Incest Exemptions For Abortion MAKE NO SENSE, Debate With Josh Smith
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 тра 2024
- SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - castbrew.com/
Sign Up For Exclusive Episodes At timcast.com/
Merch - timcast.creator-spring.com
Hosts:
Tim @Timcast (everywhere)
Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere)
Phil @philthatremains
Serge @sergedotcom (everywhere)
Guest:
Joshua Smith @JoshuaAtLarge (X)
Podcast available on all podcast platforms! - Розваги
Bottom line is abortion being used as a contraceptive is gross and wrong. There are a lot of things you can do to prevent pregnancy before having to resort to that.
No it's not, that is what your overlords tell you to get mad at liberals
Like not having sex all the time like a 100% off whore?
Can someone explain why it's ok for a woman to have a child killed with no consequences!! While at the same time, a man will be put in jail for not paying child support for a child he didn't want.
Because men and women may be equal, but women are more equal than men.
Same reason women can vote without being registered for the draft.
Bc society favors women.
Because life isn't fair. To say otherwise is to hope for a utopia like the commies do. Just saying.
@@jfkst1
We don't have a draft. lol
Here is a thought experiment: how should you treat a peer if you learn they have parents who are siblings? If the answer is you treat them the same as any other individual, then you have no justification for permitting abortion for babies conceived of incest.
How about we make it mandatory to abort and blame those two people for it and jail them? Sounds good to me.. OR, maybe a bit less radical proposal, we dont abort but jail those two people for much longer so this doesnt happen or realistically so it happens much less.
Replace “abortion” with “slavery” and arguing all of these hypotheticals or arguing for compromise is ridiculous. It can be banned outright, and should like slavery.
I hope that we are shown mercy for the innocent blood on our collective hands, but every day that goes by, and every compromise made, pushes us closer to judgment.
@woodrowcall3158 what innocent blood is on your hands? Are you being hyperbolic on purpose? It's a legal action under our laws. We are to follow the law of the land as described by Jesus. You should definitely work to change the law, but to say you or anyone else (who hasn't participated in an abortion) has innocent blood on your hands is not correct when speaking about sin.
@@durnhand9524
You are a leader. Your franchise in our system, and any social support for one issue or another, burdens you with responsibility for whatever you allow or disallow.
If your hands and mine are free of innocent blood, then Lord willing judgement will pass over us. The collective groups who permit the shedding of innocent blood though, they will be judged.
Do you find no instances of entire countries and people groups suffering for the evil decisions they made and the bloodshed they perpetrated?
@woodrowcall3158 you're proving my point. Anyone who actively works against abortion, ie votes for people who pass laws, will be free from the sin that is being committed in certain places in the country.
Case in point, I live in Missouri. It's the first state to completely outlaw abortion when R v W was struck down. Clearly the people who pushed against it are not sinners in gods eyes. Also, yes whole countries were destroyed due to their sins. However, nothing the size of the US has been " utterly destroyed" in the modern world. We might balkanize but I'll be happy to join OK, LA, and TX as a region against the North East and West.
@@durnhand9524
I won’t nitpick minutia with you, but I mostly agree with your statement. It glosses over what happens to those who have had judgement cast on them though. We’ll still be witness to and suffer alongside our neighbors in various capacities.
Hear; hear! We don't sentence children for the crimes of their parents. There will always be people looking to give children a loving home.
I would argue that incest is usually rape… what 12-year-old willingly sleeps with her dad?
It happens.. believe that. 12 is a bit of a stretch, granted. There are cases where the child is the instigator however, a youthful infatuation with a parent or older family member..aunt/uncle etc..
@@masterpoe4942a child instigate sex with an older family member? Do you listen to yourself? Holy 🐄. This comment thread is showing true colors of the Tim 💩 Pool fanboy club
I think most people think of two siblings or cousins when they hear the word "incest." An older male family member being the perpetrator against a child might technically be incest, too, but incest involving an adult and a child is usually described as molestation or statutory rape. The fact that an adult is victimizing a child is more significant than the fact that the adult is related to that child.
@masterpoe4942 In such a case, the child being an "instigator" is irrelevant, because it is still the adult's responsibility to refuse them. If a child "asks for it" and you give in, it's still rape because they're a CHILD.
@@masterpoe4942Minors cannot consent to sex..making it sexua1 assau1t/r@pe, by definition.
If people are saying ANY baby no matter how that baby is concieved should be terminated then they are NOT Pro-Life PERIOD!
Homicide, manslaughter, and murder are all ending of a life, but are all different things both legally and morally.
So you think it's morally okay to purposely give a child medical disabilities. A child born of incest has a higher likelihood of having a medical problems. How is that morally okay to let a child suffer who has medical problems.
I think a lot of people think of parent-child relations when they think of incest. That would fall under the grape category imho.
Agreed, but I will say the situation totally depends. I've met people that were born from such as you described and were somewhat fine. You could tell they had a little mental issues. But they functioned ok.
When people think incest they see the twins from game of thrones lol
0:40 what bill allows doctors to be criminally charged for performing an abortion? The bill from Texas allows doctors to be civilly sued, but the doctors won't be charged
OK, MO, and a bunch if states have laws defining it as murder.
Why is illegal to destroy eggs of endangered species?
A question I expect from a timcast viewer 😂
Because it's endangered, duh.
For the slow or disingenuous, the point is that many animal embryos are legally protected while human ones aren't.
@@Daboy804
Because your killing aanimal on the endangered list.
So by your standards it's okay to kill humans because we're not endangered...
Just what I'd expect from an ignoramus.
@@JulioVonGhoulio babies facing abortions are endangered as well
7:50 States with the highest rates of incest include Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, Oregon, Indiana, New Mexico, Montana, South Dakota. It’s not just West Virginia or the South.
It’s also worth noting that first-cousin sex and marriage is actually legal in most of Europe-while mostly illegal in the US.
It was only banned after the eugenics movement. Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell are both quite hypocritical for holding a double standard and sweeping this under the rug.
eww first cousin? thats like a brother or sister wtf
@@AzureWiler Uhhh... No. There's three familial degrees separating cousins as opposed to only one separating siblings.
Additionally, nearly every civilization throughout history has accepted cousin marriages as being completely normal. Sibling relationships? Not so much.
