วีดีโอ

I heard a good question that also gets to the heart of this. "How do we feel about pregnant women who do meth, knowing they're pregnant?" Obviously, we say that's wrong, but why? If it's her body, what's the problem?

Keep in mind, Stephanie Gray has openly said that, if a woman needs an abortion to save her life, she should "just accept death". That's how radical and extreme she is.

Whatever that mass of cells is I find it hard to defend it as a human being deserving the protection of society. It has been found that one in five fertilized eggs do not even adhere to the woman's womb. If all these zygotes have souls then heaven must be full of these little whatever's and God, the designer of reproduction, did a poor job of protecting these little souls. Looking at the fate of newborn children through the ages shows a great deal of infant mortality, death during childbirth, natural abortion, starvation, disease etc. if God cares deeply about the fetus, it sure does not show up in human design. If all these souls are in heaven that did not live long enough to take a breath heaven will be a strange place in deed. This is not the answer to the abortion debate but it needs to be part of the conversation.

She straight up _executed_ him with the "Mommy, don't" closing statement.

Stephanie obliterated this dude.

the hateful cu** has to depend on gore for her point.

Would love to see a debate between Stephanie and mama dr jones

If she is pro-life then why did she murder this guy in this debate?

What I am really trying to understand is he made a good point where how we identify individuals in conjoined twins is their separate brains and consciousness. Let’s say we had two sets of conjoined twins formed very similarly. In one both have a brain and consciousness. In the other only one does and the other does not have a brain or consciousness. Let’s also say that this brainless twin is also being kept alive by the other twins body for the sake of argument. Is this twin without a brain considered a person and or has rights because by Stephanie’s argument, being human is where are right are grounded, but this would also include dead people and non viable pregnancies. For the dead, they are protected by law but the rights they have are different so one could argue that a preborn babies rights are also different. And there’s more I could say even. Please I welcome a discussion because I need help with this.

I've watched many debates of Mme. Gray Connors : This part usually come at some point - th-cam.com/video/Fk5x1fifxrM/w-d-xo.html. IMO, when she describe the laparoscopic surgical procedure, she is describing a form of abortion. However, she cannot say it (based on her stance on abortion). To compare, the Abortion Pill(s) doesn't target the embryo (if we had the technology, ones could save it...). First, Mifepristone (1st pill) blocks your body’s own progesterone, stopping the pregnancy from growing (Pregnancy needs a hormone called progesterone to grow normally). The second medicine, misoprostol, causes cramping and bleeding to empty your uterus. This method doesn't target the embryo, but Mme Gray Connors distinguish it from the ectopic pregnancy procedure (for no logical reason).

I have watched many debates on abortion and the pro choice is never compelling. They usually get slaughtered by the pro life. In my opinion.

She creamed him!

I’m sure this was very interesting for those who could actually hear it

Unprotected sex doesn't mean you're taking on having a fetus inside you? Bro whaaaaat??? I seriously advise you guys don't try to eat or drink anything while listening to this dude 🤣🤣🤣

1:02:57 She ends this man's whole career.

Pro-lifers (especially those who think the woman "smoked" the guy) who believe that life begins at conception, please answer the following hypothetical: "You're in a fertility clinic. Why isn't important. The fire alarm goes off. You run for the exit. As you run down this hallway, you hear a child screaming from behind a door. You throw open the door and find a five-year-old child crying for help. They're in one corner of the room. In the other corner, you spot a frozen container labeled "1000 Viable Human Embryos." The smoke is rising. You start to choke. You know you can grab one or the other, but not both before you succumb to smoke inhalation and die, saving no one. Do you A) save the child, or B) save the thousand embryos? There is no "C." "C" means you all die." The answer is? ____

I wonder if any of these pro-abortion supporters who claim fetuses/zygotes are not human for whatever reason realize they are making the argument: to have human rights one must be human-plus? This would essentially build the argument for all kinds of discrimination which includes discriminating and removing the humanity of minority populations.

If a person starts a house fire, knowing that there’s a chance a baby is upstairs, and doesn’t save the life of that child- they will be charged with criminal negligent homicide. Why is it different when the baby is smaller?

