Where does she stand on gay marriage or LGBTQ rights? She claims to be for the rights of the few and voiceless that are being discriminated against so I wonder if that applies to everyone?
@@Whitewolf1984pI was going to dive into it in the off chance that I could find her being pro LGBTQ or even just LGB but I can’t bring myself to actually consume any of her content. I tried… but just no.
They could simply argue that them committing such and such crime would have made them forfeit their rights to life and so its moral to kill that person to protect society. Not my position but I could see that point being made here.
It is not murder, murder is literally the unlawful homicide (killing of a person). If it is not against the law, it is not murder. Stop using murder to stir up emotions, there are plenty of good arguments against the death penalty.
Being Northern European I also see it as state sanctioned murder, but legally, it really isn't. If they have the death penalty then in those particular cases, it is truly now unlawful to kill those particular persons, hence it truly isn't state sanctioned murder. To be classified as murder, it has to be against the law, which the death penalty - legally - isn't. So can we continue to see it as state sanctioned murder? Sure, but legally it will never be.
I laughed so hard when she compared a woman consenting to a medical procedure, to a guy stabbing a pregnant woman (not consenting, mind you), who might or not have wanted to do get an abortion... ´Plus, they never explain the reasons why someone might want an abortion, nor at what time frame in that unborn human´s development most abortions happen, nor how developped it is at each stage (heart, brain, pain receptors, etc).
_she compared a woman consenting to a medical procedure, to a guy stabbing a pregnant woman (not consenting, mind you)_ Yeah, this is always a good one. Since the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, it's a fair assumption that a pregnant person in a later trimester _wants_ the child (even if the intent is to give it up for adoption) and that the child would have been born just fine, thus the child can be feasibly argued as a second victim. At the same time, though, I doubt many pro-choice people would complain if a judge said, "Did you want the child? No? Then it's only one count of stabbing, not two."
@@thetimekeeper955 Exactly. The vast majority of women who allow a pregnancy to go that far want the child, and the abortion is s medically necessary catastrophe that she and her doctor can't help. Anti-abortionists are just morons.
(Psst. I'm not certain the cult she was brainwashed by from birth understands the concepts of consent or human rights. Which explains pretty much everything.)
Let's keep it simple. No one has memories of being in the womb. It's not as if the unborn child knows their family and has been seeing them everyday for years. They act like you're killing a 90 year old man who's lived his life, but the baby hasn't developed those memories or emotions. It won't know it was taken out of the world early.
the NHS had some sort of advisory quota system (so like a target that wasn't required and which failure to achieve had no punishment) on how many births could be c sections to promote natural births. There was a problem with it in one surgery where they took it too seriously, and getting rid of it has apparently had basically no effect on newborn deaths. Not seeing it tbh
I once responded to a UA-cam comment where the commenter kept using the word 'baby' to describe a zygote, embryo or whatever stage. After I showed him a picture of an actual zygote he suddenly stopped using the word 'baby'. Almost as if he knew he was ridiculous.
Abortion IS NOT murder. Abortion IS NOT infanticide. The aborted fetus is not a human being yet. Hearing that bad excuse of an human being, you'd come to the conclusion that any abortion would be done AGAINST the will of the expecting mother. That the abortion would be forced upon peoples by some agency.
@@SimonWoodburyForget A fetus is not a real human being until birth. There is a BIG difference between removing a fetus from the womb and pulling the plug on someone in an hospital. The fetus get it's life support out of someone. Before birth, the fetus is essentially existing as a parasite.
@@SimonWoodburyForget when the entire book's worth of Anti-Abortion Talking Points is based on *when* the Fertilized Egg or Fetus becomes a human being and where the very arbitrary line is drawn in the hypothetical sand. Yes, whether or not a fetus is a human being is relevant to the discussion... since that's what the entire debate revolves around. Trying to claim it isn't when it's what the entire debate ultimately revolves around is muddying the water like both of your comments are, you absolute clown.
@Crickett Aug 3, 2022 Under Georgia law, fetuses now have “full legal recognition” as living people. That means their parents can claim them as dependents on their tax returns - even before delivery. The state’s department of revenue said that it would begin recognizing “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat … as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption” - amounting to $3,000.
@Simon WoodburyForget no not past tense was, is alive. As conservatives see a fetus as a living human. A pregnant woman in 2022 who doesn't deliver until 2023, should by their viewpoint be able to claim it on their 2022 taxes. Maybe I should of put it like George Carlin, "if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them?"
@Simon WoodburyForget when a person dies, they are still counted that fiscal year for taxes. You may treat a child who was born alive or died as having lived with you for more than half of the year if your main home was (or would have been) the child's main home for more than half of the time he or she was alive. So if a woman has three miscarriages in a year. As they "were" living humans, does she then get to claim three depends for that year?
Whatever you think about abortion, you need to understand that abortion is healthcare. Not allowing abortion puts the lives of women AND fetuses at risk. Women die because of this lack of healthcare access.
And it shouldn't be anyone else's business but the pregnant individual and their doctor. We shouldn't be having this discussion because nobody else needs to know and nobody else gets to have a say. Allow people to talk to their doctors and get their own medical treatment with their own doctors without anyone else's input because it isn't anyone else's business.
i like to extend that to an entire case of dozens of frozen embryos. so that they have to confront the idea of saving numerous unborn vs a single infant screaming in pain and fear.
I've always thought of it as useful, if they're going to redefine terms, to refer to 'abortions' as 'pre-natal adoption'. The woman is giving up the unborn child for adoption, and it's not _her_ fault if the government can't keep the fetus alive, just as it wouldn't be if the child had a fatal kidney disease and the mother was the only person on Earth who was a matching donor.
Big problem i have with pro life people is every argument i hear, when I talk to them, is based on emotion or is pure fiction. My aunt was trying to convince me to be prolife when i was 17 and showed me a video that was 100% propaganda about fetuses being blended and such and i looked up the company after and found that the video was fake and was made to push their views. The lady also never made an argument based on science just how she felt.
I'm pro choice btw, but my brother is pro life. I believe that the fetus is alive. However, I believe that the convenience of people can outweigh the lives of other. This is why I believe that death can be a moral punishment. Saying that the fetus is not alive is just wrong. It is alive, but we kill plenty of living things. End of the day, I think that if you're using abortion as a way to not have to use birth control, you're scummy. That being said, it must be legal.
