Pitiful Attempt at Debunking Pro-Choice Arguments
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- After all that's happened, let's not forget the recent overturn of Roe v Wade and what it means for women rights.
Support me on Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Follow me on Twitter: / stickprofessor
Become a Member: / @professorstick
Check out my merch: teespring.com/...
Original Video: • DEBUNKING "Pro-Choice"...
Further Reading:
web.archive.or...
apps.who.int/ir...
www.barnesjewi....
apps.who.int/i...
lawecommons.lu...
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
www.jstor.org/...
gh.bmj.com/con...
www.thelancet....
pubmed.ncbi.nl...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
This woman is nothing short of a 20-minute-straight facepalm session 🤦
Agreed. My prefrontal cortex hurts on both sides. 😉😄🙃
Ofc she is. White Nationalists/Fascists tend to be.
I guess she's a failed abortion.
How
No. What doesn't make sense is forcing a woman to give birth and then letting the baby starve
Forcing a woman to give birth? She got herself pregnant. Live adult lives, deal with adult responsibilities
@@brianstrutter1501 Yes, forcing to give birth. But always nice how anti-woman forced-birthers consevatives expose themselves. Live adult lives? You mean like that 10 year old rape victim your ilk was dragging through a media circus to score brownie points against Dems and even proclaimed that it was a hoax? Yeah right I totally take such empty meaningless phrases seriously especially when they come from regressives.
@@brianstrutter1501 Having an abortion is how some deal with pregnancy.
@@brianstrutter1501 have you heard of rape? Molestation? Incest?
@@brianstrutter1501 and you're okay with forcing a 10 year old rape victim to give birth? Or was she dressing provocatively and asking for it to happen? If she was legitimately raped, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant?
True, not aiding you get out of a situation is not the same as putting you in said situation, but that's *not* what anti-choicers are doing; When you *actively* oppose and impede all attempts to get out of said situation, you effectively become a part of the situation.
Ignoring someone drowning would be reprehensible enough on its own, but blocking the lifeguard is a whole other level.
Exactly
If I find a burning building and bar the only exit, I might not be an arsonist but I still got people killed.
How can they not see that if a woman is raped it wasn't her fault so then when you make her have the baby it's no longer her choice it's now the government that decides so please stop saying that getting pregnant is always a choice made by the individual.
because they would argue that they women dressed in a way that she was asking to be raped or some other bs excuse like that
Don’t worry, Texas will just get rid of all them, duh
These anti-choice people like to make abortion an overly simplistic issue because these people are overly simplistic. They don't want to get into nuances or the grey areas because they see the world as only black or white since they are lazy-thinking simpletons. Understanding nuance would hurt their flat brains.
@@JoshuaR.Collins I guess the 13 year old girl was just dressed in a way that was asking for it. These people are f-cking insane.
@@Anonymous-md2qp i dont agree with it at all, it wouldn't surprise if that was their argument,
I got half way through and all she has are strawman, appeal to emotion, and apples to oranges fallacies.
What utter piffle.
"Facts don't care about you feelings" and also "my feelings are facts".
By Lauren Chen's argument, not allowing someone to exit a burning building is perfectly moral. Buildings sometimes burn, you accept that risk whenever you enter a building, accept the consequences of choosing to enter this building.
Nice strawman dude
@@jazzabighits4473 A straw-man would be if I claimed that was what Lauren Chen believed to be true. To be clear, I don't think Lauren believes it's morally acceptable to force people to remain in burning buildings just because they chose to enter the buildings prior to them being on fire.
Somewhere around the 2 minute mark, in response to the idea that banning abortions effectively mandates pregnancies, she says that "philosophically, morally and logically, not allowing or aiding someone in exiting a situation is not the same thing as putting them in that situation in the first place". So according to her, preventing the termination of a pregnancy is different to mandating that the pregnancy continues. By that logic, not allowing someone to exit a raging inferno is different to killing someone with fire.
@@jazzabighits4473 strawman arguments do not equate allegories.
@@jazzabighits4473 It's not a strawman... Dude. It's a logical consequence of one of her fallacious arguments.
Good try though.
@@sfamerken12 extrapolating an "allegory" by taking what you think someone's ideology is and easily "knocking it down" is a strawman.
I would rather protect the rights of the person no one argues is actually alive than fight endlessly over exactly when a fetus should be considered "alive". I don't care about the "potential" life of the "baby". I care about the ACTUAL life if the pregnant person.
I agree. Now the question -- How do you feel about late-term abortions (I mean third trimester)? At this point, the baby has a brain, and if you were to remove them from the mother, they could live on their own. Are they a person then...? Does the mother have the right to abort them at this point? This is purely an intellectual question. I'm actually pro-choice, right up until the second trimester, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and if the baby is struggling while you're aborting it, you're wrong (In my opinion, of course).
That's to say, I wouldn't be party to aborting a baby in the second trimester in any context. You do you. I think it's wrong.
@@Oddness since fetal cognition isn't present until about the last week of the second trimester, your position and justification of the position are non sequitur.
Late term abortions are also almost exclusively done for medical necessity. Generally these are people who want a child, but have medical issues preventing safe and healthy delivery.
@@Oddness It is very improbable that a woman enters the third trimester of her pregnancy and just decides to have an abortion. Pretty much invariably when there is a third trimester abortion it is because something has gone wrong. It is a devastating situation for the woman and the decision is made with her doctor. If a woman did decide have a late term abortion without a legitimate reason it would be very difficult to find a doctor that would perform it. Thus, your hypothetical is not a valid concern. It is just not a thing.
@@jarodstrain8905 I was being facetious. My position is actually based on the physical development of the brain, with some lee-way thrown in for the purposes of practicality. I'm a materialist. I don't care when the heart starts to beat, or when the baby was conceived. I care about when they have the parts that do the thinking (Three weeks in that case). Given that consciousness is an open question (It's kind of the "Unifying Theory" equivalent in more than one field), my stance is 'better safe than sorry'. My home state actually allowed abortions for the first couple months. That seems like a reasonable compromise from my perspective.
To your second statement --
That's a fair point. I have a question though. If all medically necessary third-trimester abortions were legal, and all non-medically necessary third-trimester abortions were not legal, would you be satisfied with that outcome? If not, what's the purpose of your argument?
For the record, I'd be satisfied with that outcome just fine. Then again, I suppose I don't really care that much in any case, to be honest. We wouldn't get an abortion outside of the time-line that I mentioned. As stated, you do you. I've subjectively decided that it's ethically wrong within my world-view. That's all.
@@celeritasc9207 Well that's good to know. Here's my question --
Do you think that it should be legal for non-medical reasons? I'm genuinely curious.
There's a word for using a woman's body without her consent. It rhymes with tape.
what is a woman
@@donkeyparadise9276 Irrelevant to this conversation.
while I'm not exactly for the idea of abortion myself, I'm okay with others having that right as a safe measure of bodily autonomy. just because you're not okay with it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't be allowed to have as a just in case measure! and when you take that away, all hell breaks loose as it as happened now. if only people cared about others outside of their right winged camp...
@Imran Zakhaev If my mom told me she voted in favor of abortion...I would say good for her. If she said she intended to abort me it would hurt, but in the sense that I would know I was never wanted and she was forced to carry me. Not to mention if I was aborted I really wouldn't care about either.
@Imran Zakhaev well for one I'm not having kids on my end ultimately. two that's a dishonest gross misunderstanding because no, my gf and I if we were able to go through and mutually agreed to bearing a child then I wouldn't do such a thing if it was deemed to be healthy at birth. it's about limiting suffering to where sacrifices need to be made for the sake of well being and only when deemed necessary. maybe next time not have appeals to emotion? thanks.
@Imran Zakhaev The irony of your statement is being a parent and pro-choice really helps solidify the fact their children were definitely wanted and consensually conceived.
I mean, I'd be dead if abortion procedures were illegal in my country because I had to be removed via C-section, which is technically classed as an "abortion procedure".
