least, convinces the person only at shallow level. Where as soon as they leave the discussion they can easily revert back to their former opinion. What you can do is offer rational refutations of their argument in such away that they walk away with a desire look further into your positions.
@@1everydaycooldude Right, if you really want to change hearts, it's important to approach people (as these women) unpretentiously and meet them where they are. As Trent points out, it is about circling the argument back to when life actually begins (at conception)...and if they believe in life with dignity, it would be hard to deny that new perspective. And yeah, the best that we might hope for is planting a seed that they can walk away with that will hopefully grow into knowing the truth.
@@1everydaycooldude How does arguing with the intent of changing someone's mind relate to tyranny? What kind of senseless newspeak is this?
Mr. Horn, as Micheal Knowles noted today on his show, we have lost all culture wars where we refuse to use religious and philosophical terms to argue. Why not use these terms if we are going to explain what they mean? Man is a religious creature and is persuaded by such ideas and words.
I was a histology technician for over 20 years. I worked in the department of pathology at several different hospitals throughout my career.
The lab receives specimens labeled “products of conception”. There were no characteristics of a human being to be seen in these specimens. They were essentially shredded clumps in the container. I had believed them to be spontaneous abortions or miscarriages until one day I saw a tiny little hand the size of the nail on my pinky finger in with all the rest of the shredded tissue. It was the most delicate and intricate little hand. I was deeply affected by this experience.
The procedure that produces the specimen referred to as product of conception is one of absolute violence. I’m fact, I can’t imagine the benefits of a pathology report at this point other than the income generated by the specimen received.
Think about it, the abortionist gets paid, then here’s get paid, the pharmaceuticals get paid, the pathologist get paid, the technicians get paid and the medical supply companies get paid for each specimens generated. Not to mention the newly revealed market for “fetal tissue”! Unwanted pregnancies are cash cows for the medical industrial complex.
I think also, it is imperative to mention the perception of abortion being women’s healthcare, stems from the first time in history that this claim was ever made. It was 1920 and Vladimir Lenin was the first person to equate the two. His belief systems was based on Marxist ideology. This ideology lead to the enslavement and deaths of millions of people. We can see how the propaganda machine has subverted our own culture and is now giving rise to the same morals of self aggrandizement that occurred during the Bolshevik revolution. Most of these people are completely unaware of the origins of their ideals.
Very insightful. Thank you. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
Marxist Leninist ideology is anti human mainly from its atheistic belief. We are however just another animal, so it is justified to kill or make a person suffer if they don’t follow your ideologies. We are lucky that we have a society in the democratic nations of the world where religion, especially Christianity has been the foundation for the structure of the society, which seems to temper these atheist ideologies.
Catholics get paid, like these 2 guys in the video, and you get paid, but you don't care if people die of starvation.
Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation,
compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US,
even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day.
Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion.
So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old.
You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
Socialism and its consequences 😢
@@ponti5882
HA!
Jesus was a socialist, and in fact said to give ALL your money to the hungry in Matt 19:21-25.
Catholics laugh in the face of Jesus, and just use Him to get away with rampant child rape.
Hi Trent, the pictures the medical student showed was actually ONLY endometrial tissue, there was no fetal tissue in the Petri dish at all. These pictures are misinformation themselves.
I am a pathologist and have seen personally what fetuses at many stages of development look like (due to ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy loss, and very sadly also elective abortions). I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I.
I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I.
I'm interested could you make a video showing this on youtube so I can share it
Knowles I think is right to call out the underlying set of presuppositions of other people as their "religion" per Jung. The thing at the top of the value hierarchy and the actions and beliefs that flow from that. While it might not directly be persuasive for abortion, the woman who said she would kill people in comas because they're taking up space is the logical conclusion of the philosophy.
Too many people imagine that materialism is a default or neutral philosophy in a world of superstitious, squabbling religions. I think it is helpful to kick that stool out and make it clear that materialism and its attending presuppositions are just another set of practices and beliefs with no special place.
Best comment fr.
Materialism is self refuting. The only people who believe in materialism are those who want to do bad that they are willing to deny the strongest evidence (their own self experience) in favor of the ramblings of people they have never met.