Well, if we go back far enough, we're all related!
@@AzureWilertell that to Rudy Giuliani
There is absolutely no situation where abortion is medically necessitated. If the baby continuing to reside in the mother's womb is threatening the life of the mother, DELIVER the baby, and then try to keep it alive. If the baby is not viable, and passes away despite your efforts, that's tragic, but it's not an abortion. Try to keep the baby alive, and maybe you just might save it's life. If not, that's sad, but it's part of reality. Just don't KILL the baby.
YES!!! Thanks for this comment. Was going to put it here if I hadn't found yours. Show me the women who needed the 3 day abortion process....which is very dangerous....and wouldn't have been served better with a C Section. If it's an emergency, you get the baby out right away. C Section takes minutes. Abortions take days. Abortion is never the answer here, and not a single person has an example. I don't even know where the "life of the mother" argument came from. It's infuriating.
@@sevencrickets9258 Truth. Unfortunately, it's a convincing argument for abortions, I was willing to concede that circumstance until a couple of months ago, when I saw a video from Hayden Rhodea, and he showed the flaw in the logic. We can't let them get a foothold, there aren't any exceptions that make it acceptable to kill infants. Appreciate the feedback.
@@TriScaleCreations Totally agree. Watch Hayden as well. Good stuff!
I want a minimum of 2 drs to sign off on the mothers life is in danger or the baby is non-viable.
What part of don’t kill babies don’t people understand???
The "don't" part, apparently
There was misunderstanding here. The chat people assume incest MEANS a father or brother r*ping a daughter or sister. Tim and Josh acknowledge incest is sex between immediate family members.
Malpractice suits are filed by patients with grievances against a doctor/clinic/hospital... Why, therefore, would you expect malpractice investigations and/or charges against doctors who are bending/breaking the rules on *behalf of* the patients that want to obtain abortion services?
There would be watchdog groups that would set them up, kinda like police sending in under-21 officers and informants to liquor stores and bars to catch them failing to ID.
I think that usually if there is a case of incest there is an inherent issue of it being non-consensual because usually if there is an instance where incest happens it’s not between two adults it’s between a parent child or older and younger sibling. Regardless of feelings a child can not consent to their parent or elder family members sexual advances.
well then just say rape not incest
@@garetclabornIt’s both
Usually..but not always. There are cases where the younger/underaged family member is the instigator. A youthful infatuation. I personally had this happen to me where one of my nieces had such an infatuation with me and attended to instigate to the point of sending love letters and threatening self harm if it wasn't reciprocated. This carried on into her adulthood and she had to involve therapy. To this day, I don't know if she has gotten past the issue as I mostly try to avoid her but also try to show my care and concern for her as a member of my family and avoid trying to shame her for her past feelings. What is one to do in such circumstances?(Redundant)
@@masterpoe4942lol you better hope fbi doesn't find your web history. Nice attempt at trolling you disgusting 🐖
The reason for the exception is because rich people, for some reason, have a much higher rate of insest than the average American.
Incest will not cause health problems for a baby. This is a myth. Human beings have such genetic diversity that it’s ridiculous to think a deformity will happen after one generation of inbreeding. As disgusting as it is, this idea comes from a place of ignorance. Even pure bred dogs can have puppies with sister/brother or father/daughter and have no health problems. Tim is right that pro life people need to take a logically consistent stance.
Could you please cite the source for this information? The only thing that I can find is basing it on people who were adopted by rich families and when they become adults they enter a relationship with someone who they had no idea was a member of their blood family. Not everyone knows they’re adopted and not everyone who knows is aware of their birth family and who those members may be.
You do realize the average American is not rich, right?
Source?
Tim arguing for the sake of arguing. Some things never change.
Not even every rape victim wants an abortion. Sins of the father and all that
But the should all have the choice, why is that to hard to say
@scootypuffjr.6042 becuase how many rapist have had their already born children killed because they raped someone. It's not hard to say not everyone agrees.
Sympathize or not killing a children through abortion is wrong. If you personally think it's okay then you advocate for that
Regardless of genetics if two parents are committed to conceiving and raising their child then abortion should not be imposed upon anyone. If genetic complications occur then pull the exit cord. If one parent wants it but the other doesn’t then abortion is a no go. Why this got to be so heavily contested? Oh and if an argument of a medical professional lying about medical viability should have legal consequences.
Murder is wrong.... but also "two parents" leaves room for some horrible stuff there.
One male and one female committed to a monogamous relationship is the standard for parenting. For those that don't meet that standard, that doesn't excuse abortion or making them bad parents. But the exceptions do not change the standard. And the standard is what people should strive for.
No an incest apologist. But mutations happen over several generations of incest.
"Pro life people are saying that a baby born of incest should be aborted."
Protip. They aren't pro life
I do think we should protect services that provide care/support for mothers and babies born of incest or rape as well as reducing the costs coming for adopting US citizens who need families.
There is an organization called Pre-born. They provide free prenatal care and assistance as needed after the birth of the child. They will assist with placing the child for adoption as well.
I personally, don't see abortion as justified in those cases either, but I'm not going to die on that hill. If they want exceptions for those cases, then so be it.
@@Phatnaru0002 while I would never consent to any abortion I would agree that we can start there
Most real conservatives only say life of the mother like this guy was saying. That includes cases where the baby is already dead since that's already dangerous to the mother. All other cases banned. Even Ben Shapiro says only life of the mother, he just has a different political strategy than this guy. Everyone else is usually just a libertarian who thinks it's government overreach for some reason. Never understood that
If the baby died, then it isn't an abortion. Traditional removal treatments and/or C-sections are always safer for both parties.