@Imran Zakhaev I respect the OP. I'm not a fan of abortions either. Who is exactly? Do you know what I like less than abortions though?
A busy-body who wants to tell everyone else how to live. And yes, that goes for arguments that you would likely agree with, such as vaccination mandates, the second amendment, and virtually every other libertarian position. If someone asks 'should we stop people from --' they don't even have to finish the question. It's probably _no._
I mean, do you like it when people tell you what to do? Me neither. Even if you don't agree, it isn't your choice to make. Just tell them that they're awful people, and don't associate with them if you absolutely can't help yourself. If anyone has a problem with that, and wonders 'should we stop her from --' my answer will be no.
@Imran Zakhaev This is why your arm got shot off.
As a Canadian it so disturbs me when American personalities bring in Canadian policies without them knowing one iota about the situation here. She was correct in that FEDERAL law does not put limits on abortion; however, PROVINCIAL policies do. And let me be clear, the health care for each province is regulated by the PROVINCE and NOT by Federal policies. Thank you Professor Stick for being a level voice in an "un-level" time. Keep up the great work. (And I am a Chemist by education and profession and I will let slide that you studied Biology!!! LOL)
Lauren Chen is Canadian.
I don't see this woman doing Jack to let the homeless guy survive the winter, so they are murdering some of them by inaction.
Inaction is no excuse for passive murder.
Guaranteed that lady, who absolutely looks young enough to get impregnated would quietly get an abortion and not think twice about it, regardless of how said pregnancy occurs
70% of abortions are done by Christians. It is fair to assume that a fair share of those 70% fall into the political spectrum to which Lauren Chen belongs to.
"The only ethical abortion is my abortion"
It is one rule for the others and a different rule for them. That is part of their agenda. Conservatives are hypocrites. But they are fine with that and pointing it out for several decades now should have made it clear that this is not how one can get them.
Or if she faced the prospects of a severely disabled child being born, indeed, if her life was in danger going full-term on a pregnancy.
She's like a general in a comfy block house miles away from the enemy sending wave after wave of troops to their death for an idea they had but are not prepared to fight for themselves.
"Surely there would be exceptions to the law, and I'm special and deserve to be exempted from it."
Is she using the opposing gun laws argument for gun control on abortion?!!!! 🤣 OH THE IRONY!
To be fair one talking point solves the problems that arise from the other...too many unwanted children because of draconian abortion laws??? Just loosen gun regulation and watch those numbers dwindle...it's really a nice, neat and bloody little package they have it all wrapped up in.
😂😂😂 haaha LOL because conservatives like gunz but they kill people but they claim to be against abortion for killing people!!! Wow I am very smart!
(Even though abortion kills more people in a week than fire arms kill in a year. Even though you're more likely to get struck by lightning than killing in a mass shooting in the US. Even though firearms are consistently used in self defense far more frequently than in crimes.)
You gave the example that you can't be forced to give up your kidney for your child... on top of that, you can't even force A DEAD PERSON to give up organs for donors. Yep, corpses have more bodily autonomy rights than women.
Ah I see you have listend to Forrest Valkay.
yes, a child and a kidney, very equivalent. of course a father has no say on whether he must be responsible for a child he does not want, which of course would have no bearing on abortion rights in of itself. also, our offspring are not parasites as mr stick has said.
@@donkeyparadise9276 a fetus isn't a child - but good point, a kidney is a fully developed organ, not just a clump of cells like a fetus! And how exactly is the father's body being used without his consent? What does the father have to do with anything whatsoever? You're arguing another topic entirely, and you obviously have no understanding of bodily autonomy. So if you didn't understand my comment, why did you reply to it?
@@followthislogic Follow this logic though:
I'd argue that, if the former person (corpse) were responsible for causing the need for an organ replacement to begin with (They were a drunk driver which hit the person who needs the organ, for example), then they should have an obligation to replace the organ which they damaged, regardless of their "bodily autonomy".
When the pro-life side of the argument makes a case for the importance of personal responsibility, I tend to nod along, even though I'm kind of in the middle on the issue (I'm okay with early-term abortions, but against late-term abortions). The vast majority of pregnancies are the result of a series of decisions. Decisions have consequences. Excluding less common situations, pregnancy is most often a consequence of consensual sex. *_That_* choice is the one where a woman, almost universally with full understanding of the potential consequences, gives up her certainty that she will be *_a person,_* rather than a plurality of *_people._*
Not to mention, your "right" to bodily autonomy is routinely violated in multiple places in society, such as in the military, and if you are a prisoner. There's certainly precedent. It isn't, and nor should it be, a universal right.
@@Oddness so first you start with a hypothetical... since that isn't the reality in which we currently live, I'm not bothering to entertain it.
Next, your abortion stance, you're clearly against abortions that don't really exist. A pregnancy that makes it to late term (usually defined as 3rd trimester) is a WANTED pregnancy. The reason for abortion in that case is most likely a medical one. The Republicans love to scare you with stories about abortions being performed right up until the moment of birth... these are strawman arguments. It simply doesn't happen. No one does that. It's just a right-wing boogeyman, and boy do they love boogeymen. They thrive on voters' fear, and can't win elections without it.
You then go on to say that there are other situations in life where bodily autonomy is violated, so that somehow justifies MORE autonomy violations. Wow, is THAT a bad argument. I mean the absolute worst. And further, it's wrong. The military isn't compulsory in the US, it's completely voluntary. And after you enlist, you could leave. I don't even understand why you included it. As for prison, I think you're confused - they lack autonomy (as in the ability to make their own choices) but their *bodies* are not violated. They don't take organs or limbs. They don't chemically castrate (anymore). They don't implant tracking chips in case of escape.
You seem to be very confused by bad arguments that I'm guessing you heard from some sort of right-wing or religious media. And I'm not surprised that you're confused, because the arguments don't make sense. You can follow that logic. :)
Thanks for keeping up on this topic. The pressure needs to be kept on. I don't want it to be another 49 years before we get it back.
To be honest the fact that America is removing a right that the majority of countries (at least in Europe, I’m not very knowledgeable of other countries) have as a GIVEN is unthinkable to me. How is the country regressing so much!?
@@ieajackson5518 Western Europe sees religion is seen as a private and personal matter. It tends to be embarrassed by its religious firebrands and tries to keep them away from wider society. Whenever they start yelling their fundamentalist rants about hell and damnation, polite folk just kind of awkwardly avert their gaze and wait for them to shut up and go away.
In America they seem to love their angry fundamentalist preachers and gurus. They treat them like celebrities, giving them talk shows, awarding them advertising deals and seeking their opinion on politics. This is where that kind of thing leads.
It seems to me as the years have gone on, this disconnect between European and American views on religion in politics has only grown wider.
@@ieajackson5518 honestly the answer seems wild and I feel weird saying it: one political party, namely republicans, are trying to create an information silo for their voters so they can guarantee their party's future. This leads to essentially 2 realities in America.
@@CountScarlioni "Whenever they start yelling their fundamentalist rants about hell and damnation, polite folk just kind of awkwardly avert their gaze and wait for them to shut up and go away."
Never change europe, so that we can still have a hope for a brighter future for humanity.
@@ieajackson5518 - here in Canada, we added abortion as a right around the time the US did Roe v. Wade. It's fully legal here and has been since that time, and is guaranteed by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I hear Mexico is working towards better access. So the US is really unique in how it's turning the clock back -- even it's neighbours are moving forward as it falls back.
Ahh, Lauren Chen. She used to be Roaming Millennial. I spoke with her a few times. She seemed...well-educated, but in very specific areas. Areas involving economics. And only economics. And not even the politics, philosophy of economics, just how to make money. In everything else, almost completely uneducated, and entirely unwilling to admit she doesn't know something. We argued about the humanities. History is my specialty, but it is a crappy historian that doesn't also learn anthropology and human geography and mythology and philosophy and everything that MAKES history. I knew immediately she would go far with the right-wing. She is attractive, educated in the one area they like education in, and quite far to the right. She can speak to their greed, she can speak to their half-logic, and she can be one of their token scapegoats; "I'm not racist, if I were racist I wouldn't follow Lauren Chen and watch her videos BEFORE I watch Lauren Southern's". She doesn't really make any arguments, she just says rightwinger's beliefs back to them. My arguments with her took place when she was a little YT channel with a few thousand subs. I remember calling her "Asian Lauren Southern".