Not exactly a high quality crowd
Thank God for Michael Knowles, and great examination of real life conversations. ❤
That Whatever Podcast featuring Knowles is 5 hours long.
Sounds like torture
It was good I watched that debate in different stints
God bless him for doing that.
and it took their five minds to even hold their end of the convo with MK.
I would love to see Michael and Trent have a conversation together. I appreciate these videos Trent does. They are very helpful.
The 9 week abortion that "doctor" showed pissed me off. I am the mother of 4 and soon to be 5. They is not what a baby looks like at 9 weeks. Baby had little arms, legs, moving all around.
The woman is evil, she was smirking the whole time while talking about murdering children and she tried to deceive people with that picture.
Great video Trent. For some reason I got extremely emotional watching this. Does is bring anyone else to tears thinking about the tragic deaths of millions of unborn babies in this country?
It's UA-cam with the so called "context" for me🙄.
Michael Knowles is awesome, so glad he’s a Catholic! He’s a good representative for us.
I appreciate the effort put into "time stamps" in the description section.
Thanks for offering this perspective! I enjoy listening to both of you and I'm glad that you mostly agree on what's really important. I'd love to have him on your podcast or have you on his show!
Hey Trent. Question: why isn’t excommunication a more used corrective action? For example, I think politicians who support abortion have already incurred excommunication via latae sententiae but why doesn’t the pope use it more? So much misinformation on what Catholics actually believe revolves around people who call themselves Catholic and ignore the doctrines of the church. Could be a good video. I know it would educate me
Wow, nice studio/background, great update to this channel. God bless you Trent.
I agree with your criticism that Michael used technical jargon when simpler words would be best. I listen to Michael's show often and I knew what he was talking about. However, listening to the podcast it was clear that the ladies weren't grasping some of the things Michael was saying. Even one of ladies on the panel suggested that he sounds crazy because they weren't understanding his arguments. He spoke to them like he speaks to his audience and, honestly, they aren't as educated as his audience. We need to speak the language of our audience; that is our best chance of changing their mind.
Loved your book on persuasive prolife arguments🎉 way to go Trent!
The insanely frustrating thing about the Guardian photos that that Med student brought to the interview with Knowles is that the Guardian SAID that the fetus was removed from the photos and the only thing in the dishes were the gestational sacs!! Yes they barely mentioned it and it seems intentionally misleading but that Med student is SO MISINFORMED. It drives me crazy every time someone talks about it because it’s doing so much damage socially!
That woman is deceptive and evil.
A very charitable critique and certainly very helpful for everyone who wants to engage in pro life apologetics. Thank you Trent!
Why the critique of another faithful Christian who is doing good work?! Why is Trent not talking about the German bishops or Francis? This is a waste of time.
Michael Knowles is more popular than Trent and that is the only reason he did this video.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Trent made a whole about why he doesn't do ecclesial drama, and he also did a video on the German Bishops. Be at peace.
I was thinking the other day how I'm most confident debating this subject over many other subjects because you just keep the nucleus of the argument that a child in the womb is a human life and you don't have a right to kill an innocent human being. Many of the pro choice arguments are just distractions away from that simple truth and if you don't keep that at the center you wind up debating tangential arguments that don't supersede that principle.
Every time I watch a Knowles debate on abortion,I think “huh, I think Trent would have said”. Happy Trent put this out.
Another great video! Always so informative. Thanks, Trent 🙏🏼
Extremely helpful for everyone including myself, thank you! God bless!
A great addition to Michael’s discussions shown here, they were great watches!
It would be great to listen to Trent and Michael speak with each other.
Thank you Trent. In general, as pro-lifers I find we are really good at defending the moral status of the embryo. However, there is a whole school of pro-choice thought (Boonin/Jarvis Thompson) that accepts the moral status of the embryo, even that the embryo has rights, but then argues that the conflict of the baby's and mother's rights should be resolved in favor of the mother. Our side needs to get more familiar with arguing for resolving the conflict in favor of the baby (as Trent has done, some here, some in his debate with Boonin, and many other places)
Whose legal rights/interests are superior: baby's or mother's? That question can only be satisfactorily resolved when baby and mother have the same interests, as in a family with mother, father and baby. All have the same legal interests, generally speaking. 80% of abortions are on single women. So fornication is the driver of abortion. And divorce and mistreatment are the drivers of fornication.