@@garetclabornit’s still an abortion
Tin is using an old foolish argument, the guy in the car that is out of control, and are you justifying killing him to save the old lady, no, you’re not justified in killing a madman with a machete to save an old lady you’re justified in stopping him, and if he dies in the process You’re not legally liable because you didn’t kill him you were stopping him and his own actions are what killed him. So if you see a car barreling towards a woman and you think you can do something to stop it and you try to stop it from hitting her, that is not illegal and does a justifiable action. Now if you pull out a gun and shoot the guy, especially in a blue state, you’re gonna end up in jail either way whether it’s legal or not because that’s blue states and used to gun and they automatically consider you guilty at that point, but from a legal standpoint, it’s all about your intent, and the first thing the judge will tell you is never use the word kill or murder or say things like take a life you are stopping the person your intent is not to kill them it is to stop them. When a cop shoot somebody he never kills anybody they stop those people and they shoot until they stop once they stopped. The cops will stop shooting so if a guy is coming out a cop with a knife saying he’s gonna kill him the cop pulls up his gun and shoot him and hit him in the shoulder and the dry eyedrops his knife and put his hand up and says OK I quit the cops not gonna keep shooting him because the cop isn’t killing him. The cop is stopping him. This is how self-defense is determined or defending another’s life in that scenario, legally, your actions are justified in stopping a person, whether or not they die in that process is irrelevant take away the car, if the guy coming out the woman with a machete saying I’m gonna chop your head off, if you shoot him and you hit him in the hip or the arm or the stomach or some thing, and he goes down, drop some machete and he’s no longer a threat you’ve stopped him. If you shoot him again then he dies you’ve killed him even if he doesn’t die, you’ve assaulted him because you’re not allowed to do that to people, except for the purpose of stopping them and once they’ve stopped, you need to stop shooting
Rodney King beating for a case in point. For five cops fought this dude who went on a long high speed chase in Los Angeles the dude was smoking angel dust was handcuffed through a bunch of cops off of him broke the handcuffs or beating the crap out of the cops. Five cops instead of shooting him because there was all this bad price for cops in LA at the time, use their batons to try to subdue him and arrest him without using lethal force and those cops ended up hitting the guy something like 97 times nearly 100. And when it went to court judge, Edo, of course was on the spot and under immense pressure because that’s when all this leftist nonsense began or he was being called a racist and everything else because Rodney King was black and some of the cops were white, and Jito was Asian, and in the end he sent two cops to jail for the last two hits based on him being subdued at that point. It was ridiculous, and it was a virtue signal in case where he sent two cops to jail, because some dude on PCP beat the crap out of a bunch of cops who had already arrested him and got caught on videotape and blasted all over the television nonstop for several weeks and all through the trial, but the other 95 baton wax from the five cops were completely in totally justified and completely legal but the last two hits the judge them being unnecessary. And that situation with this fight that went on for several minutes I think that was a ridiculous decision, but technically if you keep physically involving yourself with someone after their stopped, it’s not justifiable, but before that, it’s just stopping them it’s not killing them, and it is deemed justifiable homicide.
The idea that abortion doctor could ever argue this is nonsense. In fact, if someone were to have attacked an abortion doctor, who is going to abort his child or something that person could argue that they were defending the life of their own child, and I think that would have merit, in the incredibly few instances where somebody did actually attack abortion doctors in the name of trying to say babies they were thrown in jail for it but the truth is they still had a pretty valid argument if a doctor goes in and is knocking out 50 or 60 babies a day it is clinic And somebody rammed his car through a bunch of ammonia on the carpet in his office, and everybody had to evacuate for the day. Technically, he lives 50 babies but they don’t see it that way because abortion is legalized, but the doctor still killing babies for money and this is why I think our government needs to intervene and make a ridiculously stupid unnecessary law to say that killing babies for money is not legal. Certain things as a society we just know it rape murder, physically beating somebody killing babies for profit. We shouldn’t need laws to specifically ban these things but that’s the world we live in so it is what it is but we have a problem in America that kills nearly 1,000,000 people every single year And the government needs to step in and protect those people, but liberals have turned it into some sort of right of the woman to not be inconvenienced, and even Tim keeps arguing endlessly that you can’t force a woman to carry a child and the government doing so somehow in even though she made the decision that got herself pregnant, and knew what she was doing, and just doesn’t want to be responsible live with her Sequences of her actions. But these aren’t even valid arguments. These are ridiculous arguments but unfortunately, with a propaganda media, and now years of propaganda and indoctrination our society, some thinks that a woman being inconvenienced justifies taking an innocent life and here we are. At some point the adults need to step up and say no this is not OK and make it a crime and Tim’s questions about what what if a doctor does it anyway blah blah blah OK then throw them in jail they criminals that’s why we have crime laws is because some people are criminals and do horrible things even though they are illegal. That’s the whole point to the law so you can prosecute them. Tim’s attitude is well let’s just let them do it anyway because they’ll just break that law. Well, pass the law and then enforce it, it’s because somebody’s gonna break it doesn’t mean if you get rid of the law because San Francisco’s letting people run around and sell heroin on the streets Doesn’t make it OK it’s not enforced. Those politicians making those choices are the ones breaking the law should be prosecuted for violating their oath of office as well should be fired because they’re causing harm to their communities and not doing their job. That would be like a cop saying, some guy beat up and stab his wife and just not doing anything because it’s not politically correct. It doesn’t justify getting rid of the law just letting it happen because some people are going to do it. Anyway, that’s the whole point is to categorize those peoples criminals and put them in jail where they belong so they stop killing people.
Abortion is murder, the incest acception should only apply when it's a rape case, in which the much greater concern is the rape. Tim is right to point this out
Incest is extraordinarily low there for we shouldn’t make rules based on exceptions. We stopped charging the off spring for their parents crimes centuries ago and that argument is absurd
In Canada, you can legally do an abortion anytime during the 9 months of your pregnancy. Though legal, those who provide abortions in my province don't go past 23 weeks.
A baby was born at 22 weeks and survived.
@@ellec5584 when artificial wombs get more advanced survival there will be no more moral arguments on abortion. It will be all about transferring the fetus to the artificial womb.
Why do we have laws that keep murder legal.
Hi gang! It's me Jeff! I saw the title of this video and i got really excited!! All the things I love!!
You need to be careful on the missing organs. My cousin was told her baby had no kidneys. And that he would die within hours of being born. No kidneys = no amniotic fluid = no lung development. They told her to abort. She didn’t. Her son peed on the doctor when he was born and he’s graduating high school this year.
I’m in favor of on-demand abortions. Purely from a fiscal viewpoint. I don’t want to support any unwanted child NOR the children of any welfare deadbeats. Anyone wanting to restrict abortion should be forced to pay ALL the expenses for prenatal care, the birth, and EVERY expense that would normally get saddled on taxpayers had the child be born.