I am in no way a scholar but common sense tells that the man’s argument is flawed. Let’s say a driver gets into an accident due to his or her negligence. The other affected driver now hospitalized, needs a “born marrow” to survive. For some reason the negligent driver happens to be only match for the born marrow. Can the government force the negligent driver to give a born marrow for the survival of the other driver ? I think yes. In the case of abortions, the woman is the negligent driver and the baby is the hospitalized driver. The baby is in that position because of the negligence of the woman to prevent her pregnancy when she’s not ready for a child. Therefore the mother is obliged to lend that baby her womb for 9months in order to survive

God gave mankind the "gift of FREEWILL" that comes (back to back) with God's Law/Commandments (one can not exist without the other)... One of the Commandments is "thou shall not KILL."... the word "KILL" is a more appropriate correct word than "MURDER"... why?... because a "Self-Infliction" is not a murder but a "Suicide."... Murder by definition, is the infliction of another party or other individual person... God tells us that regardless of guilty or not, self-defense or not, enemies or friends, etc... we (mankind) must not KILL our own kind (humans), and only God has the right to KILL, for God is the "Giver and Taker of Lives" of all His creations. But due to the STUBBORNNESS of Mankind, God gave Moses another set of Laws/Commandments, other than the 10 commandments, this time, it was more detailed and more on Human Relationships like "DIVORCE, MASTER & SLAVES, etc." and how to govern the Nation of the Jews/Israel (God's chosen people) that is pleasing in the Sight of God... With this other set of Laws/Commandments given to Moses by God, I could not find any detailed Laws/Commandments regarding the KILLING prohibitions of "UNBORN CHILDREN"... but the killing prohibition for the "BORN CHILDREN" (Babies/Infants) was clearly given... In those early days, the only way they can kill the "UNBORN CHILD" was by killing the pregnant woman... and as time goes by, they found some medicinal plants/herbs that can abort the pregnancy and were only allowed to be used if there is a danger in the life of the pregnant women... God can even order/instruct Israel to "WIPE-OUT / ANNIHILATION" (total destruction/obliteration) of any clan, society, or nation as God's "PUNISHMENT" including babies/infants, children, and pregnant women (with unborn children),... For Example.. when God ordered/instructed King Saul to eliminate/wipe out the entire AMALEKITES, King Saul spared their King, and God got so mad/angry that God gave his kingship to a shepherd boy named David... If somebody out there could find a CLEARER passage/verses in the O.T. or N.T. regarding the Killing prohibition of the "UNBORN CHILDREN," please let me know... thanks

Christ Jesus said, "Woe (burden/sorrow) to that man,... it is better for a man if he had not been born (unborn child) than to betray the Son of God (Christ Jesus)" (Matt. 26:24 / Mark 14:21 paraphrased)... In other words, it is better for that Man, to be killed in the womb of a woman (abortion) than to be born and betray Jesus... Is this literal or a figure of speech?... or perhaps both?...

I am a Christians, but I was wondering... If GOD Almighty gave the Human Kind the gift of 'FREEWILL" to choose between Good and Bad (Evil)... Why not give WOMEN their "FREEWILL" to Choose?... Who are we (humans) to deny anyone of their gift of FREEWILL from God? ... Anyway, God will judge us all in the end... right? My only concern is... why will the government give "financial support" (millions of dollars) for "Freedom to Choose" (Pro-Abortion movement) but not other Basic Human Freedom... such as the Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Bear/Carry Firearms, etc.?

Only for People who believe in God the Creator of visible and invisible... 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 /paraphrased, "Our (Physical) bodies are not our OWN, Jesus bought us with His OWN blood, so we must glorify God thru our Body and Spirit/Soul, which are HIS."... Therefore, since our bodies are not our "OWN," we can not put TATTOOS, PIERCING, DO SELF INFLICTION, SUICIDE, DO DRUG/ ALCOHOL/CIGAR ABUSES, ABORTION, INDECENT SEX (PORNO & MASTURBATION), SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CHANGE GENDER/TRANSGENDER, ETC...