Abortion is legal because of man's selfishness to woman, especially with no-fault divorce designed by men for men; but also with abuse, neglect, abandonment, drunkenness, drug use, gambling, pornography, adultery and criminality: the common male vices. Abortion will NOT be outlawed until fathers get more responsible.
Have you read Francis Beckwith’s book, Defending Life? He takes on Boonin and Thomson’s arguments, but also makes a good point, that the moral status they grant to the embryo is a watered down version of what pro-lifers are claiming. That while they say, for the sake of argument, an embryo is a “person”, it’s only insofar as that would mean they have a right to life. But they don’t really delve further into what being a person would mean, like that persons are part of a moral *community* that not only have rights but also obligations and moral duties towards other persons. Thus if an embryo is a person, other persons have a duty to refrain from killing them and also to care for persons who are vulnerable.
@@jpears1367 Human mothers have never given birth to anything other than human babies. So we have proof that fetuses are human life. They grow and take nourishment, which are Biologic signs of life.
@Franci King absolutely false. The value of a human life is not impacted by the action or inaction of other people. Human life is inherently valuable, and each human life is _infinitely_ valuable.
You also use a kind of circular argument. You seem to claim that abortion is justified because when men are irresponsible fathers abortion is justified. Your argument boils down to "abortion is justified because abortion is justified." Your argument would be nonsense if it were applied to someone who were born. Imagine defending infanticide by claiming that men abandoning their families is justification for women killing their newborns. Obviously, you need to somehow prove that killing an unborn child is not morally equivalent to killing a child who has already been born. This is a difficult thing to prove.
@@batglide5484 I know the value of human life is not based on the actions of other people! "You seem to claim" is based on your poor reading comprehension. My argument does not "boil down to" justifying abortion; not for any reason, whatsoever. #LearnToRead. I am anti-abortion and pro-life.
You missed my points, entirely. One point I made is why and how abortion became legal. That is NOT approval. Husbands spent two centuries, and more, mistreating wives, which led to disrespect for marriage. Disrespect for marriage led to the passage of unjust no-fault divorce laws, starting in 1969. That led to the 1973 SCOTUS decision that invented a Constitutional right to abortion.
The other point I made is regarding legal rights. Pro-lifers assert the rights of the baby/fetus. But pro-aborts assert the rights of the woman/mother. Formerly, both mother and fetus had the same legal interests, generally speaking. Now, for many single women and a few married women, mother and fetus don't have the same legal interests. Legally, both have rights. And whose rights are superior is a legal issue. (Not talking morals, here). Americans are so jaded now, due to the decay of our culture, that morals no longer matter to many.
If pro-lifers really cared about abortion, they would focus more on the causes of abortion. But pro-lifers refuse to discuss the causes of abortion. They just shout, "abortion bad." Though that is a true statement; it's not enough. 80% of abortions are on single women. So, fornication is the driver for abortion. And high divorce rates, combined with unjust no-fault divorce laws, are the drivers for fornication. Additionally, giving up a baby for adoption can now be difficult to impossible.
Practically speaking, to eliminate or reduce abortion, the drivers of abortion need to be reduced. And various laws need to be modified to be more pro-life. Just shouting "abortion bad" is not going to accomplish much.
I watched this as well. Thank you for this follow up video with tips on how to better argue pro-life.
I completely agree! My last discussion ended up in the weeds of domestic problems and healthcare providers.
Thanks for the encouragement and defense of children.
Honestly didn't want the video to finish.
Brilliant analysis once again Trent.
I remember this debate with the med student. Michael was amazing.❤
Excellent video Trent, very helpful.
Trent's a master on this topic.
God bless you Trent!