That said, anyone against abortion on “moral/religious” grounds, should be against ALL abortions INCLUDING incest and rape. Using your logic, how can you “murder an innocent child” even if its parent are rapists or relatives?
I think Tim is entriely overthinking this. I believe there is a presumption that incest is typically rape. If it's consensual then there's nothing to talk about. Simple.
But then it would be covered under the rape exemption, and it doesn't have to be mentioned explicitly.
I think you are oversimplifying things.
It's really just to keep down inbreeding.
Incest unless it's a couple generations has next to zero chance of problem.
@gottesurteil3201 I don't think he is. The incest argument is an eugenics argument. Yes, it's gross and immoral, however, if nothing is medically wrong with the baby, then why abort it? Even if something is wrong with the baby, then why abort it? If you allow that exemption it logically opens the door to all sorts of reasons to abort a baby for reasons like down syndrome.
Somebody has probably already said this, but might the "only rape" exception lead to massive accusations of rape? If rape is the only exception that accusation will have to be made very early in the pregnancy are you run the risk of the baby being born before there's ever a trial.
If that's the case, there only needs to be an accusation made in order to receive the procedure. So the procedure has to be done before anyone is ever proven guilty of the crime.
Seems messy.
There were always be some people who try to commit crime, that is no excuse to make terrible actions legal. Yes there will be false accusations, there are already false accusations.
Murder Is Murder.
So if the baby doesn't have a brain
@@dream6562
Well, by they standard you could be aborted.
At Conception it's a separate human growing inside the mother, you can lie to yourself about it but it's a fact.
Is warfare murder?
@@dream6562 If you murder a braindead patient in his hospital bed, is it still murder?
@@crubs83 brain dead would be different than not actually having a brain so let's stay on target, would you consider that alive
Nobody’s religion matters to me insofar as the law is concerned. When within a reasonable time frame conservatives lose me on this. Luckily for their candidates I’m generally not insane enough to vote blue.
Long ago my family saw a sign with one word added in spray paint driving into West Virginia as a child.
"West Virginia where everyone is family"
"Literally"
Sadly this is the line…federal government can’t decide that the death penalty or abortion should be illegal or legal. That our constitution and the jurisdiction of federal government.
Side note, based on the 10th amendment…states don’t have jurisdiction on gun rights and all state gun laws are void. We need to enforce the constitution and uphold our founding documents.
States get to decide on abortions and states can’t decide on gun bans/laws.
Abortion is a 14th amendment issue. The pre-born are denied equal protection.
It's easy to not get pregnant don't have sex!
No thanks. lol
We all know how well abstinence sex ed works, just ask the pastor’s daughter!
Incest exceptions dont make sense unless its grape, but then thats a grape exception.
Rape exception doesn’t make any sense either because the baby is always innocent. They don’t do humane abortions for rape/incest. We need to help the women to have those babies and put them up for adoption if she doesn’t want to have a child.
@@eliannahankin2971 well I agree they don't make MORAL sense at all. I do at least understand why a woman wouldn't want to have a baby by someone who assaulted her, though. I don't think ending the baby is the right solution, but I can at least wrap my head around the matter. The incest exception, though? Nah, not even a little bit.
BINGO!!!
Amazing how many people in the comments section can't figure out that obvious distinction.
@eliannahankin2971 My only problem with this is when we see boys graped by their teachers, and the teacher gets pregnant, nobody even so much as advocates for them. They don't even get the protections that girls get, like the teacher losing all parental rights and never being allowed to even see the child or know anything about their life.
No, the teacher gets custody and usually child support too. And to add insult to injury, their average sentence is two years... of probation, no jail.
@@vedinthornwell it's not a baby till it's viable so if decisions are made within reasonable time where is the harm? Or are you a nut job that thinks life begins right after the nut job?
If the government wants to force women to have the child who has such a slim chance of survival, then the government should also be forced to pick up those medical bills for as long as that child lives. Most women would have to quit their jobs and become full time caretakers so the government better compensate these women as well.
a logic based argument/view about having an "incest clause".
1: experiments in genetics have shown that the risk of genetic deformation/abnormalities/degradation of the familial offspring are not outside of typical non familial offspring until around the 7th generation (approx. 2% at the 6th and 5% at the 7th) then grows exponentially from there.
2: using any biblical reasoning goes out the window with only a single couple having had 56 children (Cain and Able were only their oldest two sons). in order to propagate any further there had to be direct familial couplings for at least that generation. only the third generation (Adam and Eve's grandchildren) would it be possible for 1st cousins to pair but odds were that that generation would have had many direct familial connections. whether evolution based or biblically based we would not be here without having incest as the primary source of offspring at one point. 2 times biblically if you count Noah and his family.
3: using incest as a reasoning is throwing it into the non consensual argument. not all of these would have been non consensual. those that are would fall under the SA/Rape/Molestation part of the argument. therefore someone throwing the incest word out there is trying to artificially inflate the reasons playing on the known disgust for the topic of incest. remove this from the conversation by simply using facts.
If "the baby has no brain", then look for the case of the kid with 2% of it that developed it later.
"If he is developing with no brain, is not alive?" He is opening the door I belive he does not want to open.
I’ve never heard that suggestion Tim, but it makes a lot of sense to me!
I clicked on this one because I agree with the title (incest exceptions for abortion make no sense) -- this was really well done and well thought out. As I understand it, from a pure moral sense, it's never okay to directly attack an unborn baby. If there's an ectopic pregnancy, you remove the diseased portion of the Fallopian tube -- which, 100% of the time, at least until medical technology significantly leaps forward, results in the death of the baby. It's still not directly attacking the baby. If the woman gets cancer or discovers she has cancer, the cancer treatments can (at least in some circumstances) result in injury or death to the baby. Still not direct attacks. If there's a medical condition where the baby has to be delivered insanely premature (again before the time where it's possible to save the baby) to save the mother's life, that's still not a direct attack. All those things would be allowed even if abortion itself wasn't -- we shouldn't be arguing in terms of "exceptions," just in terms of definitions. I don't think there's any exception to abortion is wrong. You make a case that it would be really difficult (maybe impossible?) to put the distinction between a direct attack and one of the acceptable medical procedures into the law. I think a lot of people who are actually prolife are arguing for the idea that laws have to be changed gradually or we'll just lose completely and people will think it's a good idea to put abortion into the constitution. I'm not sure -- I can agree with that in principle (I mean, I see it happening in front of me), but like, I was happy when my state just banned abortion outright, and then I was unhappy when we reversed that, even though I didn't see any of the leadership agreeing with me. I dunno. Great discussion, though.