Another annoying thing they constantly do is not think about what they say at all, even when its all emotional jargon. They will say they want whats best for children, and then I ask them what anti-abortion does to help children and their brain literally breaks down
In my opinion, it is a logical matter. Both the baby and the mother have the right to live. If the baby endangers the mother, then, logically, the mother should be able to protect her right to life. What I don‘t get is how abortion is justified in other instances, the baby isn‘t endangering the mother, so it has the right to live. That‘s my opinion at least
@@hexstealth7035 the fetus does not have the right to use the woman's body. If the woman simply just does not want to give birth she has every right to remove it from her body because the fetus does not have the right to use her body. No one ever has the right to use another person's body.
I've seen a few videos covering this woman. Near as I can tell, she thinks being loud, emotional, and smug somehow makes her point for her, even when she's lying her head off.
My wife just commented that this woman sounds a lot like the voice actor for Rocky the Flying Squirrel in the old cartoon show. Now I can't unhear it. Hope you all can't either now, too.
They are very formulaic, and don't seem to get how mindless that makes them sound to people who are not inclined to agree or are vulnerable enough to their babbling to not notice...
Happy New Year Professor Stick and faithful followers...Why are there so many people like her in this world that think their opinion is the correct one? Get a life and worry more about what is in your coffee in the morning...
Far too many people think that they aren't just entitled to _have_ an opinion, but that they have the right to _force_ that opinion on others, just because they can give what they _think_ are reasons for it. They don't get what counts as evidence or rational discussion...
Oh Stick, you kinda missed it on the pregnant woman/roller coaster analogy. Pregnant women already are barred from roller coasters because of possible injury to her or the fetus. Also because the lap bars and belts may not fit correctly and protect them.
Huh... I guess she's never met a disabled person or knows anything about the history and current state of individuals with serious mental health conditions... Maybe she's seen a homeless person either... Idk?
Also they don’t care if the mother can actually care for the infant or give her support to actually help care for it for all their talk of caring about unborn fetuses they sure don’t care about kids actually alive especially those in overcrowded orphanages or on the streets
@@irrelevant_noob And you are overestimating the sort of lifeform that would want to breed with something like this without spontaneously combusting due to shame.
This would be a whole other video, but here's a slight change to the title of the video: If the death penalty is legal, murder will be too! No idea why I thought the internet needed this, because it really doesn't.
Professor Stick, great video. The lie that angers me the most is that 'they' can and will murder a baby that is viable outside the womb. If it's that late, it's probably already dead, or not viable for some other reason! And usually tragic. Being accused of murdering your baby, just because it was brain dead, or has no skin, or brain, etc. is just cruelty, and vicious! Have a much better New Year! 👍💙💖🥰✌
You get to call yourself pro-life if the following applies to you: 1. You are against all wars. 2. You are against capital punishment. 3. You are willing to give away any internal organ that wont kill you if missing to save the life of another. 4. You are available to adopt a child 24/7. If not, you are anti-abortion.
I always found it interesting when pro-lifers were asked if they would support mandatory vaccination. The usual answer: no, under no circumstances, because bodily autonomy. They want to have bodily autonomy, but they have not problem refusing if for others. The very definition of double standards.
Wonderful video as always, thank you for uploading. I hope you have a good day. And I hope everyone else in the comment section has a good day as well.
@@irrelevant_noob that's the standard system in China, Korea, and a few other Asian countries primarily. You do know what google is, right? Would've taken less effort than typing that reply to my comment. Not every country uses the same age system. Korea for example, traditionally you are 1 as soon as you're born, and turn 2 January 1st the year after you're born, regardless of the month and day you were born. So a child born on December 31st would be 2 years old the very next day. They just started scrapping that system because of the confusion it caused when Koreans would interact with those outside their country. How about you try to learn something yourself instead of basking in your own ignorance.
@@jameshall1300 that's interesting... but i shudder to think of their doctors and/or researchers, having to triple-check what age groups any particular reference intervals were for. 😵
Forced-Birth people always appeal to emotions. My personal "favorite" is the idiotic "That child could've cured cancer!" one, because they expect every child unborn to be a perfect little angel of righteousness and virtue with blond hair and blue eyes, not some deformed mess with no skin or something. That idiotic appeal gets worse when you understand that the kind of Great Person they would want to see is exactly the kind of person moral human beings wish they could build a time machine to go back and strangle in their crib. Cue the "Don't boo, I've seen what makes you cheer" bit. Also? Never call them pro-life. They're against life. They're pro forced birth. Only. Ever.
i’ve never understood why people think a baby is a living being at conception. the main problem is the baby is not conscious therefore theres no pain or active experience. dead people have cells and organs does that mean that we shouldn’t bury them because it’s immoral too
I think this whole argument will always be steeped in emotion. I know people who have flipped from one side to the other purely based on their experience of a personal event or situation 🤷♀️
My parents used this argument on Thanksgiving. "If abortion becomes legal, who's to stop murdering your mom becoming legal?" Then, something about Hitler making murder of Jewish people legal.
Is this the same woman that was on Shark Tank pedaling the soap balls and told Robert that he'd have to work 24 hrs per day for an investment? Looks and sounds like her.
I love how she talks about human rights but the same people that claim to be “pro-life” are also anti-universal healthcare, anti-food stamps, anti-education, and against affordable housing. Human rights don’t include health care, education, food and shelter in their minds apparently.
I realised that their logic is to consider the choices for the fetus, but not the mother's. So clearly they didn't care about the pregnant woman carrying it
Hey, guess her problem is that it isn´t free healthcare... Good on her, no medical procedure should only be available if you have money (comment contains heavy doses of sarcasm).
"words construct our very thoughts and ideas" Like when far right grifters redefine abortion as murder which certainly constructed this lady's ideas...
Yeah, it says if you suspect one of your wives to be cheating you can take her to the local priest and he'll make a concoction that will cause "the thigh in her womb to fall out". They seem to forget that part, or conveniently gloss over it to suit their agenda of stripping what few rights women and other groups have in many places
How many places would you get double homicide if you killed a woman with a 20 week old foetus? In a lot of places you get extra time for assault leading to the death of a foetus (usually if it is older) as far as I know it generally isn’t considered murder. First degree murder in a lot of places gets you life without parole so what would the extra homicide charge do in that case?
Not sure about the US, but here in Germany surgery is basically illegal, as it is by law seen as bodily harm to the person (similar to stabbing, your skin is cut open). You need to sign off a letter declaring that you are OK with this surgery, with this planned "bodily harm". However no rule without exception: if the person cannot give his consent, but would die or be severely harmed by the injuries (so usually cases of accidents), the surgeon can act in good faith, similar to self defense (self defense laws are also applicable if you defend another person).