I tend to agree with the point that every choice is fundamentally religious since how we act is based upon what we worship; people can say they don’t believe in a god and therefore aren’t “religious,” but deep down they do worship something (what they give worth to), and it’s usually themselves, their comfort, their plans, etc. which is why the majority of induced abortions are done because pregnancy and parenthood is inconvenient to them.
When Pro-Choice advocates bring up the "rape" justification, I remind them that less than 1% of all abortions are for rape. Personally, I'm willing to compromise on allowing abortions for forced rape as long as they are willing to spare the fetus in the other 99% of all abortions which are done only because the mother doesn't want the child.
Thank you, Trent! Charitable critique.
Fact of the matter is anything outside of pregnancy is a false equivalence nobody is spawned in a situation where their life solely depends on their mother.
The fact that that medical student openly lied and said a 9 week fetus is not visible to then naked eye is sickening. That baby is about 1 inch long. Human EGGS are visible to the human eye. How is she passing classes. How sick and twisted.
Michael Knowles is right though, all morality is based on religion. Common sense didn’t tell the Romans that gladiator battles are wrong, or the Arabs that slavery was wrong, etc. etc. Humans are fallen and we literally need God for objective morality. Every irreligious person I know feels that humans are no more valuable than a cat or dog.
Morality literally predates religion, so your statements on all morals being based on religion or God being needed for objective morality are false. Your comment is a joke lol.
@Bitch D explain to me how we can OBJECTIVELY say something like murder or slavery is wrong. Ancient people didn't consider slavery wrong. I would assume you would disagree with them. On what grounds can you say slavery is morally wrong? I'd also like to see some evidence to suggest that morality existed before religion. Literally the oldest human artifacts we have are religious in nature.
@@bitchd7839 nothing predates religion. There was religion before there was time, and there's nothing you can say in response that isn't begging the question
Even as a Christian, it is pretty stupid to use that argument. So the Romans and (especially) the Arabs never had any moral values that overlapped with christianity? Paul himself appeals to universal morality in the letters to the Romans.
As for your anecdote about irreligious people, you're probably lying because of your prejudice. I've known many people that were doing much more for their communities than the churches, and they didn't need to bring up God's name every time they did it, like they were waiting for a divine reward, like many religious people do.
@@ne0nmancer clears throat
"You're probably lying because of your bias".
Maybe don't use arguments that are trivially reversed against you. That might be a good idea right?
A little harsh. I appreciated the “jargon section” the Knowles had talking about the levels or layers of study. He defined it.
I also think the mention of religion is important. He was saying even pro-abortion is religious. He didn’t say it but it is clearly the worship of the self (aka satanism).
I'm here for it!!
Iron sharpens iron my friend. A very thoughtful critique
This video is very helpful. Thank you.
Another fantastic video; thank you!
Regarding “walking a toddler out”, could you say something like: “what if I just couldn’t afford college for my kid, should I be able to abort my 15 year old?”
"Oh, I got fired from my job and can't seem to find another one quickly, I guess I will have to murder my 2 children now." That's the logical conclusion one of the most used pro-choice arguments comes to, quite a solid argument, don't you think!
Thanks, Trent for pointing out the areas that Michael can improve. I forced myself through the 5-Hour purgatory that was the @whatever podcast (so difficult to sit through!) and found myself shouting at Knowles at several points. I don't think he went in there trying to convince them - I think he just wanted to be himself and let the chips fall where they may. Also, keep in mind that he was being ganged up on pretty hard and by women who really couldn't commit to a coherent philosophy. So it was a sort of whack-a-mole from my perspective. Lastly I do think Knowles is right that everything is religious. I think his failure was not that he made this point but that he didn't flesh it out further. A little footwork and he could have shown them that they make religious decisions every day.
Thanks for the critique! It helped me clarify some things for myself as well.
A woman, mother of 2 one day approached me because she didn’t want her pregnancy. I asked her why she doesn’t want the baby she told me she only planned for 2 babies only. Then I told her to go home, get a knife and kill one of the 2 kids, so that she can keep two as she wishes. She looked at me like I don’t know. I told her that the way she felt in me telling her to kill one of her children is how I feel when she asks me to kill her unborn baby. She left the office and never came back. Why should doctors be the ones doing the dirty job?
because they practice medicine
The Hippocratic oath who all Doctors swear before practicing medecine clear stresses on “ thou shall not do harm “
@@Mukeshimana1998 whether you're proabortion or antiabortion, it would be wise to remember that your personal approval or lack of it is not grounds whether smth is harm. Usually people who aren't ideologically blinded are aware of it, so I'm sure you can manage.