Sometimes being right sucks.
What really strikes me? She didn't used to be so right-wing. She was economically right-wing, and socially kind of conservative. But "Roaming Millennial" going on a tirade against abortion rights? Definitely wouldn't have happened. She has either slid right...or is grifting, like most of them. Probably the latter.
Edit: I actually wentand looked up her education. Education in Poli Sci. Which is really, really sad, because she didn't understand the political philosophy part at ALL.
Doesn`t even surprise me. The right-wing is all about being selfish and short-sighted. Greed is a part of that. They are all a bunch of narcissists and psychopaths. A plague that is only treatable by the three I method: Identify them, isolate them, immunize the rest.
Oh yeah I totally remember those days. Remember she worked for Paul Ryan? There was a picture of Ryan and all his staff that she shared years ago.
I'm positive she's grifting. Like so many other people, she drifted to the right, not all at once, but as her follower count rose. Just like Rubin and so many others.
She loves to mock people in her videos, but she sure hates it when she's judged.
I would say both sides use half logic arguments though. First off, I am more center leaning politically and I do hold the right to an abortion at the same level as the right to bare arms. But alot of times both sides take the half of the argument that sides with them or seems to side with them and runs with it ignoring the rest. Big examples from the left are the wage gap and black people being killed more by police. Neither statement is false completely but neither is necessarily true either. And I only give left examples as Lauren has so kindly given us a great example for her side.
@@censors_starve - Partisans largely use biased arguments, I agree. And most people are partisans who don't really care about principle.
A large portion of her success just like with Southern is the fact that she is attractice. The other is pandering to her audience.
I'm not pro-choice I'm pro legalization
Pro-choice and pro-life is a framing that was explicitly chosen by the American right wing to keep us arguing about abortion forever.
Life and a choice are both good things. It's impossible to argue effectively against either of them.
Unless and until we reframed the debate into criminalization versus legalization we will always lose
@Kevnev Katfute what the hell do you even mean. There's no such thing as de legalize. It was criminalized.
Here is hoping you're in a safe country. It's going to get real in America soon and a lot of people including people you might even like are going to die horribly for no good reason
@Kevnev Katfute there is only criminalize. Nothing else. There has to be some kind of punishment
@@jeremygregorio7472 Technically there is "criminalized, de-criminalized, and legalized" in the case of most things, at least in terms of the direct legal standing. At the federal Supreme Court level things are a little different (at least in regards to the ability to make and enforce laws at the state level), and would basically be "criminalized, not legally protected and legally protected". Abortion would now fall under "not longer legally protected", so it can be criminalized at the State level.
So they were _mostly_ correct, if a little off in the exact terminology, when they said it was "de-legalized", because federally, it was moved from "legally protected" (which is essentially the same as being legalized) to not being legally protected. Regardless, it's all just terminology, and the fact remains that the SCOTUS decision led to abortion no longer being legal in several states.
Also, I just have to say, it's a little ironic that your original comment is complaining about the real point being lost behind unnecessary arguments only to immediately fall into an unnecessary argument with someone who obviously agrees with you that it should be legal at all levels.
@@R0D3R1CKV10L3NC3 not when abortion is concerned. There's criminalize and only criminalize
The pro-choice position IS the pro-life position. The countries with the lowest abortion rates are ironically countries with access to abortions. There are many factors going into this so access to abortion is just one piece of the puzzle but a piece nonetheless.
'I don't want to be pregnant anymore', is a perfectly valid reason to seek out an abortion. Isn't the us the home of freedom?
Yeah. I don't want to give birth. It's my body and my choice. Birth control is not 100% effective and it's not my fault if my birth control fails. I am not responsible because I took the proper actions to prevent pregnancy and it did not work. I do not have to remain pregnant against my will.
It's not a perfectly valid reason. It's a reason and sure you can go get one (personal opinion) but that doesn't make it a "perfectly valid reason". And sure your birth control didn't work but that was always a chance of that happening and you could of also wore a condom. There are multiple ways to try and avoid it. Now you can get that abortion but I still think if the only reason is "I don't want a kid" then I will think you are a piece of 💩. But I will still back your right to have an abortion.
This, consent can be withdrawn at any point. I'm sorry but, bodily autonomy is paramount. You cannot force someone to use their body to sustain you. Period. Kids die every day because we can't force people to give parts of themselves.
@@tinker651 it could be argued that you give consent to being pregnant when you have sex. Because anyone who knows how to think should know that no form of birth control is perfect and you always run a risk becoming pregnant. The question is at what point the fetus should be considered a valid human life. Like 6weeks pregnant is ok yea it's not a baby but 9months along you shouldn't get an abortion. And if you really think it's OK to abort a 9month fetus then you are a sick and disgusting person.
The USA is the place where one has the freedom to be freeDUMB
Old men telling women what they should do regarding their reproductive health. What's next ?
Basically sums up 5000 years of religious history.
@@CountScarlioni at least 12000.
Women rising up, revolting, and taking our rights back tenfold.
Consent to sex is *not* consent to pregnancy. Let alone how the men responsible for unwanted pregnancies are still free from any responsibility whatsoever.
There are so many forms of birth control that what you just said is one of the stupidest things I have heard in the last year.
@@Rosivok nothing is 100% guaranteed. Not pills, not condoms, not even vasectomies.
@@AhrpigiCastration is 100% effective. Hysterectomies and oopherectomies are 100% effective. When was the last time you heard of a fixed dog getting pregnant or siring a litter despite being fixed?
@@carultchI dunno about castration, but a hysterectomy is a major surgery and there are often complications. That’s what my doctor told me.
13:20 She is literally attacking the people rather than the argument and she is not even trying to hide it.
That's what she does. No surprise there.
She is as disgusting as Matt Powell.
Lauren, Can't Understand Normal Thinking
I see what you did there lol.
It may be legal in Canada at all stages, but practically it is very rare beyond 23 weeks and 6 days. It would be very difficult to find a practitioner willing to perform an abortion except in very limited cases (health and life of the mother, viability of the fetus, etc.)
She’s framing Canadian abortion laws disingenuously, classic conservative tactic there.
Yes it is the only country with no criminal convictions on abortion at all, but that doesn’t mean you can just get an abortion a day before birth because you feel like it. Abortion is subject to provincial health care regulations and guidelines and is rarely performed after 23 weeks. The reason the federal law is that way is to ensure that no matter what, an abortion can be performed if it’s absolutely necessary to save the mother’s life.
Yes if you are pro-life you need to do all those things and support people's lives from cradle to grave. If you do not you are not pro-life. You are a lie. She does not care about people she does not care about life.
This. Exactly this.
It should be illegal for people without a medical degree to dictate what treatments a person can receive.
"Pregnancy is a dangerous procedure"
Child birth is still dangerous to this day. Women dying while giving birth is not a thing of the past, it still happens. It's not as common as it was, but it's still a thing.
On top of that, POC have a 3 time higher chance to die during child birth than non-POC.
It's unusually common in the US though...
@@nagranoth_ I guess it is to be expected when the US has one of the worst healthcare systems of the developed world.
Forget about childbirth - Pregnancy itself is much more dangerous than abortion. I have some examples, but more complete lists can be found. The pregnant person runs the risks of blood clots to the lungs, kidney damage, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia leading to seizures ( - and the only known treatment for eclampsia is immediate delivery of the fetus regardless of its level of development). These complications are not rare in the US, but if we have good prenatal care, we can treat them.