So who is going to take care of these children that for some reason or another are not wanted. You want to press this issue, but you forget to fix our current "system" involving the children that might go up for adoption? We all know that many of these same people who demand to eliminate the choice will not adopt one of these unfortunate victims of these laws. Let's not forget that some of these very same political figureheads may have taken advantage of abortion in the past. Who's to say they won't drive out of state for their daughter or heaven forbid an affair partner?
The ”profitable abortion industry” ⁉️ The real profit is in all of the overpriced accessories for babies. It's not like there are abortion clinics in every plaza like a tanning or nail salon. It's a subset of obstetrics and gynecology.
Equal rights. What gives the fetus the right to use the woman’s body without her consent. If we’re talking about equal rights for a fetus then the mother should also get to decide if said fetus is allowed to “use” her body. No one has the right to use anyone’s body without their consent for any reason. That includes fetuses.
Don't these idiots already realize murder is already legal. Stand your ground laws, castle laws, self defense laws. They're there to protect life. Much like an abortion is needed in some cases to protect the woman carrying the fetus.
Minor point, but roller coasters do in fact have warnings telling pregnant people not to ride... but it's for the same reason they tell people with heart conditions not to ride, not because they're counting them as two people.
Or the same reason many coasters have height floors (a lot around 48") and caps (often around the 6'2" to 6'8" vicinity) which means I can't go to the theme park in Demonias or this goth girl's too tall and slow moving for fun.
If I were playing devils advocate, I'd ask this: Could a human baby survive without "leeching off of the mother" or some other provider? Being born doesn't make you less of a leech. You're essentially just wirelessly leeching. 🤷♂️
Maybe it doesn’t make them less of a leech, but the mother who is raising a child outside of the womb don’t face the same risks to physical/mental health as they would when carrying the pregnancy to term. In other words, a mother already raising a child and isn’t pregnant aren’t at risk for pregnancy-related complications.
The baby can be fed formula. It doesn't need to use another person's body to survive. It's high maintenance, but it can eat, drink, breath, and expel waste on its own. It just needs assistance to do it correctly.
The bottom line is that making abortion illegal does not statistically save more lives than it ends. We have statistics from countries that have done it, more people die from unnecessarily risky abortions and complications from forced pregnancies. Simple fact I keep in my pocket.
To say that fetuses are humans are to call apples cider because they can become cider, no? If this just comes off as a straw man argument, I'll delete it.
Let's back up a step. We're talking about a zygote, blastocyst, or fetus being illegal to remove from someone's body. This is a mass that is made of human cells but does not [yet] have enough pieces to be a living being by itself. IF its illegal to remove THAT... wouldn't it follow that its also illegal to remove a kidney or bone marrow or a cancerous mass? I mean, those things too are made of human cells but do not have enough pieces to be living beings on their own. I mean come on. The first mass of cells we should be worried about is the pregnant woman herself. At the very LEAST, if she didn't have a choice in that conception or the pregnancy will harm her, doesn't that take precedence here?
About the comment she made about pro-life, but anti-mandate, I have personally heard people make that argument. Even if it's a minority of people who think it's a good argument, she has certainly heard it too, given her public platform being perfect for attracting fringe cases.
Ultimately, granting a fetus the same rights and status as any other human being means nothing in whether or not we should allow abortions, and we should allow them. If we even pretend to care about individual rights, such as the right to self determination with regards to our own bodies, then access to abortion is a must. The only arguments I've ever heard against the violinist argument (effectively what Stick brings up in the video) have been to either do away with the concept of individual rights over one's body or to suggest that, in spite of saying the unborn should have the same rights as everyone else, the unborn have the right to supersede another human being's control over their own body.
Infanticide... right. Let's ignore the fact that an unborn is not called an infant, but a fetus. Literally her first sentence after the introduction and I've already lost hope she'll have a valid point at all. But then to put insult to injury, she calls out people at 4:58 for changing the definition of words to make their arguments valid.
From when first used in the bible as a scapegoat for jealous husbands to legally abort his own child for alleged unfaithfulness it has not changed.What god allegadely created cannot be undone and is not murder if valid medical reasons for termination.
The comments on the original video are delusional. "So glad a woman is speaking out about this and being so strong!" Imagine calling a woman strong because she is advocating for having less rights as a human. Holy moly, you cannot make this up.
Greetings. You forgot to mention on how a fetus or a child in the womb is developed that could lead to complications that could lead a mother to her death that an abortion is needed. If no abortion is allowed, and the mother is not given the right to do so, who should be taking responsibility for one or both death
This will never stop amazing me.. the pro-life movement are dumb.. I could have found 6 or 7 better points to argue against.. and I'm pro-choice!! Stay strong little brother
I think you handled this very emotive subject very well Stick. There obviously has to be a point where we draw the line, like you say, an egg or sperm are just human beings that are at an earlier state of development, protecting them in law would be insane, likewise, to deny a newly born baby of those protections would be wrong, meaning there is some point where a line must be drawn. In my opinion, you quite rightly draw attention to the fact that in order to survive, a foetus must draw resources from it's mother and therefor is not independent of her and as such, is therefore part of her body. Of course, there also comes a point where a baby born prematurely can survive, and medical science is pushing that date further and further back. I would say that the cut off point for abortions should be based largely upon whether that life would be viable outside of the mother. I realise that as the science behind keeping premature babies alive advances, that is storing up a problem for a few decades time, but there really is no perfect solution to this. My own personal beliefs are that I would prefer if there were no abortions, but I would also prefer if women had the right to choose, and by that, I don't just mean legally, but there should also be no moral judgement from society either, of course, that is probably an unreachable ideal. Hope this makes sense as I know it got a bit rambly.
yes, that's why in most (all?) countries there is a time limit for abortion. It's a sort of balance between the rights of the woman and the rights of the going-to-be-a-baby. But I think it's more of an empathy thing, as most people would be upset in seeing a near-birth fetus being aborted.
@@vihai I heard that even in the US not many states allow such late abortions. And how many of the abortions happen that late. I'm also not happy about such late abortions, but we are talking probably of a smal minority. And I agree that there should be an earlier time limit, but to be honest, I have not the necessary knowledge to judge whether it should be 2,3 or 5-6 months. But many people with even less knowledge than I have want to set rules.