@@Mish844 The question at hand is not whether abortion is harmful or not based on anyone’s approval, it’s whether or not abortion is harmful because it is murder.
@@jbar1 it isn't, which is why people like Trent try pretending it isn't their approval on the table
Great video, but not sure I totally agree with all your critiques. For example, I think the purpose of using some of the more technical language is to establish himself as someone who has thought about the issue deeply and not just someone who takes a position because it's "his side." In fact, at least one of the girls seems to understand his point.
Also, saying everything comes back to religion is simply true. They may not get that in the moment, but ultimately, it might bear fruit in the future. As a prudential matter, it may be wiser to not go the religion route, but I don't really know, I feel like long-term, it could be the better, more honest option. Regardless, I do think Michael should have definitively stated that what they might consider secular values are actually religious values.
Trent, as always such a great way of breaking this down. Very gracious of you to also highlight how difficult it is to have a discussion in real time from Knowles perspective.
I think a good strategy here would have been to bring in those silicon fetus models (not aborted models) and lay them out on the table with the time of development under each one and refer back to these models as the dialogue progresses so that there is ALWAYS a visual reminder of what we are talking about. I imagine these ladies would be looking and glancing over at them during the conversation, I believe this would have made an enduring impact.
I think whenever possible-obviously impromptu discussions notwithstanding-to make a habit of bringing visual & tactile aids to drive the point home of WHOM we are talking about.
It is very easy to to have these conversations out in space as concepts, whenever you are confronted with the scientific actuality of this separate person you have a much much greater chance for impact.
Such a great video and well said. That was my first thought when I saw Michael on the whatever podcast, he could have come from multiple different angles that were more effective in swaying his opponents.
This is a random aside, but I wanted to say that you gave us KJV readers a challenge to listen to the Douay Rheims and see if there were any differences. I listened to the Douay Rheims version of Luke and was shocked that the peace the angels proclaimed was only to men of good will, instead of all mankind like in the KJV. To me, this was a change the Catholics made to support grace by works.
But from studying the Greek explanations, a single letter being dropped from the transmissions changed the meaning from 'men of good will' to 'good will to man', and that the former is a more accurate translation to the originals.
Almost all modern translations, including the NASB (my secondary Bible if the KJV is unclear), say something like the Douay Rheims. So thank you for giving me this challenge, it made me actually study the text instead of going off assumptions.
(I am not a Christian, but I do enjoy studying religion)
Good stuff, Trent, with one major exception. Given the over-charged climate wherein too many people claim anti-white racism and police brutality as part of it, I don't care if it helps bring home one point, the example you recommend of imagining a police offer abusing a black person can easily reinforce the immoral position that such things are common occurrences. Use a different example without race being a part of it to drive home the same point.
God Bless!
Am I the only one who gets a "Information panel giving topical context" saying that abortion is healthcare?
No, I get it too whenever I watch a video about abortion. Quite manipulative.
Hearing Trent's logical arguments gives me flashbacks to my discrete mathematics course in college with all the logic.
This is my first video with the new office and it looks SOOOO good!
This was so, so helpful. Thank you
Thank you for offering that. IM always learning. I thought Knowles did an excellent job. Iron sharpening iron!
The med student a couple of times seemed to make a point that there is an additional consent needed after finding out a person if pregnant, as in consent to continue a pregnancy. Whereas the consent truly happened at the originating activity. I believe the fallacy would be that a person's knowledge or desire gives the value to the human. You and Knowles gave great rebuttals to that point already as well.
Knowles is saying that the pro life position is religious in that all morals come from what we worship. I think it's a point that went over their heads.
But trent is right, it's a secondary point.
Of course it goes over their heads with such a low IQ.