The phrase "consequence of their actions" suggests having done something wrong? Is she saying having sex is wrong? Is she saying accidentally getting pregnant is wrong. Is she saying being forced to get pregnant by someone else is wrong relating to the person who's pregnant?
From the perspective of the misogynistic theocrats who propose/write these laws? Yes, having sex for any other purpose than procreation is wrong.
That's exactly what she is saying. This is the kind of person who says "what did you expect being dressed like that?"
The consequence is just a fact nothing is wrong with it, Why are you implying something is wrong....?? consequences are just after facts of something that has occurred because of an action you perform, you can have consequences for actions that can lead to bad outcomes or good outcomes depending on how you perceive it
Definition of Consequence
A result or effect of an action or condition
nothing bad about it, has no bearing on something wrong committed
Having sex can have the consequence of creating life or
the consequence of another month not preggers lol
its what you do with those consequences of your actions that matter
@@reign2566 I agree, yet the language and tone of the video suggested otherwise and the phrase is often used in a negative way and rarely used in a positive way.
@@dorkangel1076 if that's your interpretation I follow the language regardless of how she feels about it because without the video you could never know what she means by it lot of deaf people watch youtube and have nothing but the text to go on
I think the most infuriating aspect of this crap-fest was how she would literally read a statement and then proceed in an entirely different direction as though she hadn't just read said statement.
Either her reading comprehension is abysmal, or she is actively trying to not understand the positions she is arguing against. I'm betting on the latter.
YOU’RE ASIAN!?
Honestly I always think of you as being the stick figure lol
Lauren has really gone full red hat and embraced an ideological position so tightly that logic and reason don't apply.
...could it be for the money?
Not a chance.
I'm pro second amendment and that's exactly why I'm pro choice
And I'm pro first amendment which is why I'm also pro 'Fuck you!!!'
((Not really, but you did set me up for a joke and I couldn't *not* take a swing...))
@@stephentaylor356 fair enough
That doesnt logically correlate.
@@deadbunnyking to you maybe
@@toastycarpet9873 to anyone who simply applies logic to a right to device that is specifically designed to kill compared to a medical procedure that can save a life or a future. I am pro second amendment but I also realize that the firearm only has one function.
Did that lady just compare homeless people to children?
What do you expect? Right-wingers are all about their own useless asses. They expect everyone to feed them without doing their part. They are parasites.
Ugh, the farkin argument about body autonomy between vaxx and pregnancy. How cringe. I never sat next to a co-worker and caught the pregnancy.
This is an apples and toilet paper comparison. Additionally, and i dont remember what comment she made to make ne think of this, but, its not like women get abortions at vending machines, they have to see a licensed professional with many years of schooling. Sorry, the vaxx vs pregnancy really broke my brain.
Where can I get the Professor Stick screen saver?
- 0:10 Oh boy, here we go, Stick vs Lauren Chen again. I'll get the popcorn. (I couldn't find popcorn, I got peanuts. 🤷)
- 0:33 Righties always use that argument as if there's no other possible reason someone might have to to resort to it. 😒
- 2:19 They assume pregnancy is always necessarily by choice. 🙄
- 2:59 And 3: that contraceptives work, which they don't always.
- 4:00 Stick's laughter was like music to my ears because I knew exactly what was coming. In fact, when I originally watched Lauren's video, I took a screenshot of her "sponsor" specifically to highlight how it undermines everything she's saying. She's trying to argue healthy and medical advice while hocking _bucky-balls_ as magical anti-oxidant health-products. 🤦 😂
- 5:35 Her argument is specious because canceling a baby is specifically to reduce overall harm (at the expense of the potential future-human), while canceling someone who already exists is exclusively harmful. Well, almost exclusively… 🤔
- 6:28 I just checked Snopes to see if the coat-hanger thing is or ever was actually real. They didn't have an article. 😕
- 7:20 Conception. They believe that life begins once a sperm and an egg go on a date and make out and smash nucleotides together. Of course, they don't comment out how that "human" is utterly useless at that stage, they focus on "potential".
- 8:07 I feel weird about about deriving pleasure from Stick's unmitigated ire towards her. 😂
- 8:22 Notice she didn't mentions LGBT life…
- 8:34 She causes then end of more cells when she scratches her crotch. 🙄
- 10:17 Did you actually expect someone like her to be able to provide a valid, non-specious analogy. 😒
- 10:52 The argument is that righties scream "won't someone pleeease think about the children", but they not only don't care about the "children" once they're born, they actively work against them by opposing things like maternity-leave, social-assistance, and other things that would improve quality-of-life for children. Their concern ends at parturition. 🤦
- 11:02 Indeed. They think the only reason a woman would resort (they don't consider it resorting, they think women are _eager_ to do it, but in reality, in the REAL world, women RESORT to it), is only because they don't want responsibility. One of the many reasons women have to resort to it is simply the inability to raise a child. The only argument I've ever heard from righties to this is that they should just give it up for adoption, as if being forced to carry the fetus to term then give birth then let it go and know that your child is out there begin raised by some wacko religious-zealot righties isn't anathema to people. 🙄
- 11:12 It doesn't occur to them that it's INFINITELY MORE CRUEL to _force_ a baby with a horrible defect to be born. They don't think that it's kinder to get rid of it as soon as possible instead of waiting for it to develop to the point that it can feel pain and emotions and such before passing away from whatever nasty condition it has. 🤦 😠 But then, if you confront them with this, they'd argue that it's "God's will". Typical garbage. I never understand why people choose to believe in a cruel, evil god. 😒 (If you then confront them with _that,_ they'll just waive it off with the cliché cop-out argument "mysterious ways". 🙄)
- 12:05 The point of birth is too limiting. I believe we should be able to "cancel" kids well into their senior years. That threat will help keep them in line and disciplined instead of turning into horrible, spoiled brats. 😒
- 12:48 What about that family who had a second child specifically so they could give her kidney to their first child? 😕
- 13:47 Um… she's trying to argue a "right" to weapons (to wipe out people who already exist) is the same thing. Of course, she doesn't understand that nobody is trying to argue for a "right" to have this procedure, but rather, banning people from banning it. It's not an affirmative right, it's a negative right. It's not a right to do it, it's a right to be able to do it without interference.
- 14:19 They DO care about freedom and liberty, their OWN freedom and liberty (specifically the freedom to strip others of freedoms and liberties). 😒
- 14:51 Aw, that's so cute, Stick talking to Lauren to give her advice as if she'd ever actually try to learn anything. 😂 Clearly, Stick doesn't watch her videos, if he did, he wouldn't bother trying to talk to her like she's a rational human being. I watch everything, every, single, video on UA-cam, so unfortunately, I have the displeasure of seeing her videos and they are almost always infuriating. It's exceedingly rare that I agree with her on anything.
- 16:34 I just don't understand how her brain works. I'm starting to think there's an inverter logic-gate stuck at the output that causes everything she says to come out the exact opposite of what she's thinking, or at least I hope so, otherwise, she's got a really messed up, backwards brain. If anything, being able to cancel a pregnancy is _reducing_ overall harm to the world by reducing the drain on resources and reducing overpopulation which causes literally _every_ problem in the world. 🤦 It's the same as a vaccine, it _reduces_ harm. I just can't fathom how she thinks mask mandate arguments sound "pro-life".
- 17:43 That righties keep saying it was a choice to get pregnant as if it's impossible to not be a choice destroys any credibility they had left.