The problem I have with this pro/anti abortion thing is that I feel like it all hinges on when the fetus becomes a life. No one really knows when that is because no one really knows what life is. Is it the soul? Is it consciousness? What is consciousness? Etc. That being said since no one knows it's not that unreasonable to make The somewhat safe assumption that it happens at conception. Now personally I'm pro whatever anybody else wants to do but I can definitely see a point of view where somebody would think that a aborting a fetus is taking a life.
At the time of conception it's a bunch of cells. And it's not even clear if the body doesn't abort the cell cluster itself. In engineering we wouldn't call that a safe assumption, but a conservative assumption. The problem: sometimes you are too conservative making problems bigger than they need to be. And I agree, that at a certain point in time, a cell cluster is not a cell cluster anymore, but an organism with blood flow and nerves. Is it then already a human? I don't know, but so do those people how want to draw red lines and set up rules. A German satire artist once said about the Pope and sex: "The Pope makes rules for a game he is blocked". And pro-lifers do exactly the same: they want to draw red lines where noone actually knows where red lines have to be, those people even less than other. How come people want to make statements and make rules for topics they have no clue in? I wonder if those people would make rules for let's say civil engineering, bulidng houses and bridges. Noone would take them serious, because they have no clue, how is talking about a cell cluster becoming a human any different? BTW: many pro-lifers are Christians and claim that they are against abortions because god and bible. That tells me they have never read the bible, because the bible makes clear statements of how to carry out an abortion.
@@johnscaramis2515 Well I think in this case safe and conservative can be considered synonyms. If someone's trying to ensure that a life isn't taken being conservative would be the safe option. How do we know that that cluster cells isn't a new life? Like I said in order to know that we would have to know for a fact what life actually is which we don't. As far as the Bible describing how to carry out abortion that's, like so many things in the Bible, seriously up to interpretation. The Bible also fairly clearly describes how The Christian God knows a person before they are born etc so again that's up to interpretation. Personally I feel like abortions one of those things that is really up to each individual person to determine their own philosophical point of view on. That being said I can see why people would feel strongly both ways about it.
As ways I agree with pretty much everything you've said. However, the last point was very weak as a pro-lifer could just say well "the unborn human being didn't chose to be put in that situation so you can't just take it's life away because it has no say in the matter" or something along those stupid lines..just a thought 🤔
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 one that makes her want to abort. Or makes her see the need for them that will do.let her come out the other end unscathed.with a healthy baby. Just get her to feel/see.if she is a hard arse…. Well than all bets are of far as i am concerned
Super pedantic minor quibble: for airlines children under 2 years of age can ride in the lap of their paying legal guardian. As such a fetus would qualify as “under 2”. Really nitpicky, your point still stands. Keep up the good work 😊
I'm in an odd place on this topic, as I am pro choice though I also think if they didn't want to get pregnant they shoulda kept their bits to themselves. But personal feelings it is up to every person to pick what they feel is right for them not for other people to demand someone to pick what they want you to do. I'm kinda against stupid people having children and sadly those aren't the ones aborted
3:48 "the misconception that the fetus is its own being completely detached from the mother", feels a bit like a straw man argument. 3:52 I think you missed the ball here, "the fetus is part of the woman's body". Medically a fetus is considered a parasite I believe, and legally it is also considered separate (not detached), as she demonstrated with the double homicide law. Comparing a fetus to your arm is kind of absurd. A fetus is developing its own independent organs, digestive, musculature, nervous and other systems. Your arm is connected in several ways to the rest of your body, a fetus clearly is not.
Where does she stand on gay marriage or LGBTQ rights? She claims to be for the rights of the few and voiceless that are being discriminated against so I wonder if that applies to everyone?
Oh you know she's against it
Yeah no... she is obviously against gay marriage and such.
Bet 100% she's against all of it.
If she isn't ill eat my phone live on UA-cam.
Just like with all those Freeze Peach "absolutists": Rights for me, not for thee.
@@Whitewolf1984pI was going to dive into it in the off chance that I could find her being pro LGBTQ or even just LGB but I can’t bring myself to actually consume any of her content. I tried… but just no.
And don't forget that some states still have the death sentence... literally state sanctioned murder
@@SimonWoodburyForget You’d be surprised
They could simply argue that them committing such and such crime would have made them forfeit their rights to life and so its moral to kill that person to protect society.
Not my position but I could see that point being made here.
It is not murder, murder is literally the unlawful homicide (killing of a person). If it is not against the law, it is not murder. Stop using murder to stir up emotions, there are plenty of good arguments against the death penalty.
@@SimonWoodburyForget Most of them seem to be for it.
Being Northern European I also see it as state sanctioned murder, but legally, it really isn't. If they have the death penalty then in those particular cases, it is truly now unlawful to kill those particular persons, hence it truly isn't state sanctioned murder. To be classified as murder, it has to be against the law, which the death penalty - legally - isn't.
So can we continue to see it as state sanctioned murder? Sure, but legally it will never be.
I laughed so hard when she compared a woman consenting to a medical procedure, to a guy stabbing a pregnant woman (not consenting, mind you), who might or not have wanted to do get an abortion... ´Plus, they never explain the reasons why someone might want an abortion, nor at what time frame in that unborn human´s development most abortions happen, nor how developped it is at each stage (heart, brain, pain receptors, etc).
_she compared a woman consenting to a medical procedure, to a guy stabbing a pregnant woman (not consenting, mind you)_
Yeah, this is always a good one. Since the vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, it's a fair assumption that a pregnant person in a later trimester _wants_ the child (even if the intent is to give it up for adoption) and that the child would have been born just fine, thus the child can be feasibly argued as a second victim. At the same time, though, I doubt many pro-choice people would complain if a judge said, "Did you want the child? No? Then it's only one count of stabbing, not two."
@@thetimekeeper955 Exactly. The vast majority of women who allow a pregnancy to go that far want the child, and the abortion is s medically necessary catastrophe that she and her doctor can't help. Anti-abortionists are just morons.
(Psst. I'm not certain the cult she was brainwashed by from birth understands the concepts of consent or human rights. Which explains pretty much everything.)
Let's keep it simple. No one has memories of being in the womb. It's not as if the unborn child knows their family and has been seeing them everyday for years. They act like you're killing a 90 year old man who's lived his life, but the baby hasn't developed those memories or emotions. It won't know it was taken out of the world early.
@@trm4life Nobody has memories of getting murdered either. Sounds like a 0 IQ argument to me
I remember reading about how in, I believe it was UK, they banned C sections, which resulted in more stillborns and mothers dying as a result.