I hate hearing people try and say nuking Japan wasn't justified. Not only did we save at least a million of G.I's but we saved millions of Japanese. Also those nukes caused no more damage than fire bombing raids we had done in the past. People just get caught up in the overwhelming destruction coming from one bomb. Lets not forget the Japanese also refused to surrender after the first nuke. They brought it upon themselves.
That's a ludicrous viewpoint. You've bought wholesale in the military industrial complex propaganda. The indiscriminate killing of civilians is always wrong. It's wrong when Hamas does it and it was wrong when we did it.
A million GIs? Japan was ready to surrender. And the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden were also totally immoral.
The counterargument is basically that NO, Japan was ready to surrender and those million G.I.'s would not have died because Japan was ready to sue for peace. After the first nuke they did not actually know that it was the US dropping a bomb because it took that many days to literally find out that the city had been destroyed based on overland transit and the confusion of local volcanic activity which had already recently caused massive fires. To this end, the first and second nukes were simply the US ensuring that Japan would not "get away with it" and then it took more than a week for them to realize we actually did it.
Personally I don't know. I figured that it would be better to put up the context. I just don't care at this point. It doesn't change the death toll and the perpetrators or "executioners" are all dead or dying. It's a bit too late.
@@TamCloncey But the bombs dropping on Japan for years prior were already happening.
@@TamClonceyit's also wrong when Israel does it
Fun(?) Fact: Most children of incest actually do not have birth defects, disabilities, or diseases, unless both parents have the gene for it and pass it on. Otherwise, the increased risk isn't that significant. The risk of course increases with every generation of continued incest.
Also, most people know someone or have met a couple that has participated or is currently participating in some type of incest, and you'd never know that they did/are.
People have actually been born without brains and survived off just a little bit of neural tissue, some are even smart.
A child is the ultimate proof in cases of incest and rape. Allowing that proof to be disposed of with no consequences is evil.
The face that that proof is also an innocent life compounds the immorality of it.
I’m with your host! 100%, thanks for bringing him on!
I think they call that "no man's land," Timminy.
I agree with the woman that sperm and egg donation leads to incest. There are many horror stories.
When people say abortions based on incest they are not talking about sweet home Alabama.
They are talking about dads, uncles, cousins, raping family members.
Everyone knows this.
This isn’t a very intelligent audience. Don’t overestimate them.
I agree, that type of incest is rape.
Which would fall under the exception for rape, no?
Tim is dumb and so is his audience.
Florida and Alaska have a higher rate. 😅
Make this dude president
Get Russell from Abolitionist Rising on here ASAP! Him or Jeff Durbin from End Abortion Now. If you want a substantive argument and understanding of the abolitionist movement, they are the go to. Please get them on here. It will be better content than anything you have produced, without a doubt. This is the slavery of our day. There are no more important issues. These men have abundant evidence from their UA-cam channels that they can argue in good faith, and are more than up to the task.
It is a emerging issue, where one can take extreme positions as to when a pregnancy becomes a person. Ever see Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”, the production number “Every Sperm is Sacred”?
A sperm, left in its environment with no outside interference, will remain a speed. An embryo, left in its environment with no outside interference, will become a full human adult. Big difference. Sperm are not sacred. An embryo is a living human and is sacred and deserves the protection of law.
Sperms is entirely the man's DNA. The woman's egg is entirely her own DNA. You put those two together and new human DNA is created. A different humans DNA. Neither the fathers nor the mothers. If you're pro life, everyone agrees that life starts at conception. The people that are pro abortion can't even come to an agreement on when it is considered a person.
@@TamCloncey A large percentage of fertilized eggs do not become people, either. The definition of infertility is taking over a year for a pregnancy, when having regular sex attempting to get pregnant.
BTW, there are some people who still believe in spermatic preformationism. Ever heard the joke about “Monica ate your brother”?
Conception. Really not difficult.
Damn, i had a near 0% chance of both my mom and i surviving my birth, they chose to save my mom. They did what i call the "fold the baby" technique, broke my clavical and folded me pretty much in half because i was born fat (legit i believe i was almost 13 lbs)
The incest argument has two prongs, really: If it's Forcible hard R, then, that's a different argument, entirely, despite the relationship of the parties involved.
I do, however, dare anyone to make the incest argument without sounding like a Eugenicist..
Or anti-LGBT by extension, or ableist
Incest or otherwise, why should a baby be killed because of the faults of its parents?
@@TamCloncey that, in itself, is certainly debatable. Then you get into Parental Rights, which, in most states, are some of the hardest things to nullify under the law. So, in cases of Forcible hard R, then, should we spare that new life by disallowing abortion in those cases, and by default, forcibly sever the parental relationship and put the baby up for immediate adoption? The harm, to the mother, at that point, is a living, breathing reminder of a horrific act that happened to her, and in removing that reminder, aid in her healing, at least, until such time the inevitable DNA tracing is done, when she would then later have to confront it all over again when the child comes to her, asking questions about their provenance?
Incest results in eugenic results, and inbreeding causes problems.
We need to consider multiple past issues, as well, meaning: "The Hills Have Eyes," "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," etc, are all propaganda in this vein, because of inbreeding. It causes problems, and not just the Happsburg Chin. But it becomes self-correcting, too.
@@TheOneAndOnlyMrTris Hard R that abuses a familial relationship should mean that the offender is sent to Outer Mongolia. Doesn't make the problem all better, but removes a stimulus. Also closed adoptions were not really terrible; the child isn't going to find a GOOD reason why he or she wasn't wanted.
Further, attitudes within the healthcare industry need to change! If a legal adult once a vasectomy or their tubes tied there should not be any games with the doctor saying oh you might change your mind and forcing you to put it off for a decade or two there is a personal choices that are not for the doctor to make
Criticizing incest makes no sense. They’re consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. We’re lucky that it still makes the libs uncomfortable.