- 17:45 They just looove pushing abstinence, which has always baffled me because if God made us like this with these bodies that have these hormones and urges, then wouldn't being abstinent be heretical to go counter to his intentions? 🤨 Then again, he also hates fornication, so I'm not sure what you're supposed to do when puberty starts around 10-13. I guess you're supposed to get married and start pumping out babies "for the lord" at 10. 🤷 the Bible is chock-full of contradictions, almost as if someone intentionally wrote it that way to justify doing whatever they wanted and waiving off blame to a "higher power" and having a verse to back up what they want and having one for the opposite in case that's what they want (especially if they want to apply it to others). 🤔
- 17:46 Woah, hey! Contraception is NOT an option. These religious zealots don't believe in ending a pregnancy early, but they also don't believe in contraceptives either, they specifically believe in breeding (like the "Quiverfull" 😠). (To be fair, Lauren's not a Catholic, she's an Episcopalian or something, I can't be arsed to try to remember, but still, they don't like contraceptives. 🤷)
- 17:58 Or like people saying "just get a job" as if that had never occurred to someone and they just needed someone to tell them that secret tip. 🙄
- 18:21 Ah, the classic "hey, they're bad, why shouldn't I be too?" argument. Solid. 🙄👍
- 18:29 It's NOT a lie, it's true because many of those clinics have to shut down but this procedure is not the only service the provide, so when they go, women in those areas are losing the other services too, which leaves them at the mercy of the horrible American health-care system. 🤦
- 18:45 Just look at the 10-year-old girl's case. A 10yo's body is NOT suited to giving birth, that's a _very_ high-risk pregnancy, yet she still had to go to another state to get it done.
- 19:23 Ugh, that's horrible. Being forced to carry a dead fetus for months is not just absolutely emotionally cruel, it also runs the risk of it turning into a lithopedion. 🤦 (Righties love showing pictures of babies to discourage ending them, lefties should parade around that old terrifying Silent-Hillesque photo of a lithopedion with no face to encourage people to do so. 😒)
Pregnancy is choice the majority of the time, acting otherwise is either ignorant or stupid.
Contraception may fail, but non vaginal sex is the best contraceptive. Not even abstinence, try oral or anal sex or fetish fun or anything. No need to have vaginal sex. That's making a choice, just like an abortion is a choice (except in the less than 1% of cases which result from rapes rapes www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf )
Been waiting on a 20 minute video from stick and man do you deliver with this fool.
You know how people create "swear jars" for kids...I think Ms Chen needs a jar for her false equivalencies lol By the end of this video, she would have filled it already SMH
They would claim fertilization is the biological mechanism.
Which, of course, makes God the world’s most prolific abortionist.
Landlords can kick a family out into the winter cold. A grocer can refuse to feed a starving child. So if a fetus is a person then it's not an abortion, is an eviction.
That blastosist should have planned ahead.
It is a necessary and vital medical procedure for people with wombs.
@@page8301 Duh. I was pointing out the hypocrisy.
2:25 Let me just say that "not allowing someone to exit a situation" constitutes false imprisonment/illegal detention/unlawful confinement. So based on that argument, yes, it's absolutely forced/government-mandated pregnancy that infringes on individual freedom.
5:25 Prohibition tried to stop alcohol brewing and consumption. It didn't work, and they had to repeal that amendment. Abortion has also been illegal before. That also didn't work, and many women _did_ die. What about these two differs from laws against murder and theft? The majority of people wanted access to alcohol and abortions, and were able to draw a firm moral line between the harm those caused and the harm caused by murder and theft. Arguably, if the majority of people decided murder and theft were morally acceptable, those things would be in the same situation as alcohol and abortion. Society just isn't there yet.
8:20 It's not a matter of denying the value of life-it's about deciding what life to prioritize, and that's always an ugly business. Once upon a time, it was "women and children" who were prioritized, because men were expected to nobly fight to the death for those weaker than them. Tucker Carlson suggested a priority for youth while COVID was at its height, stating on national television that grandparents should be willing to die just so their grandchildren don't have to wear masks (so much for every life being equally important, eh?). In modern society, with regards to abortion, the priority becomes the pregnant individual's decision-they are _already_ a contributing member of society (by comparison, a baby is a massive investment in nothing but potential), there may be other children whose lives would be negatively affected by a baby because of its demands on a parent, there may be sick family in need of caretaking whose needs in combination with a baby's would put incredible stress on a person, etc. These are not situations where third parties have any right to decide someone else's priority.
13:45 Love that 2A argument. Speaking as someone who fully supports that an individual should be able to own weapons _once they prove their competence with operation and safety_ (for the record, I would also prefer standards of competence and safety implemented for raising children), let's just remember the first part of the Second Amendment, which includes the term "well-regulated militia," a thing described quite clearly in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Spoiler alert: the "well-regulated militia" is a government-run group we now call the National Guard; it is absolutely _not_ random citizens buying and stocking weapons and ammunition willy-nilly because they're "enthusiasts" or trying to "keep the government in its place" (the latter of which Washington himself proved was not supported by the Second Amendment). So using the Second Amendment as a personal-freedom argument is disingenuous.
16:00 The difference with COVID is the _hundreds_ of people a single person can infect with their carelessness. If you have ever believed that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is accurate, _this_ is exactly the kind of situation that logic applies to. The burden an unvaccinated person places on society is infinitely greater than a person who chooses to terminate.
18:40 A study on this has already been done in Texas, and there is ample evidence that the vagueness of permissions like "when the mother's life is in danger" paralyzes medical professionals with uncertainty. If their medical knowledge and experience say the woman's life is going to be in danger but there is no physiological sign yet, is that still good enough, or do her organs have to be in the process of shutting down? To spare their careers and licenses, they end up choosing to allow women to be dying before acting to save their lives, a decision which may come too late and certainly puts treatment behind schedule and makes it less effective, because the treatment is reactive instead of proactive. Women _regularly_ die in other countries with restrictive abortion laws because treatment came too late or was never given at all. That is where America is going.
The worst part is that even in states with exceptions for rape or medical reasons, it becomes so much harder to get one for these reasons. Instead of walking into a clinic and getting rid of the baby you didn't want or that can kill you, you either have to have reported the rape (which is a famously underreported crime) or basically already be dying.
And I really feel for the rape victims. Most people in law enforcement agree that they would tell their daughters not to report, because the defense will try anything to destroy them, making them a victim all over again.
So she’s condemning Trudeau for taking consistent position on vaccine mandates and abortion. Colour me shocked
Fun fact, I had someone agree with the definition that abortion was the ending of a pregnancy through outside means and with intention.
Then they lost their shite when I then said c-sections are late term abortions. They forgot that the death of the fetus/viable baby wasn't included in the definition, and that the pregnancy is in fact ended by outside means. And also that it's done for the sake of the pregnant person (as their life or health could be on the line).
I fully expect this strawwoman to fall under that same assumption and be so wildly unaware of her position that she'd somehow turn it to a hypothetical about kicking a homeless person out of a house or something.
C-section as a form of late term abortion... The dark site of my humor likes that definition and your way of argumenting
@@ravale1868
There's an article by Dallas News that's titled "there's a term for abortions at 9 months: cesarean section"
Louisiana's department of health website has a page dedicated to abortion methods (describing and listing risks for each) and it includes induced birth and c section
So I wouldn't call it dark humor, just fact.
12:15 ish - I'm as ultra-lib as people can get and I support limited post-birth abortions; the case being if a baby becomes unviable during the birthing process or shortly after you can classify the death as an abortion OR a post-birth death (your choice) if it would bring the family more comfort.
"Post-birth abortion" is inherently conservative wording. It's not a thing, definitionally does not exist. What they mean is "infanticide", but they can't use that as an anti-abortion talking point.
Also, I was aborted. C-section surgery is considered a type of "abortion procedure". If I was birthed naturally, I'd have broke my neck on the way out.
If the baby becomes unviable during the birthing process, that is NOT an abortion. It's a still birth. There aren't "post birth abortions". That's a lie by Forced Birthers. The closest is palliative care for dying babies where the parents can decide what, if any, medical intervention is allowed.
Please stop using the term Pro life. With all due respect the proper term is Pro Forced Birth. It always has been. It's not socialism. In the US that privilege is reserve for large corporations and the very wealthy. Anything that is to big to fail is to big to exist.
Exactly. They don't care about the fetus and don't care about life
Anti-woman death cult is also fitting. It is my preferred term. But Forced birthers is also a nice term that describes them accurately. Pro forced incubator works as well imo.
lol anyone who engages in the act of literally bumping uglies is already pro-birth... dont see it that way you are to immature to be haveing sex....