In Turkey its the case
In the uk there was a limitation
the NHS had some sort of advisory quota system (so like a target that wasn't required and which failure to achieve had no punishment) on how many births could be c sections to promote natural births. There was a problem with it in one surgery where they took it too seriously, and getting rid of it has apparently had basically no effect on newborn deaths. Not seeing it tbh
Hahaha
I once responded to a UA-cam comment where the commenter kept using the word 'baby' to describe a zygote, embryo or whatever stage. After I showed him a picture of an actual zygote he suddenly stopped using the word 'baby'. Almost as if he knew he was ridiculous.
People who’re prolife in my experience really just don’t know or are actively ignoring the truth because it makes them feel like they’re in the right
Abortion IS NOT murder. Abortion IS NOT infanticide. The aborted fetus is not a human being yet.
Hearing that bad excuse of an human being, you'd come to the conclusion that any abortion would be done AGAINST the will of the expecting mother. That the abortion would be forced upon peoples by some agency.
@@SimonWoodburyForget A fetus is not a real human being until birth.
There is a BIG difference between removing a fetus from the womb and pulling the plug on someone in an hospital.
The fetus get it's life support out of someone. Before birth, the fetus is essentially existing as a parasite.
@@SimonWoodburyForget when the entire book's worth of Anti-Abortion Talking Points is based on *when* the Fertilized Egg or Fetus becomes a human being and where the very arbitrary line is drawn in the hypothetical sand. Yes, whether or not a fetus is a human being is relevant to the discussion... since that's what the entire debate revolves around.
Trying to claim it isn't when it's what the entire debate ultimately revolves around is muddying the water like both of your comments are, you absolute clown.
Did anyone else note that her voice was like cleaning your ears with an ice pick?…
Oh good I'm not the only one
If a fetus is alive, why can't they be claimed on taxes...
If the fetus is alive, and tge mother kills someone, can we charge it for the assist?
Does it get 25% EXP?
@@BluePhoenix_ 🤦♂️
@Crickett Aug 3, 2022 Under Georgia law, fetuses now have “full legal recognition” as living people. That means their parents can claim them as dependents on their tax returns - even before delivery.
The state’s department of revenue said that it would begin recognizing “any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat … as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption” - amounting to $3,000.
@Simon WoodburyForget no not past tense was, is alive. As conservatives see a fetus as a living human. A pregnant woman in 2022 who doesn't deliver until 2023, should by their viewpoint be able to claim it on their 2022 taxes.
Maybe I should of put it like George Carlin, "if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them?"
@Simon WoodburyForget when a person dies, they are still counted that fiscal year for taxes. You may treat a child who was born alive or died as having lived with you for more than half of the year if your main home was (or would have been) the child's main home for more than half of the time he or she was alive. So if a woman has three miscarriages in a year. As they "were" living humans, does she then get to claim three depends for that year?
Whatever you think about abortion, you need to understand that abortion is healthcare. Not allowing abortion puts the lives of women AND fetuses at risk. Women die because of this lack of healthcare access.
And it shouldn't be anyone else's business but the pregnant individual and their doctor. We shouldn't be having this discussion because nobody else needs to know and nobody else gets to have a say. Allow people to talk to their doctors and get their own medical treatment with their own doctors without anyone else's input because it isn't anyone else's business.
If you had to save a baby, or a fetus in a petri dish from a burning hospital, which one do you save? You can only choose one.
i like to extend that to an entire case of dozens of frozen embryos. so that they have to confront the idea of saving numerous unborn vs a single infant screaming in pain and fear.
I've always thought of it as useful, if they're going to redefine terms, to refer to 'abortions' as 'pre-natal adoption'. The woman is giving up the unborn child for adoption, and it's not _her_ fault if the government can't keep the fetus alive, just as it wouldn't be if the child had a fatal kidney disease and the mother was the only person on Earth who was a matching donor.
Big problem i have with pro life people is every argument i hear, when I talk to them, is based on emotion or is pure fiction. My aunt was trying to convince me to be prolife when i was 17 and showed me a video that was 100% propaganda about fetuses being blended and such and i looked up the company after and found that the video was fake and was made to push their views. The lady also never made an argument based on science just how she felt.
I'm pro choice btw, but my brother is pro life. I believe that the fetus is alive. However, I believe that the convenience of people can outweigh the lives of other. This is why I believe that death can be a moral punishment. Saying that the fetus is not alive is just wrong. It is alive, but we kill plenty of living things. End of the day, I think that if you're using abortion as a way to not have to use birth control, you're scummy. That being said, it must be legal.
Another annoying thing they constantly do is not think about what they say at all, even when its all emotional jargon.
They will say they want whats best for children, and then I ask them what anti-abortion does to help children and their brain literally breaks down
In my opinion, it is a logical matter.
Both the baby and the mother have the right to live. If the baby endangers the mother, then, logically, the mother should be able to protect her right to life. What I don‘t get is how abortion is justified in other instances, the baby isn‘t endangering the mother, so it has the right to live. That‘s my opinion at least
@@hexstealth7035 the fetus does not have the right to use the woman's body. If the woman simply just does not want to give birth she has every right to remove it from her body because the fetus does not have the right to use her body.
No one ever has the right to use another person's body.
I just don't want eugenics.
I've seen a few videos covering this woman. Near as I can tell, she thinks being loud, emotional, and smug somehow makes her point for her, even when she's lying her head off.
My wife just commented that this woman sounds a lot like the voice actor for Rocky the Flying Squirrel in the old cartoon show. Now I can't unhear it. Hope you all can't either now, too.
Thank you for that! It really fits, doesn't it!
Am I the only one who gets the feeling that all those online conservatives I keep seeing speak the same way? With the same entonation and mannerisms
They are very formulaic, and don't seem to get how mindless that makes them sound to people who are not inclined to agree or are vulnerable enough to their babbling to not notice...
It's almost like they are characters in an RPG, for example, that are not controlled by a player.
Or an exotic bird known to be able to mimic speech.
I don't know why they think forcing someone to sustain a pregnancy is keeping the fetus safe. Desperate people do desperate things.
Happy New Year Professor Stick and faithful followers...Why are there so many people like her in this world that think their opinion is the correct one? Get a life and worry more about what is in your coffee in the morning...
Far too many people think that they aren't just entitled to _have_ an opinion, but that they have the right to _force_ that opinion on others, just because they can give what they _think_ are reasons for it. They don't get what counts as evidence or rational discussion...
Very good cover on this, I always like your opinion on topics. I like the way you compare it, always good stick.
Oh Stick, you kinda missed it on the pregnant woman/roller coaster analogy. Pregnant women already are barred from roller coasters because of possible injury to her or the fetus. Also because the lap bars and belts may not fit correctly and protect them.