The best example of another situation where a person could/should be forced to allow the use of an internal organ to keep another human alive would be conjoined twins. Imagine a reality where twins are conjoined, but scheduled to be surgically separated after nine months, but one twin doesn’t want to wait and orders the other twin to be killed by doctors and removed now.
I agree that the personhood of the baby is the strongest argument for life, but if you're using that argument and it's not having the impact you hoped it would, it's only natural to try some other argument.
Knowles did great. He explains the tough words for the women. He addressed all their arguments while bringing it back home to the main issue. Few people could do better.
25:10 “… you are trying to grant fetuses rights that no other person has.”
Wat?
I’m pretty sure every person alive was in the fetal stage, so… literally everyone was granted this right except the “aborted”.
and everyone lost those rights upon birth. Keep up
The “special rights” argument cuts in both directions. We either have to give the fetus a right that no one else has (ie using someone’s body against their will) or we have to give the woman a right that no one else has (ie killing an innocent human being).
Michael was smart to admit that pregnancy is unique, but I wish he had pointed out that abortion is also unique
great points Trent
Regarding your breastfeeding argument: if she doesn’t have access to formula, then she clearly doesn’t have access to grocery stores, so she’s not guaranteed enough calories for herself. Should she have to put herself at risk of malnutrition to breastfeed? Of course not.
Those women on that podcast are so committed to defending abortion that in order to stay consistent they really just said murder people in comas what in the world
I love Michael bro, thanks for the insight
YT badge of honor.
I love how Michal has more of an old religious point of view instead of the modern conservative vibe that were all used to from the rest of the daily wire.
Men's bodies were used, often times against their will, to save others. We call it selective service or the Draft.
Holy crap... I'm so glad there are people who believe in the life of an unborn child.
It's rare to find anyone who supports this sort of logical reasoning, even though I see it to be basically objective in its moral support of unborn children.
You and the person discussing on the side of pro life in this are way better at discussing their arguments than me, and I believe you have the potential to save a lot of peoples lives.
Oh yeah, I was at 14:50 when I paused to make that comment...
Whoever was in this video you are reviewing definitely fucked up by bringing up religion at this point, basically perpetuating the myth that religion is deeply ingrained in the morality of abortion when that is literally a falsity used to disregard pro life in its entirety.
Abortion is wrong when discussing ideas upon the value of the individual human organism alone, which is the secular reasoning I use and the talk show host used up until that point, then completely and utterly dropped the ball...
28:30 I feel that could be worded better however, I believe that implying acts itself are what causes obligation, that could be interpreted as punishment, which is not the reason of obligation in the slightest.
But the existence of a fetus in itself is the obligation in any scenario, as regardless of previous circumstance the end result was a new life in this world, and that individual must be maintained or we would lose an unborn human life.
Thank you for your comments! -Vanessa
Excellent analysis Trent!
Good points!
Great video!
Is there a second edition of Persuasive Pro-Life that will be coming out soon?
Really good points.
The embryo, if it had been in the Petri dish, should have been visible. At the ninth week of pregnancy, the baby should be about an inch long. The baby itself is about seven weeks old at the mark of nine weeks pregnant but that’s just the terms of pregnancy math.
Thank you!
I still am always shocked when I hear some of the pro-choice arguments. Lord, have mercy!
Why does it never get to the real problem and discuss chastity. Stop having sex before marriage. Yes it happens but way more now than in previous generations. Teach chastity and morals.
Trying to stop a runaway train all at once only results in a - you guessed it - trainwreck.
Awesome video!
Michael Knowles is awesome, that guy has my absolute respect.
The Whatever podcast was a disaster and showed how unhinged a lot of younger women are these days. I watched 5 hours of that. It was tough...
I also watched through the whole thing. I was getting progressively super frustrated listening to the women who thought they were saying something wise. One of the comments on their behavior was along the lines of think for yourself and stop parroting everything you see on instagram.
I quit after 2 hours (at 1.5 speed). I figured I’d just watch the good clips later because my brain was rotting listening to these women
@@461weavile first of all, dope username. Second, that was more or less my reaction. I'm not even much older than most of them (I think one was actually a few years older than me) and it was very clear that they were immature and believed themselves to be wise for some reason. I don't even want to claim I'm wise, but these girls clearly made fools of themselves.