@@reign2566 Complete and utter nonsense.
@@page8301 lol yes because choices don't have consequences absolutely rubbish
You really defended your point there
Access to contraceptives is important but not the full answer. No contraceptive is 100% effective and people who have taken precautions can still get pregnant. Of course that’s what many “pro-lifers” actually want to control women’s sexuality
And now for the punchline: how very muslim of them.
"Human life is inherently valuable!"
$20 says she is pro death penalty. They almost always are.
I'm pro abortion and Pro Death penalty.
lol so the justification for not killing a murderer who will probably kill more people is to not kill them
your right I mean hey we should be using them it's such a waste to kill them we should sick them on our worst enemies ...
I'd jokingly put my life savings on her answer to the trolly problem when it includes multiple people of a group she doesn't like against one person in a group she does like that she'd kill the multiple.
Ie, 17 pro choice vs 1 pro forced birth. She's pull the lever and say "the pro choice people would kill babies so they have to die"
Jokingly, as there's little payout with so little put in and everyone choosing the same bet.
Being pro death penalty doesn't mean you're saying life isn't valuable. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Caring enough about people that you have a death penalty for people who do horrible crimes against humanity means you do have a value for human life (as a society and community and to be safe)
@@jazzabighits4473
I think the biggest thing to think about in the topic of the death penalty is that all lives have value.
For instance, if someone went to trial for a crime they did not commit and were put to death for that crime, their life didn't have enough value for them to be saved. Even if you're 90% sure it was them, it's a question of if their life was valuable enough that that 10% of uncertainty isn't worth letting them live.
As opposed to in the heat of the moment using lethal force on an attacker. It's your life against theirs and your lives are both valuable, but protecting your life is good. That doesn't mean you should use lethal force against everyone on the off chance that they could be out for your life. In fact, outside of America many places train their cops to disarm and restrain suspects instead of killing them, protecting lives.
Now, you may be thinking that if someone is truly dangerous and has been apprehended, they should be outright killed. Or that they should be killed to "make up for" their acts. But what if they were dangerous because of mental health issues (ie, hallucinations that caused the violence) that are treatable? Or what if we don't know the full story (falsely charged)? Or if they truly regret what they did and want to be better?
There are steps you can do before killing someone for their crimes. Removing privileges or getting them help is one way. Removing them from society for a time is another. Killing should be the absolute last resort, and the death penalty doesn't treat it as a last resort.
The other thing you have to consider is what action should lead to the value of someone's life being so low that they no longer have a right to live? A kneejerk reaction would be to say the death of another. But we don't euthanize people who drink and drive and cause accidents with loss of life.
What I'm trying to say is: all lives have value and even doing something really bad doesn't take away that value. It's why the trolly problem is so difficult to begin with, as well as medical ethics when it comes to not enough resources to save all the patients. It's a fact of life, but if you don't have to kill someone you really shouldn't. And even prisoners who've done really bad things don't lose the value inherent in their life.
3:00 and even if those 2 conditions were met, unintended pregnancy would still exist as contraceptives are not all 100% efficient, but at this point it's a details compare to thoses 2 factor
Yup. A man could have a vasectomy, be wearing a condom, and the woman could be on birth control and there's *still* a chance that the woman could get pregnant. It's absurdly remote a chance, but it's still possible.
9:36
*Lauren:* "And if I can borrow an argument from my friend Sean over at the 'Actual Justice Warrior' channel: Let's say there was a homeless person, and you told your friend 'Hey, I'm gonna m*rder this homeless person,' and your friend in response to that was like 'Actually, um, maybe you shouldn't do that, that's probably not a good idea.' If he were using the same 'logic' as the pro-choice side was using here, your friend would then say to you 'Well, if you don't want me to murder the homeless guy, then obviously that means you're OK with the homeless guy living with you, eating all of your food, and just, y'know, taking some of your money every month to ensure that he doesn't live on the street, because again, if I see him on the street, I'm going to m*rder him'."
Christ, I already had severely low expectations for Sean "[There's] no evidence at all that being a discriminated-against minority produces negative outcomes" Fitzgerald, aka Actual Justice Warrior (I'm not exaggerating, he really said that), and he's apparently gotten a lot stupider since I last heard him speak, especially if Lauren just provided a word-for-word recitation of his "rebuttal" to the idea of providing for expectant mothers to make motherhood easier on them (if that's _not_ verbatim, then Lauren should do a better job scripting her points; because in the argument, she switched from saying that YOU are going to m*rder the homeless person in the hypothetical to your friend m*rdering him). Does that Nazi cuck still pretend to be an atheist?
You seriously have to be psychotic to equate someone murdering some random homeless guy to a pregnant woman exercising motherfucking bodily autonomy through terminating an entity that is essentially a parasite that she either doesn't want and/or cannot provide for that may or may not be there through any "fault" of her own. It's like when you hear anti-vaxxers equate parents getting their babies vaccinated against preventable and potentially fatal diseases to child abuse or rape.
Even if I ignore all of that (and you fucking shouldn't), the fact of the matter is that these alt-right theocrats are literally fighting against every conceivable measure that could actually help reduce not only unwanted pregnancies but also reduce abortions (such as by providing better comprehensive sex education, contraceptive access, etc.) whilst also making it illegal for women to exercise bodily autonomy, and to make matters worse, they're deliberately making it _HARDER_ for all those who do get pregnant by not making things any easier for them to take care of said expected children (that they either don't want and/or cannot provide for) because "iTZ soSHuLiSm!!!!" If that's "socialism," then they're doing a great job of making it sound great, and they're making the "pro-life" position sound all the more psychotic by just constantly demonstrating the fucking point of the argument that they were trying to refute that they actually don't give a flying fuck about human life once it's actually been born.
Finally, in addition to all of that, Sean Fitzgerald's nonsensical "rebuttal" is the same dumbfuck point that these right-wing nation-cucks make when arguing in favor of immigration restrictions. If you have the audacity to say that you think that we shouldn't gun down or intern nonviolent brown migrants into concentration camps, and that we should try to make things easier for people to immigrate here legally, they try to paint you as a hypocrite if you so much as lock your doors at night; because they think that not murdering immigrants is "socialism" and that if you support "socialism," then that means that you, personally, have to provide for every single immigrant as a result of such policies, and that somehow no logical alternative exists.
Politicians who take medical decision-making away from doctors should be arrested for practicing medicine without a license.
Who's with me?
I am.
@Imran Zakhaev To clarify terms, when does a fertilized egg become a healthy baby capable of being murdered?
Did she really think that homeless analogy was a gotcha??? Does she not think we should get homeless people off the streets??
this girl boils my blood..
I dislike her so much
"It was your choice " she tells the 10yr old in Ohio, "It was your choice" she tells the 16yr old in Florida....
Pretty sure for most states under 18 is statutory r@p3. And under 18 most state laws view you are considered minors unable to make choices for your self.
But yeah, "it was your choice" ....
Less than 1% of cases, nice strawman Rose.
www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
@@jazzabighits4473 that's not a straw man you absolute dingus.
@@jazzabighits4473 Exceptions should still apply in those cases, and we've seen that they won't.
What is stopping America from making the right to abortion a federal law?
Enough votes in both houses ... plus, until recently, it was perceived as a vote-looser standing on a ‘killing babies’ ticket because of the way the debate has been framed. Perhaps now that the Supreme Court has kicked away the earlier caselaw maybe it will become popular to stand up for women’s rights once again. We’ll have to see.
the republicans.
My question to these people is always the same, How is it any of your business? And why is it your politicians will always be able to get safe and legal abortions when their mistresses get pregnant?
Wow, I never thought someone could fit so many what-about-isms and strawmen in one video...this lady needs to be educated on fallacies. And then this lady says "It was your choice to get pregnant. You should face the consequences of your actions" Well what about when it wasn't your choice?!