Huh... I guess she's never met a disabled person or knows anything about the history and current state of individuals with serious mental health conditions... Maybe she's seen a homeless person either... Idk?
Also they don’t care if the mother can actually care for the infant or give her support to actually help care for it for all their talk of caring about unborn fetuses they sure don’t care about kids actually alive especially those in overcrowded orphanages or on the streets
"Preach" is the perfect word for what she does. Not inform, not teach, not debate or discuss. Just preaching bs
It's very obvious that this woman is single and always will be.
Meh, you're underestimating the drives of her potential mates... 🤷♂
@@irrelevant_noob And you are overestimating the sort of lifeform that would want to breed with something like this without spontaneously combusting due to shame.
@@tomcameron96 you do know... there are shameless people all around us, right?
@@irrelevant_noob Maybe true, I'd like to believe that there are good people in this world.
@@irrelevant_noob Or the religious fundamentalist who will marry her specifically because she's well... yeah
This would be a whole other video, but here's a slight change to the title of the video:
If the death penalty is legal, murder will be too!
No idea why I thought the internet needed this, because it really doesn't.
4:56 _"Change the definition of words …"_
So according to her, an acorn is an oak tree?
Professor Stick, great video. The lie that angers me the most is that 'they' can and will murder a baby that is viable outside the womb. If it's that late, it's probably already dead, or not viable for some other reason! And usually tragic. Being accused of murdering your baby, just because it was brain dead, or has no skin, or brain, etc. is just cruelty, and vicious! Have a much better New Year! 👍💙💖🥰✌
You get to call yourself pro-life if the following applies to you:
1. You are against all wars.
2. You are against capital punishment.
3. You are willing to give away any internal organ that wont kill you if missing to save the life of another.
4. You are available to adopt a child 24/7.
If not, you are anti-abortion.
I always found it interesting when pro-lifers were asked if they would support mandatory vaccination.
The usual answer: no, under no circumstances, because bodily autonomy.
They want to have bodily autonomy, but they have not problem refusing if for others.
The very definition of double standards.
Wonderful video as always, thank you for uploading. I hope you have a good day. And I hope everyone else in the comment section has a good day as well.
I hope you have a good day as well, fam!!
If life beings at conception;
Why do we only start counting age after birth?
Because life doesn't begin a conception life began 3.7 billion years ago and never stopped.
Not every country does actually. There are some where you're considered 1 year old at birth to include the time spent in the womb.
@@jameshall1300 [citation needed]
@@irrelevant_noob that's the standard system in China, Korea, and a few other Asian countries primarily. You do know what google is, right? Would've taken less effort than typing that reply to my comment. Not every country uses the same age system. Korea for example, traditionally you are 1 as soon as you're born, and turn 2 January 1st the year after you're born, regardless of the month and day you were born. So a child born on December 31st would be 2 years old the very next day. They just started scrapping that system because of the confusion it caused when Koreans would interact with those outside their country. How about you try to learn something yourself instead of basking in your own ignorance.
@@jameshall1300 that's interesting... but i shudder to think of their doctors and/or researchers, having to triple-check what age groups any particular reference intervals were for. 😵
Forced-Birth people always appeal to emotions. My personal "favorite" is the idiotic "That child could've cured cancer!" one, because they expect every child unborn to be a perfect little angel of righteousness and virtue with blond hair and blue eyes, not some deformed mess with no skin or something. That idiotic appeal gets worse when you understand that the kind of Great Person they would want to see is exactly the kind of person moral human beings wish they could build a time machine to go back and strangle in their crib.
Cue the "Don't boo, I've seen what makes you cheer" bit. Also? Never call them pro-life. They're against life. They're pro forced birth. Only. Ever.
i’ve never understood why people think a baby is a living being at conception. the main problem is the baby is not conscious therefore theres no pain or active experience. dead people have cells and organs does that mean that we shouldn’t bury them because it’s immoral too
Ive got nothing to add. You did a great job
Abortion makes me sad. But that's not a reason to prohibit it.
I think this whole argument will always be steeped in emotion. I know people who have flipped from one side to the other purely based on their experience of a personal event or situation 🤷♀️
My parents used this argument on Thanksgiving. "If abortion becomes legal, who's to stop murdering your mom becoming legal?" Then, something about Hitler making murder of Jewish people legal.
She’s not confused. “KD Lang impersonators” is the female version of “Sissy boy.” It’s simple homophobic conspiracy bigotry covered by “Humor.”
Is this the same woman that was on Shark Tank pedaling the soap balls and told Robert that he'd have to work 24 hrs per day for an investment? Looks and sounds like her.
I love how she talks about human rights but the same people that claim to be “pro-life” are also anti-universal healthcare, anti-food stamps, anti-education, and against affordable housing.
Human rights don’t include health care, education, food and shelter in their minds apparently.
This ruling doesn't affect half the population. Primarily, it doesn't affect women would never consider an abortion.
What is funny is that she is from Canada.. Even the Canadians want to fleece the American rubes...
Is it just me or is her voice grating?
Very
She could clear a quarry with that voice!
Her voice makes my ears bleed
Extremely grating. And it doesn't help that she's basically shouting.
It is.
I realised that their logic is to consider the choices for the fetus, but not the mother's. So clearly they didn't care about the pregnant woman carrying it
Why is it that nutter people seem so obsessed with lingual fiat? Words change.
And new ones made everyday, like Yeet.
They want give pregnant people less rights than they grant to corpses.
Think about that for a second.
“Grossly profitable abortion industry”?????
Hey, guess her problem is that it isn´t free healthcare... Good on her, no medical procedure should only be available if you have money (comment contains heavy doses of sarcasm).
@@DHPanthony from other comments around here, i think she may be Canadian... and their healthcare _is_ covered by the state.
"words construct our very thoughts and ideas" Like when far right grifters redefine abortion as murder which certainly constructed this lady's ideas...
It's funny she should bring up "parroting."
Her voice is hurting my ears.
I am SO thankful that I do not live in whatever part of the country THAT accent is from.
I want say that accent is upper Midwest. Say... Minnesota or thereabouts
Ahhhhhhhh! The glorious symphony that is nails on a chalkboard!! 😂🤣
She must get a lovely warm feeling when she lies for jeebus.
Boy Stick, that was funny and brutal at the same time.
The bible clearly states that life begins at first breath. It also condones abortion. These people have no ground to stand on.