Which is completely arbitrary double standard they have versus homosexuality.
The incest argument is actually about dads who diddle their daughters. But still murder is murder
My thinking of incest was like a father had sex with his daughter.
Leftist are pro-incest
Every incestuous relationship is a violation of the natural responsibility everyone has to their family. The person initiating such a relationship puts the other in a predicament, accept or lose a member of their family. It cannot be consensual.
From immoral and humanity standpoint, it should never be legal under any circumstances. An evacuation procedure dealing with an ectopic pregnancy is not even an abortion. It’s a life-saving medical procedure that is necessary, because the mother will die without it. The baby is dying anyway, and can’t survive. That should not be classified as an abortion and should be an in hospital procedure determined by a board just like an amputation or a transplant would be, and should be clearly defined procedurally within the legal statute which there doesn’t need to be one because it’s not an abortion. Morally and in the humanitarian arena even in the case of rape, it is inhumane wrong, and it is absolutely murder, and it’s not justified for any reason.
But from a legal standpoint, and a political standpoint more importantly, I was a pro-life politician signing a bill that said, in the case of rape, it would be made legal with the contention that the girl has to file rape charges before she knows she’s pregnant if she files rape charges immediately and pop up pregnant three weeks later than that would qualify if she’s four months pregnant now all of a sudden claim she was raped, but hasn’t filed a police report and had somebody prosecuted And press charges against them because she’s just making it up. And it’s a horrible situation but murdering an innocent life on top of it is not gonna take away the pain in the violation that’s already been committed against her and it’s really not gonna make it much easier. In fact, research to show it makes it much worse, and exponentially increases the rate of suicide among those mothers who abort their child that was conceived and rape over women who were raped And had the babies were women who were raped and did not conceive. But from a political standpoint, a president I voted for signed that bill. I would still say it was wrong, but I would accept them signing it politically, because honestly in this political arena that would be a miracle of itself and you’ll get the numbers of abortions from about 900,000 a year down to about 3 to 5 tops. it would still be wrong and it would still be moral and unjust, but it might be an accomplishable goal to wear a complete outright band would probably be tied up for 1000 years arguing back-and-forth over it. But incest, sorry if you diddled your cousin, or your dad or brother That’s on you if it was voluntary, it wasn’t rape and you’re on your own, and in the case of threatening the life of a mother, that only happened in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, or an incredibly rare accident, type situation or bleeding situation, and those are all dealt with in a hospital anyway, and aren’t actually abortions. It’s an evacuation procedure of a baby that’s already unviable, or already dead in most cases, to save the life of a mother. That’s not even classified as an abortion, and wouldn’t really be affected by an abortion band anyway. so I don’t think even in the case of rape because it doesn’t take away what’s happened to her it’s a woman who’s been assaulted and somebody very evil but that’s already been done killing the baby on top of it isn’t gonna take that away or make it go away, or change it and make it better And it’s still inhumane to Kincent human being to try to make that rape victim slightly more comfortable in a horrible situation and the reality is that eventually she’s going to feel immense guilt and to get over rape. Your counselor is going to tell you that it’s not your fault and you had no say in the matter. This was done to you, but when you chose to kill your baby, that was your choice and brings guilt on top of the already incredibly stressful and traumatic situation And the suicide rates make this clear that it’s not even helping the mother feel better and a horrible situation, but politically I think that’s probably the best you’re ever gonna get in America and I don’t think you could even get that now most states. to a federal abortion ban that banded the other 99.99% of abortions and saved 900,000 children a year I think that that would be an acceptable political move though not perfect it’s probably the best you ever gonna get and you should take it and then maybe move The band in that case as well, which is not an achievable goal within our political system. But incest, give me a break just because you’re creepy hump or did your daddy doesn’t give you some sort of special privilege to where you’re allowed to kill your children now
Eugenicists had it right.
The old school ones most certainly did not. It was a bad application of evolutionary theory. It doesn't hold up to solid logic or scrutiny. There are better ways to implement eugenics than Margaret Sanger wanted.
@@crubs83 oh I agree the old way was awful, but with modern technology several genetic diseases could be completely eliminated.
@@Musclecarera69 I'm more concerned with the behavioral problems caused by modern reproductive strategies. Lifelong heterosexual monogamy was an age-old form of eugenics and euthenics that has worked in every society implemented.
@@crubs83 I concur and data backs that argument up. Children are less likely to grow up and be impoverished if they come from a two parent household
Why bring up incest? It's actually really simple answer: Certain parties want to be able to get up on stage and camera and be able to effectively accuse the political candidate of supporting incest if they don't agree then and there in front of the whole world. It's an emotional manipulation tactic designed specifically so that if someone argues about "why" incest is being brought up the interviewer can start reading off a script that starts dancing around accusing the target of Engaging in incestuious relations in front of the cameras without anyone accusing them of an agenda.
Then why is half the people here cheering it on? I always thought where do Tim pool fans live, now I know Mississippi and Alabama, I'm sure west Virginia too
I would argue the incest law is there because fathers on daughters before brothers on sisters. Both are abhorrent but the argument changes depending on circumstance.
But you guys, if the baby is growing with a deformity, you don’t just kill it. That’s the point. You carry till it’s safe to deliver, and do everything in your power to save its life. The doctors told my mom to abort my sister, she had spina bifida, she’d be a vegetable, we had 19 wonderful years with her and she was not a vegetable. My cousin had to be rushed to surgery for her heart when she was born, they didn’t think she would make it. She’s now an adult, fragile, but still alive and wonderful. You don’t just get to choose who lives and who dies. Even my pregnancies, I had double the fluid in the amniotic sac and they told me the babies will have brain damage, etc etc. I had perfectly healthy babies, my fluid numbers were just on the far end of the bell curve.
Abortion is murder. Doing everything you can and failing to save the baby is not abortion.
while I don't necessarily agree with this guy i appreciate his logic and consistency. I can't get beyond pro life for myself and pro choice for others because God is my higher power not the government.