@Imran Zakhaev Hypocrisy? O.o
Lauren Chen would be the first to get an abortion when her contraceptive fails or worse happens to her. Never mind necessary abortions when the woman's life is in grave danger even the person wanted the child to bring to term. That is an aspect anti-woman death cultists always ignore, people who need an abortion to save their lives despite yearning to have the child.
They already think that the way you dress/act/look/smell attracted the guy. So you kind of deserve it in their head. They will just not say it out loud.
@Imran Zakhaev that is a non-reply.
Either, you need to elaborate.
Or, you need to admit you have nothing of substance to the statement.
Leila Cohan's tweets were based and pro-family-pilled. What she said made _complete_ sense. And the counter argument to that is "but but but but.... _that would be socialism_ 😮😮" ... that's absolutely hilarious, I loled when socialism was brought up
Living in a country that follows Civil Law it always baffles me how messy and unjust Common Law is. Seeing a basic human right to bodily autonomy being established or overturned by a court is incredible to me
@Imran Zakhaev what about the sperm bodily autonomy? What about the egg? What about my will to procreate? Don't kill my virtual baby by refusing to have intercourse with me, I want to be a dad!
*What about giving the medical professionals authority over medical procedures instead* ? Dude, don't try your rethoric on me, it doesn't work.
The fact is that 50% of abortions are done for people who birth control failed. To force them to have a child is cruel and unusual punishment.
@Imran Zakhaev What numbers?
Hey Prof Stick. I would actually love some more scientific videos on some scam or junk science products.
Simple question: Does anyone have the right to use your organs without your permission?
But you don't get! It's a uterus, so it is public property.
@@JuMiKu
Is that a joke?
Conjoined twins have a right to use each others body, even if one of them wants to be separated and abandon the other.
@@The5armdamput33 Obviously?
Edit: I just noticed that we live in a world, where that is not immediately and abundantly clear. Horrible...
@@carultch Actually, that is not true in most countries. In fact, quite often conjoined twins are separated, risking or ensuring the death of one. In fact if one twin only lives by the grace of the other, it is usually done, because that will very often lead to both their deaths. Additionally, interestingly, while each separation is completely different, one twin usually gets most stuff that isn't there for both twins. (For example bigger part of liver, two kidneys, while the other gets one etc.) This is done to ensure at least one survives and that that twin has a good quality of life, while the other hopefully has a good quality of life too. It's all a very complicated issue.
Mind you, separation is almost always done in very early childhood, as it becomes unfeasible later.
Long story short, where do you live, because such a law would make extraction of parasitic twins pretty difficult.
She keeps saying you had a choice to get pregnant. I honestly don’t think she understands how most pregnancies work. Especially those that occur from rape.
Person: I want the right to shoot someone if they try to harm me or my family. Also, I don't want other people to have the rightto terminate a fetus that is harming them or their family.
But like, love thy neighbor!
Another well though out response! Thank you! Love your vids
yeah! im getting pretty sick of pro-life too,just like she's getting sick of pro-choice lol
Forced birth, not pro-life. They don't care about the fetus or baby at all
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite or the mothers life for that matter lol
@@mihaicolceriu-nicola7148 no they care even less about the woman's life because they regard women as property
The number one thing to do is allow those in lower class areas more acces to medical health, free transportation, better education, use alternative forms of education as degrees, like learning web development on UA-cam instead of a course.
Pro choice is the most immoral argument of the modern day. One day we will look back at abortion the same way we look back at slavery. It’s sick.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib No, the state shouldn’t own pregnant women. And men and women should have the right right. Literally nothing I said corresponds to what you said. All you did is put words in my mouth because you’re not cordial enough to debate my actual stance. Women and men do have the same body rights. You can’t murder children. It’s not a woman’s body. It’s the baby’s body. You can’t kill it.
Love your stuff broski.
16:15 ish - yes, just like you have the freedom to have guns, you don't have the freedom to wave your gun around and shoot at people
All of that "if it was about babies stuff" isn't pro socialism. It's pro capitalism.
If a new mother has months of maternity leave, and all of that free stuff, then she has less stress and can recover better. This means that once she's up to it, she can work from home part time at a pace that suits her. With free baby stuff, a mother has more money to spend on other things, directly supporting her local economy. With free care and after school activities, it means that the mother can work more, earning money to put into the economy and paying taxes.
All that stuff could be funded by the tax money being paid by the mothers benefitting from it.
Her argument against freedom negates her argument for freedom! I have a headache!
I have a minor nit pick. Please stop juxtaposing pro choice with pro life. Both sides are pro life, but one side is pro choice, the other is anti choice. It's pro choice vs anti choice.
No the pro-life side is not pro-life. Pro-life means you support the woman's life and they do not. Forcing a r (ape) victim to carry a baby is not pro-life that is ruining the woman's life. Not allowing doctors to treat women that are having medical emergencies is not pro-life. There is nothing about the pro-life side that is actually pro-life.
that is true
@@UlexiteTVStoneLexite you're focusing on the wrong part. In a true dichotomy, pro life implies the other side is anti life. Let's stop calling the other side, pro life. It's anti choice.
@Imran Zakhaev yes, pro choice people support women having a choice.
@@jaanrett no, pro-life people are not pro-life. Pro-life people are always taking the position of wanting women to suffer. That is not pro-life. None of them care about the kid after the kid is born they only care about the birth of that kid. They are not pro-life in any way. Pro lifers do not care about the life of the woman at all. Pro-life means you care about both. They do not therefore they are not pro-life. They are forced birthers. First birthdays want a fetus to be carried to term when the fetus is going to suffer and die immediately following birth. That is not pro-life in any way. That is pro suffering. They just care about the fetus being born but they don't give two s**** about the fetus at all.
And dude I'm not calling them pro-lifers, you are. I'm calling them forced burgers because that is what they are.
Someone should tell her not to be a debunker... 🤦♂️
About 8 years ago, my sister would have died if she couldn't get help ending her pregnancy with twins. It would have killed her and the twins still wouldn't have made it. They had TTTS. They weren't going to make it and they were going to kill my sister in the process. She ended the pregnancy. She was then able to try again and now has a 6 year old girl and a 4 year old boy.
I will never understand why these people want to take away a choice. If you don't believe in abortions and think it's murder, don't get one. I respect your personal beliefs and your right to make that decision for yourself. Why can't they extend us the same courtesy? Why do they think it's okay to force someone out of having a choice in what happens to them?
if this put the mother's life at risk then it's unfortunate and should not be a choice but an actual action to save the mother by health care professionals by all means nessacary. I'm pro-life if the mother's life comes into effect where it could kill them then the mother comes first if anyone says otherwise they are not pro-life... they are idiots
So, anti-murder of kids when the kids in question are fetuses, but pro murder of children when the alternative is literally any new gun legislation that might impede the murder of children?
My guy, I know how you feel (about people like her making you ashamed to be Asian). We Jews have to deal with Stephen Miller being one of us.
Jews have it pretty bad. You also have Shapiro clinging to your ethnicity; and Dennis Prager. I sympathize.
The tears of harlots drown the earth. Justice is restored. Babies are born again, laughing. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸 #MAGA
Why do you support Men Against Geriatric Autonomy?
@@Diviance baby laughter, thot tears. The cycle of LIFE
@@Diviance i don't want old people to be behind the wheel
Abortion is a difficult enough thing on its own. No one should pre-make that decision for the woman long before the situation actually occurs. Only the woman, or person she has granted medical power of attorney to in cases where the woman might be unable, should make such a decision.
What should I respond with if someone says, in regards to low class people and education, along the lines of “what there to be educated about? If you don’t want children and the responsibilities, don’t do the action? It’s simple”. ?
Not knowing the risks? What? You think people don’t know sex can lead to pregnancy.
What, you think ALL people have such knowledge? o.O
Yes there are people that don't know this because religious families refused to teach them this.