Yeah, it says if you suspect one of your wives to be cheating you can take her to the local priest and he'll make a concoction that will cause "the thigh in her womb to fall out".
They seem to forget that part, or conveniently gloss over it to suit their agenda of stripping what few rights women and other groups have in many places
How many places would you get double homicide if you killed a woman with a 20 week old foetus? In a lot of places you get extra time for assault leading to the death of a foetus (usually if it is older) as far as I know it generally isn’t considered murder.
First degree murder in a lot of places gets you life without parole so what would the extra homicide charge do in that case?
If surgery is legal then stabbing will be too.
Not sure about the US, but here in Germany surgery is basically illegal, as it is by law seen as bodily harm to the person (similar to stabbing, your skin is cut open). You need to sign off a letter declaring that you are OK with this surgery, with this planned "bodily harm".
However no rule without exception: if the person cannot give his consent, but would die or be severely harmed by the injuries (so usually cases of accidents), the surgeon can act in good faith, similar to self defense (self defense laws are also applicable if you defend another person).
@@johnscaramis2515 well, I was making a joke about the ridiculousness of the subject of the video that Stick was responding to.
So who is going to take care of these children that for some reason or another are not wanted. You want to press this issue, but you forget to fix our current "system" involving the children that might go up for adoption?
We all know that many of these same people who demand to eliminate the choice will not adopt one of these unfortunate victims of these laws. Let's not forget that some of these very same political figureheads may have taken advantage of abortion in the past.
Who's to say they won't drive out of state for their daughter or heaven forbid an affair partner?
The ”profitable abortion industry” ⁉️
The real profit is in all of the overpriced accessories for babies.
It's not like there are abortion clinics in every plaza like a tanning or nail salon. It's a subset of obstetrics and gynecology.
Equal rights. What gives the fetus the right to use the woman’s body without her consent. If we’re talking about equal rights for a fetus then the mother should also get to decide if said fetus is allowed to “use” her body. No one has the right to use anyone’s body without their consent for any reason. That includes fetuses.
If a pregnant women goes swimming does that make her a submarine
Don't these idiots already realize murder is already legal. Stand your ground laws, castle laws, self defense laws. They're there to protect life. Much like an abortion is needed in some cases to protect the woman carrying the fetus.
Minor point, but roller coasters do in fact have warnings telling pregnant people not to ride...
but it's for the same reason they tell people with heart conditions not to ride, not because they're counting them as two people.
Or the same reason many coasters have height floors (a lot around 48") and caps (often around the 6'2" to 6'8" vicinity) which means I can't go to the theme park in Demonias or this goth girl's too tall and slow moving for fun.
HE DONT MISS!!!! THE PROFESSOR DONT MISS!!!!!!
*doesn't
If I were playing devils advocate, I'd ask this:
Could a human baby survive without "leeching off of the mother" or some other provider?
Being born doesn't make you less of a leech. You're essentially just wirelessly leeching. 🤷♂️
Maybe it doesn’t make them less of a leech, but the mother who is raising a child outside of the womb don’t face the same risks to physical/mental health as they would when carrying the pregnancy to term. In other words, a mother already raising a child and isn’t pregnant aren’t at risk for pregnancy-related complications.
The baby can be fed formula. It doesn't need to use another person's body to survive. It's high maintenance, but it can eat, drink, breath, and expel waste on its own. It just needs assistance to do it correctly.
A pregnant woman shouldn't ride in a roller coaster for other reasons.
Is she trying to imitate judge Janine’s shriek or does she have a bad microphone?
The bottom line is that making abortion illegal does not statistically save more lives than it ends. We have statistics from countries that have done it, more people die from unnecessarily risky abortions and complications from forced pregnancies. Simple fact I keep in my pocket.
This is so painful to listen to. Why does she scream-talk the entire time?
The argument presented is similar to the old, "if we let men have sex with men what stops men from having sex with horses?!?!"
Emotional appeal, slippery slopes, and the Bible. These are not even reasons, let alone good ones.
To say that fetuses are humans are to call apples cider because they can become cider, no? If this just comes off as a straw man argument, I'll delete it.
But murder is legal in some instances. That's why Kyle Rittenhouse isn't in prison
Let's back up a step. We're talking about a zygote, blastocyst, or fetus being illegal to remove from someone's body. This is a mass that is made of human cells but does not [yet] have enough pieces to be a living being by itself. IF its illegal to remove THAT... wouldn't it follow that its also illegal to remove a kidney or bone marrow or a cancerous mass? I mean, those things too are made of human cells but do not have enough pieces to be living beings on their own.
I mean come on. The first mass of cells we should be worried about is the pregnant woman herself. At the very LEAST, if she didn't have a choice in that conception or the pregnancy will harm her, doesn't that take precedence here?
About the comment she made about pro-life, but anti-mandate, I have personally heard people make that argument. Even if it's a minority of people who think it's a good argument, she has certainly heard it too, given her public platform being perfect for attracting fringe cases.
Ultimately, granting a fetus the same rights and status as any other human being means nothing in whether or not we should allow abortions, and we should allow them. If we even pretend to care about individual rights, such as the right to self determination with regards to our own bodies, then access to abortion is a must. The only arguments I've ever heard against the violinist argument (effectively what Stick brings up in the video) have been to either do away with the concept of individual rights over one's body or to suggest that, in spite of saying the unborn should have the same rights as everyone else, the unborn have the right to supersede another human being's control over their own body.
Infanticide... right. Let's ignore the fact that an unborn is not called an infant, but a fetus. Literally her first sentence after the introduction and I've already lost hope she'll have a valid point at all. But then to put insult to injury, she calls out people at 4:58 for changing the definition of words to make their arguments valid.
If she's the one "giving voice" to the unborn they are going to grow up with voices annoying AF.
From when first used in the bible as a scapegoat for jealous husbands to legally abort his own child for alleged unfaithfulness it has not changed.What god allegadely created cannot be undone and is not murder if valid medical reasons for termination.
Apparently, shouting at the camera makes your statements more factual!
I found her voice even more annoying than her really bad arguments. Only your commentary made it worth listening to the whole video.
The comments on the original video are delusional. "So glad a woman is speaking out about this and being so strong!"
Imagine calling a woman strong because she is advocating for having less rights as a human. Holy moly, you cannot make this up.
Canada's Karen is back.
Greetings. You forgot to mention on how a fetus or a child in the womb is developed that could lead to complications that could lead a mother to her death that an abortion is needed.
If no abortion is allowed, and the mother is not given the right to do so, who should be taking responsibility for one or both death
Her voice is driving me nuts. She sounds like a female Mike Lindell.