I'm keeping them in my prayers. It's sad how lost they are and clearly lacked a good father figure (I think one of them even said her dad goes to Thailand for sex tourism purposes on a regular basis). As a father, it's so sad and they need someone to pray for them.
@@461weavile I got that Instagram vibe from them too. I have this general rule when using social media. For every short post I finish, I finish in two videos or posts that take at least 10 mins of engagement (bonus points if they are educational). It really helps my attention span not get ruined by the short and scroll-nature posts of modern social media. Instagram or Twitter or mini-videos like TikTok and UA-cam shorts can really mess up your attention span, which affect your ability to think of a topic more deeply and thoroughly.
I'm forced to stop at a zebra crossing if someone is crossing the road, I'm forced to stop shooting a gun in a gun range if someone walks in front of me, or in this case I push them in front of me. If I put someone in a dangerous situation against their will and they die, I am held responsible.
When they try to say pro-life want to give a right to unborn children that no other person has, I like to remind them that every person has had the right to live in their mother’s womb, including the pro-choicer and the mother herself. It’s a unique right that everyone has at the beginning of their life until they are born.
you should reach out to Knowles and do an interview!
My whole response to the rape cases is:
"Ok. Would you be in favor of outlawing all abortions unless a woman gets pregnant from rape?"
It's almost always "no."
.......then why even bring it up as your argument for it??
because it's a direct rebuttal to the position that abortion should be outlawed always. You guys are posulating it on a regular basis, don't be offended that someone responds to it. General rule of thumb - even 1 counterexample for a hypothesis or a postulate is sufficient to dismantle it.
@Misha oh. Cool.
So if one person who, let's say... detransitions and says that being trans was an awful experience and harmful to their body, regardless of the percentage of trans people that had a different experience, is that enough to say we should ben "gender affirming care"?
@@OrthoLou no. Though not because 1 is insufficient. Maybe it is my fault for not making it clear, but that 1 counterexample is meant to be sensible and unless you're an authritarian with a god complex, then the bar for ban is slightly higher than a bar for allwing.
The thing is that hardly anyone outside of fundamentalist prolife circles try to dispute the rape case, instead opting for underplaying it, to make it look as irrelevant as possible. Note that claims about abortion here are purely ethical.
On the contrary your example is meant to ban transition... based on an opinion. It isn't that hard to find that majority of transitioners that are satisfied. I know you were tryin to apply thqt rule I have mentioned, but what is worth mentioning is that your debunk makes ONLY sense if the mainstream lgbt case is that transition is always desirable for anyone and everyone. It isn't. I expect you have learnt a bit about quantificators in math at school, so I'll mention it is very applicable here.
This is bad on its own, but it gets worse, because those opinions are not meant just to justify "it didn't help me", but "it is hafmful" as well, which puts it on direct collision course with medicine, and let me tell you that it doesn' work.
@@Excusemebut123 "You make the point when you say that abortion becomes a relative moral consideration"
Honestly, what in the fresh hell are you talking about? The fact that I am not an absolutist? Every at half a with is not an absolutist, because it's a selfdefeating position.
"Absolute human rights are never compromised"
To a degree I agree, which is why civilized countries don't outlaw abortions. That's not hard to grasp.
"If an embryo has a right to life then all embryos have a right to life without exception"
Dunno where you got the former, but ok?
"There can be no exceptions..."
Putting aside that you started putting words into my mouth regarding rights of embryos, because that's insane, do you even know what license is? It's almost as if by your standards EVERY right that can be exercised with certain conditions is a license to you. How exactly are you expecting to make a halffunctioning legal system without conditional causes in law.
The best part is that sane prolifers don't try to touch rape clause, because they aren't demoralized enough to forget that punishing a victim is a clear violation of any justice standard. Which is why rape is direct debunk of "abortions should be outlawed always", which was the important part here, which you somehow missed - don't talk in absolutes, becase absolutes are usually debunkable by a single counterexample.