I mean they teach abstinence in the south and it has the highest teen pregnancy rate....so apparently not.
Sadly, abstinence-only "education" exists.
As someone who grew up in a household where I wasn't even told what the purpose of having a period once a month was and whos parents opted me out of every health/sex ed class all the way thru high school, yes it entirely possible for people to grow up not knowing about sex or pregnancy or how they work. Granted these days it's harder to remain as sheltered due to the internet, but if religion has taught me one thing it's that it will prevent you from learning anything correctly for as long as it possibly can, and brainwash you to doubt everything else out there.
@Professor Stick
Hi. I want to read scientific documents, but I noticed that most of them are hidden behind (very expensive) "paywalls" and are not freely accessible. Often the websites want me to pay a lot of money (sometimes over hundred bucks) to access one single document. Some other don't even offer buying the document at all, but instead want me to tell them who I am "to increase your chance of getting the full-text". Why is that so and is this normal? I want to inform myself based on scientific data but am not rich and I probably wouldn't "qualify" in their eyes. I always thought that scientific research is normally financed by the government and all research results belong to the public and should be freely available.
Her choice of sponsor is just classic. I for one would enjoy your perspective on this "health supplement"
yeah yeah, the only thing I care about is, if the woman can choose not to have the baby, men can choose not to pay, If they can kill it we can at least leave it
Just throw in the fact that the federal government owns men's bodies, & our only choice is draft or prison, & just watch there brains melt out their ears 😂
I didn't do any study in biology and yet even I know that just because a foetus has what we could call a heartbeat, It is still unable to survive outside of the womb until much further through the pregnancy. In my opinion, the point where a foetus becomes able to survive outside of the womb is when life can be considered to have started. And while medical science is pushing this far earlier than ever, it's still nowhere near when the first heartbeat starts.
I didn't study any biology and I don't need to because the argument when is life life or more precisely when is a feutus alive is absolutly irrelevant to the question.
I can make arguments (medically) that that human life
a) started prior to conception
b) at conception
c) at heartbeat
d) at first breath
e) never actually started
All beeing viable arguments because the term "human life" in this context is mudded and irrelevant - they mean human personhood with all it's rights - and that is also rather uninteresting to the debate.
The abrtion-debate is about whether or not a human beeing has bodily autonomy.
If so, then everything which goes on with or in their body is up to them and it is their decision to do with it as they wish - very much like shaveing or cutting your hair, a person under bodily autonomy can get rid of anything inside their body they don't want to be in it.
And if I were to give the pro-forced-birthers the point that a foetus has acchived personhood since conseption the argument of bodily autonomy get's even stronger. Not only can I decide what I do with my body, I can actually defend my body against intruders.
Those intruders in most instances we call rapist, they invade my body without my consent and I can take any measure aviable and able to get them out. This means that a person who is inside my body who doesn't have my consent is by default vioalteing my bodily autonomy who I can take measures to defend against.
The argument that a foetus IS another human beeing makes the bodily autonomy argument even stronger - becaues prior to it, I can only decide what to do with my body, now I can activly defend my body against said violation.
The when a foetus is viable, in my understanding, is nothing but a red herring to detrat from the actual argument.
I couldn't finish the video... I just couldn't listen to that woman's terrible arguments any longer. Tolerating 13 minutes of her drivel was probably a minor miracle.
In Canada Abortion is available up to 9 weeks. Sometimes 11 weeks. Not up to the point of Birth.
Her arguments are laughably bad.
What's her opinion on a life-threatening pregnancy requiring termination or else the pregnant woman in question dies? Is that "avoiding responsibility"?
We wouldn't allow a 16-year-old girl to adopt a child, but should we force her to if she's pregnant?
Why aren't we allowed to violate someone's bodily autonomy if they didn't sign a waiver to be an organ donor but we'll disregard that for pregnant women and their bodily resources?
When did women have fewer rights than corpses?
Shouldn't pro-birthers focus more on getting themselves pregnant? Lauren is wasting precious time not getting constantly knocked-up.
Ahaha
When you misrepresent the opposing side and debunk it to claim victory your dishonesty becomes transparent. She’s a joke
I seen a video the other day where a women said not to go to the emergency room if you have a ectopic pregnancy.
She was upset that hospitals and abortion clinics don’t consider it an abortion.
Under her reasoning absolutely no exceptions at all.
Some women are just vitriolic. If that is true that's ridiculous but also unlikely to sway only the most ardent pro-lifers. If she chooses not to save her own life because she is that opposed to abortion... let her and her baby die. I'm not for blanket pro-choice abortions for everyone no matter what, I'm not for blanket pro-life births at all costs... I hope there's enough of a hint in the above portion of my comment.
Ah yes the right to shoot other what would i do without it.
I regularly point out to advocates of either set of restrictions that what you can do to abortions, you can do to guns. And neither set of restrictions is effective.
I am an advocate for both gun rights and abortion rights.
Contraception failure isn't a "choice" either.
Her argument that Trudeau sounded pro life was stupid - he's saying you have a choice and suffer the consequences after - just like your choice to abortion and the consequences after either outcome... How is that like saying you don't have a choice and you (suffer) the consequences of that forced outcome?
While not aiding someone in exiting a room isn't the same as forcing them in that room - blocking the exits after they have fallen into the room unexpectedly very much IS forcing them to be+remain in that room.
Lauren Chen has always had the worst takes.
Abortion plays a part in our population management, abolishing it without better measures in place is a step back
I freaking love your videos. I too have an MS in biology and work in the field. This stuff always frustrates me but also somewhat amusing.
:)
Lauren. What makes you think that if a woman is pregnant, she must have intended it? You do know that contraceptives can be expensive or invasive and are not 100% effective?
12:15. I scream every time I hear "Right up to the point of birth!" Terminating a pregnancy at 9 months happens every day! It's called a C-Section!
That's not the same thing as abortion. Medical intervention to make a pregnancy end in a live birth, is not what ANYONE means by terminating a pregnancy.
@@carultch It is the same thing. The pregnancy was aborted (ended) before natural birth. If it happens in the 9th month, there was usually an emergency requiring intervention. NOBODY does this because they don't want to be a mother. I guess some women can elect to have a C-section, my sister in law did for her second since the first had to be delivered that way.
If life is supposed to begin at conception, does that mean the lives of millions of sperm don't matter unless they meet with an egg? Same with the eggs. Their lives are expendable every 28 days?
Why is the line drawn at conception? Is the cuddle pile strategy too impractical or inconvenient to save millions?
Actually -nerdmode- I can make arguments for alot of places of "life starting"
a) there is no beginning of life when it comes to pregnancy as life already started billions of years agao and that a foetus is only a cintinuation of that life
b) life starts at the production of sperm (as eggs are produced prior to birth and not produced in the womb after) sperm are actually the only deciding factor of life's creation therefore is sperm and everytime a perosn with a penis ejaculates they commit genocide
c) a new human life starts at conception with the incooporation of teh sperm into the oocyte
d) life can only exist if self sustained and the foetus beeing kept alive by the womb ( not only by nutriaans but also oxygen and blood cleaning) hence human life only starts at birth
The fact that any of those is a viable definition of life within medicine and biology showes that people who talk about when does life start are not talking about life, they are not even talking about human life, they talk about personhood with legal rights.
And that is
a) up to a society to decide, and that that is up to the society is seen thorughtout the history in the USA with slaves beeing seen as human cattle or more prominent in Germany with jews not beeing viewed as fully human
b) irrelevant to the question of bodily autonomy as no other person has the legal right to use another human's body even in face of death, f* me even a corpse has more bodily autonomy as you cannot harvest their organs if need be.
Sorry I know you are not pro-forced-abortion, I just wanted to add my 2 cents and maybe even give a bit of a different spin on the argument of "when does life start"
The sperm has half of the genetic makeup for new, unique life, the egg has the other half. When both sperm & egg meet & form together, a new DNA is formed, one that can never be replicated again. That new DNA makeup is the beginning of life