Alternate Title: If Abortions are legal, Appendectomies will be too.
This will never stop amazing me.. the pro-life movement are dumb.. I could have found 6 or 7 better points to argue against.. and I'm pro-choice!! Stay strong little brother
Maybe stick just cherry picked this one person to react to because they had poor arguments?
In that case this would be survivorship bias.
@@beanieteamie7435 hihi noice!!
@@beanieteamie7435 all anti-choice arguments are stupid.
Well in exodus chapter 21 verses 22-23 clearly say that the women's life is more important then the child and it calls the child her fruit
'To the empowerage of words!'
- Piercinald Anastasia Hawthorne.
Have a good one. Stick it to 2023 proff
Oof. This woman and her smoothbrain takes really tempt one to engage in phrenology.
Human rights. The most convoluted practical joke ever played on us! 😝
or... we ever played on ourselves?
I think you handled this very emotive subject very well Stick. There obviously has to be a point where we draw the line, like you say, an egg or sperm are just human beings that are at an earlier state of development, protecting them in law would be insane, likewise, to deny a newly born baby of those protections would be wrong, meaning there is some point where a line must be drawn.
In my opinion, you quite rightly draw attention to the fact that in order to survive, a foetus must draw resources from it's mother and therefor is not independent of her and as such, is therefore part of her body. Of course, there also comes a point where a baby born prematurely can survive, and medical science is pushing that date further and further back. I would say that the cut off point for abortions should be based largely upon whether that life would be viable outside of the mother. I realise that as the science behind keeping premature babies alive advances, that is storing up a problem for a few decades time, but there really is no perfect solution to this.
My own personal beliefs are that I would prefer if there were no abortions, but I would also prefer if women had the right to choose, and by that, I don't just mean legally, but there should also be no moral judgement from society either, of course, that is probably an unreachable ideal.
Hope this makes sense as I know it got a bit rambly.
yes, that's why in most (all?) countries there is a time limit for abortion. It's a sort of balance between the rights of the woman and the rights of the going-to-be-a-baby. But I think it's more of an empathy thing, as most people would be upset in seeing a near-birth fetus being aborted.
@@vihai I heard that even in the US not many states allow such late abortions. And how many of the abortions happen that late. I'm also not happy about such late abortions, but we are talking probably of a smal minority.
And I agree that there should be an earlier time limit, but to be honest, I have not the necessary knowledge to judge whether it should be 2,3 or 5-6 months. But many people with even less knowledge than I have want to set rules.
The problem I have with this pro/anti abortion thing is that I feel like it all hinges on when the fetus becomes a life. No one really knows when that is because no one really knows what life is. Is it the soul? Is it consciousness? What is consciousness? Etc.
That being said since no one knows it's not that unreasonable to make The somewhat safe assumption that it happens at conception.
Now personally I'm pro whatever anybody else wants to do but I can definitely see a point of view where somebody would think that a aborting a fetus is taking a life.
At the time of conception it's a bunch of cells. And it's not even clear if the body doesn't abort the cell cluster itself.
In engineering we wouldn't call that a safe assumption, but a conservative assumption. The problem: sometimes you are too conservative making problems bigger than they need to be.
And I agree, that at a certain point in time, a cell cluster is not a cell cluster anymore, but an organism with blood flow and nerves. Is it then already a human? I don't know, but so do those people how want to draw red lines and set up rules.
A German satire artist once said about the Pope and sex: "The Pope makes rules for a game he is blocked". And pro-lifers do exactly the same: they want to draw red lines where noone actually knows where red lines have to be, those people even less than other.
How come people want to make statements and make rules for topics they have no clue in? I wonder if those people would make rules for let's say civil engineering, bulidng houses and bridges. Noone would take them serious, because they have no clue, how is talking about a cell cluster becoming a human any different?
BTW: many pro-lifers are Christians and claim that they are against abortions because god and bible. That tells me they have never read the bible, because the bible makes clear statements of how to carry out an abortion.
@@johnscaramis2515 Well I think in this case safe and conservative can be considered synonyms. If someone's trying to ensure that a life isn't taken being conservative would be the safe option.
How do we know that that cluster cells isn't a new life? Like I said in order to know that we would have to know for a fact what life actually is which we don't.
As far as the Bible describing how to carry out abortion that's, like so many things in the Bible, seriously up to interpretation.
The Bible also fairly clearly describes how The Christian God knows a person before they are born etc so again that's up to interpretation.
Personally I feel like abortions one of those things that is really up to each individual person to determine their own philosophical point of view on. That being said I can see why people would feel strongly both ways about it.
As ways I agree with pretty much everything you've said. However, the last point was very weak as a pro-lifer could just say well "the unborn human being didn't chose to be put in that situation so you can't just take it's life away because it has no say in the matter" or something along those stupid lines..just a thought 🤔
I wish her a pregnancy and we all know what sort of.
Still birth?
@@Dianasaurthemelonlord7777 one that makes her want to abort. Or makes her see the need for them that will do.let her come out the other end unscathed.with a healthy baby. Just get her to feel/see.if she is a hard arse…. Well than all bets are of far as i am concerned
love you man but I could only listen to that woman for 5 sec before giving up
Super pedantic minor quibble: for airlines children under 2 years of age can ride in the lap of their paying legal guardian. As such a fetus would qualify as “under 2”.
Really nitpicky, your point still stands. Keep up the good work 😊
I thought that practice had been forbidden
Never trust anyone that presents an entire video with a look of total incredulity and shakes their head the whole way through.
Being Cristian does NOT confer a greater sense of right and wrong. Vis. Ivan the Terrible (Russian Orthodox).
Does she voice Ralphy on Simpsons?
Great video! Happy new year! 🎉
I'm in an odd place on this topic, as I am pro choice though I also think if they didn't want to get pregnant they shoulda kept their bits to themselves.
But personal feelings it is up to every person to pick what they feel is right for them not for other people to demand someone to pick what they want you to do.
I'm kinda against stupid people having children and sadly those aren't the ones aborted
3:48 "the misconception that the fetus is its own being completely detached from the mother", feels a bit like a straw man argument.
3:52 I think you missed the ball here, "the fetus is part of the woman's body".
Medically a fetus is considered a parasite I believe, and legally it is also considered separate (not detached), as she demonstrated with the double homicide law.
Comparing a fetus to your arm is kind of absurd. A fetus is developing its own independent organs, digestive, musculature, nervous and other systems. Your arm is connected in several ways to the rest of your body, a fetus clearly is not.