All I can say after this is I'm definitely not a libertarian
i've only met one libertarian and he got raided by the fbi for child pr0n and now anytime someone says they're libertarian i'm always thinking hmm 🤔 what are they up too lol
Why's that? Just curious. Advocating for someone's freedom to do something is not the same thing as personally approving of it.
well it isn't like you have to condone it just to say the child shouldn't be killed
@@Phatnaru0002 because I believe somethings are bad, and fuck your choices. Incest is ic, good enough to make it illegal. I will hear no further arguments
@@garetclaborn I also believe babies shouldn't be killed. But the incest stuff is a step I will not take
To really end the debate is you need to do it at the societal level. Basically rebuid the nuclear family is the priority and creating a strong community core and you can build from there.
People should decide whether or not they want children before they engage in sexual activity. Contraceptives fail. If they fail, abortion should be an option. Men can say whatever they want, but they don't risk subjecting their bodies to lifelong pain and/or incontinence giving birth. Pregnancy has many medical risks, and only because of modern medicine so women and infants not die from those risks and complications very often here in modern societies.
Well for one if it’s an adult they have the choice if they want to report the assault or abuse to the authorities. If it’s a minor then medical professionals are mandatory reporters. If that helps, cause we still can’t force them to actually report the SV that cause the pregnancy if they’re adult.
I don't believe anyone has the right to abort innocent babies in the womb.
The only acceptations are the mother's life is in danger, or the baby has health problems or physical defects that would end in the baby's death anyway.
I don't believe that rape and incest are good reasons to abort because that baby did nothing wrong and shouldn't be killed for the crimes of the parents.
But also I don't think enough people talk about how abortion has a very horrific effect on the mother.
A lot of people don't talk about abortion regret or the horrific trauma that having an abortion causes a mother.
This may not bother her at first if it is elected, and she wants her baby dead.
But as a nurse who has worked in Psychology, there will come a time in every woman's life when the thought of having killed her child will haunt her till she needs psychological help.
One woman in particular didn't see anything wrong with aborting 3 of her pregnancies.
She was fine with it.
That is until she held her granddaughter for the first time.
That is when the weight of what she did hit her. She never recovered from it and eventually offed herself.
Paraphrasing the spanish here but "The human sacrifices will STOP"
Bro couldnt shutup for 30 seconds lol
"If the baby has no brain then the baby's not alive!"
Noah Wall.
Lots of babies are born without brains, they're called conservatives.
This has always been my pet peeve when discussing proposed exceptions to abortion laws. Incest is wrong and gross, but people who were conceived through incest are still deserving of life. (Side note: people conceived in rape ALSO deserve life!) For some reason - maybe because many cases of incest are also rape - the two get lumped together in abortion exceptions discourse, which only makes the justification for an exception less clear.
Classic scene from Joe Dirt:
Joe Dirt: "There's only one way to find out!"
Lexi: "I'm your sister! I'm your sister! I'm your sister!"
Should the babies of alcoholism be aborted if they are at the same developmental risk as an incest baby.
CMT runs in one side of my family. The risk of a viable baby inheriting CMT is greater than a viable baby born between siblings having genetic problems. This is largely because when genetic problems occur in a first generation pairing, it usually results in miscarriage. So the genetic argument is basically saying that 126,000 US citizens and millions around the world should not only be prevented from breeding but also killed in the womb. That's just for one of hundreds of genetic conditions a family could have.
We also know, from domesticating animals, that genetic weakness can occur from both inbreeding depression and outbreeding depression. While dangerous when repeated over multiple generations, there are some beneficial potentials to both. It is desirable for a population to have ~0.1 - 2.0% mixture of inbreeding to maximize long-term genetic fitness.
I'm diabetic and my parents knew I could be when they had me. Killing someone due to the risk of hardships is evil and projection.
Tim's hypothetical Scenario's are really getting annoying and not on point. Think it's time for a week or two break and let someone else host, I cannot take his over talking , he is ruining the conversation.Time for Potatoeman to save the day, I'm taking a Cast time out for a month.
I fully agree with Josh.
Incest CAN result in birth defects but most tim es it will not unless there is a strong genetic defect in BOTH parents. A long practice of incest over multiple generations certainly WILL increase the chance of recessive trait birth defect appearing in offspring.
I agree with this guy. Either all life has intrinsic value or none.
And in the case where it is going to end the life of the mother, this decision needs to be made by a hospital board. States have done this before and what happened to Planned Parenthood just said well she’s stressed out so she might commit suicide that’s threatening the life of the mother and went ahead and killed the baby. And of course, if you get some liberal judge which is incredibly likely, they’re just gonna let it go. You have to make very strict requirements. You need to predefined the incredibly small handful of legitimate instances, which literally boil down to ectopic pregnancy. And even this is such an incredibly small number you can count it on your fingers every year so we’re not talking 900,000 babies getting killed. In this case needs to be Hospital board decision like a heart transplant would be or removing a limb. And I need to be held to a very high standard with a very specific criteria. It can’t just be a loose interpretation law, where they say anything could threaten the life of the mother they need to define specific instances Where the baby is not going to survive but the mother will but only if there’s an evacuation procedure. Then the hospital needs to do it after a board certifies it and have a pre-defined issue in case there’s an emergency like she comes in bleeding out but those are never challenged. Those aren’t even up for question and there are almost no pro-life advocates out there saying that that would be unacceptable. The babies dying anyway were dead anyway and most of the time that’s what happens the baby dies. The mother waits the baby dies and goes septic if not evacuated so they do a hospital procedure in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. It’s on the outside of the womb and can’t survive and you have no choice, if it’s possible to surgically try to put the baby back in the womb, which is almost never then that can be an option, but this is not an elective abortion where somebody just wants to kill their baby because it’s inconvenient and almost nobody saying that should be illegal. Of course I’m sure you could find some whack job out there that says, everything is illegal, and the mother must die Until the babies born naturally or something, but in the real world, nobody’s advocating for that. Pro lifers are a bunch of irrational activists, pushing a political agenda. Their people that don’t want babies murdered, because they have become inconvenient or unexpected by people who are not in boots and taking loads which is how you get pregnant and everybody knows it. The only argument would be in the case, rape ant. It still comes down to you’re saying we’re going to a murder, an innocent human being to make somebody else’s life less inconvenient and rape is a horrible thing, but the crimes already been done The violation is already been done. It’s not gonna go away cause she killed the baby And the truth is and almost every case it makes the entire event more traumatic drags it on overtime and puts incredible amount of guilt on the mom. Right victims need to not feel guilty to get over it as much as they can and try to get through the rest of their life, their counselors need to tell them this wasn’t your choice. This was something taken from you. You had nothing to do with this to try to get them of a place where they can heal, now you take that same person, and they realize that their own actions that they chose to kill their child, and that breaks them more often than not and is much more detrimental to the mother and of course, when you hear a pro-choice person, say your forcing the person to carry a child of their rapist, blah blah blah, it sounds so traumatic everybody wants to protect the girl, but it doesn’t make the rape go away, and the truth is in every case in history, the mothers who kept the babies have always said that it was the right choice but even if somebody is extremely traumatized and upset by something is horrible as a rape, having sympathy for their situation how upset they are is a humane good thing to do but Not so much sympathy that you’re willing to take the life of an innocent human being to try to comfort them a little bit and it’s really not gonna comfort them much in fact, they will probably go home that night and be exponentially more traumatized. It’s just not a valid argument for anything, and in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the child isn’t going to live you’re not killing the child you’re saving the mother the child is already already dead and can’t be saved. It’s a sad and tragic event but it’s not even an abortion it’s an evacuation procedure, where they remove an unviable fetus, that will not live and do so to save the mother. There’s almost no other instance, except in rare cases of some type of bleeding or injury where the mother’s life is in danger which is why it has to be outlined as the specific procedures done by a hospital and that’s what happens now anyway, the mother usually gets very ill or has bleeding problems and pain issues and goes into the hospital and finds out her fetus is attached to the outside of the woman is not viable and the hospital removes it to save her life. It’s not even considered an abortion, and it’s not even really a legal issue but the pro-choice groups want to include that clause so they can just have Planned Parenthood keep performing abortions and just say they’re saving lies because those girls are upset and might harm themselves because they’re really depressed and call that justification and of course the liberal courts will let them get away with it. That’s why it needs to be prevented that’s why there should be no abortion clinics, and in the rare instance where it does threaten the life of the mother, should always be done in the hospital because those instances is pretty much always done in the hospital anyway. Nobody goes into Planned Parenthood with an emergency ectopic pregnancy to get an evacuation procedure.
2:20 If it is not a viable pregnancy, IT IS NOT AN ABORTION.
Yes it is, because the baby is still alive at the moment that it is torn to pieces by the abortionist.
According to conservatives it is.
I'm a conservative with extreme anti-abortion bias and I agree, it is not an abortion if there was a miscarriage.
But I will say the abortion procedures are not OK even for a corpse. They are barbaric and less safe for the mother than traditional surgeries for removal or natural passing.
Wrong. Abortion can happen anytime during the gestation of a human being . Otherwise the RU486 wouldn't be called an abortion pill
@@GreyPilledLibertarianno, removing a corpse from a womb is not an abortion. Abortion is the act of killing a child, you can't do that if the child is already dead.
This guy doesn't seem to understand that a law he makes WILL apply to the 1% not it might, it WILL so the wording needs to be clear and he can't clarify his stance beyond "abortion am bad"
Great, now i have another thought process to go over 😆 i always held the incest exemption BECAUSE of the medical abnormalities & issues, but if those issues technically fall under the medically necessary category, & there's an incest child with no birth issues, Tim is right to ask why. I need to ponder on this 😅
I think Tim is right on incest.
The term is 'rape and incest' therefore incest means in this case not by rape. Rape covers incest when it is rape.
Sine hypotheticals are tossed around for the subject of abortion: here is one. Only two people are left on Earth a brother and a sister. If the human race is going to continue it will be dependent on a children serving. I do not know enough to know if is even possible for the human race to survive this hypothetical. However, but the first generation is possible. I think it could not continue this way for many generations, however, I do not know.
There has been catastrophes , in my opinion, that the human race has survived. Therefore, I believe incest is most likely traceable in any person living today.that one generation is very likely to hav occurred.
I would say the likely hold of the children of an incest relationship having a healthy life might be low. Does not mean it will not occur, a child being healthy.
This is my basis for saying Tim is right about the incest part.
Your hypothetical has happened many times for founding populations in new lands throughout earth's history.
Simple answer in the form of a question: do we base legislation and rule of law on the worst case scenario or on principle?
Sorry Tim. If you make this argument then you might as well argue against firearm ownership because some people will do bad things.
The fact is that the only answer to this issue rests in determining when CONSCIOUSNESS begins, but neither side will pursue that because they’re afraid of the ramifications of an answer.
Its still murder
I agree with Tim--if you have incestuous sex- grow up, raise the baby. If we abort children on that case for medical conditions, other children will be aborted for medical conditions. EVERY LIFE MATTERS!!!
What about WINCEST
This guy is BASED.
This dude is a clown who only ever talks to random people whom he's triggered into yelling at him on the street.
TIM INTERRRUPTS! "BU BU BU BU BUT....." "NONONONONO....."
It’s not a baby till 20 weeks
This is why the right and left are the same neither base’s there arguments on science .
the protection of the baby is the mothers option until the baby no longer needs her body to survive, before that time, it is up her her to continue its life or not, that is how life works. get over it.. the females have been given this sole responsibility in life...
the duty of a mother is to protect her children. there is no more important role in life and none of our feelings matter compared to it.
I wish Seamus was here
I was told my baby had a neural tube disorder and offered an abortion. I said no. He was born 100% healthy, nothing wrong with him! I just spent the weekend with my 36yo married son, who has given me three beautiful grandchildren with another on the way. There's a reason that doctors have a practice. They don't know everything.
It's the beginning of winter in northern Canada, and it will be -30C outdoors for the next 5 months. Through your neglect to lock the door on your property (when you went on a vacation, or maybe your 2nd property that you haven't visited in a few days), a squatter walks in and decides to stay until summer. If you kick him out, he freezes to death. Should you be allowed to kick out the squatter? And is it murder if you do?
To whomever it isn't clear, this is an analogy for an accidental pregnancy.
My point here is, it's possible for a thing to be both your right to do, and for you exercising that right to be morally abhorrent. There is much more nuance to this discussion than "murder bad".