a pot head with a phone could make a better video

Please remember this: "YOU still have the SAME heart that began beating in your mother's womb" ~Houston Kat

th-cam.com/video/tZAc8PQVlYo/w-d-xo.html Prolife song 🎵

Women are going to have abortions regardless of what the agents of that imaginary control freak Christian God say, it's their own body and they have the right to choose whether they go through with pregnancy and childbirth or not. It wasn't until the 1970s that women had access to safe, sterile and professional terminations, prior to that it was a choice between an unwanted pregnancy, for whatever reason, or a visit to a back alley amateur butcher at an enormous cost, not just money wise but also health and sometimes life wise. Now these sanctimonious, self righteous God botherers want us to return to that scenario, imagine if it was your daughter or close friend who through ignorance or error became pregnant and felt that they were not ready to face childbirth and all it encompasses for the next twenty years of their life, would you force childbirth on them, would you want the State to force childbirth on them, would you make terminations unavailable in a clinic, or would you force them to make a decision to have the termination in some quacks back room? It's our bodies and our right to have a clean, professional, proper procedure if that's what we choose and your Jesus in the sky has nothing to do with it.

Jonathan Peeters: "I dont think the anti-abortionist can satisfy both of those jobs" Stephanie Gray: "Hold my beer"

I thought she was pro-life, but she clearly murdered that man.

My guy ditched his argument real quick in the XE

The debate should come with some legal consequences. She should be arguing in front of a state or federal court for the fate of the unborn. The pro-choice movement can present their best advocate and the judge/s can settle the matter.

I’m pro choice…or I guess pro legal abortion I wouldn’t say it’s moral, but safe legal abortion should be available for those who choose to.. It’s not something I could choose personally, but I can’t make that choice for others, I don’t know their situation, and poverty, lack of support, trauma, sexual assault, incest, and health concerns are very valid reasons why I could see a person making that choice. Therefore I could never fault or judge a person on that choice…. It’s unfortunate his debate style is not as effective as hers…

I could probably make better arguments for slavery than the bone marrow analogy.

I keep looking for an abortion debate between two serious thinkers making an effort to seek an ethical conclusion. First, a serious abortion debate would be restricted to first trimester abortion. Each side would be required to talk for at least ten minutes on 1) body autonomy rights, 2) sentience, 3) consequences to women 4) why or why isn't the human species to be protected in non-sentient form in the womb, at great cost to women; while it's acceptable to torture and kill all other species for money, entertainment, etc.? Mainly, keep the debate focused only on first trimester since 97% of abortions take place then. Also, the fetus is non-sentient; also, the method of abortion is different then; also, the psychological experience will be much different than a later abortion. The prejudice towards non-humans needs to be addressed, specifically, how can an argument be deemed reasonable when it's merely whimsical favoritism?

Peeters definitely presented the most coherent and effective argument from PC side. It's just too bad that he seemed unprepared for the cross-examination. Some of the question from Gray asking for supposed logical consistency had better answers than the ones that were given.

Please, Stephanie Gray is a god next to this guy. She completely destroyed him.

I love it when another pro choicer gets exposed of their illogical, inconsistency’s. Lastly their irrational behaviors

0:05:37 Speakers' introductions 0:06:48 Gray's opening statement 0:21:47 Peeters's opening statement 0:34:24 Gray crosses Peeters 0:39:51 Peeters crosses Gray 0:45:50 Gray's rebuttal 0:54:18 Peeters's rebuttal 1:02:57 Gray's closing statement 1:06:30 Peeters's closing statement 1:10:55 Q&A

LIFE IS SACRED FROM CONCEPTION TO ITS NATURAL END... GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH

He looks like they picked him up at their local starbucks 😂

Pro-choice "feminists": "This is a war on women! Men need to stop telling us woman what to do!" Pro-life woman: *roasts a pro-choice man at a debate* But sure, go on with how being pro-life is "anti-woman" or "anti-feminist."

When I see these picture my first reaction is that I want to vomit. My second is a thought: anyone who thinks this is ok is a savage. Ultimately, abortion is a grave sin of pride. “I will be like God”.

Rape and "crisis" pregnancy. There's a long standing legislative maxim: "Hard cases make bad law."

To the twinning argument. Let's say before the split you have one zygote, which is a person. At some point during that 14 day time that zygote splits into two. When it splits, neither is the original or both are (which view you take of those two isn't important), and at that point both become two separate persons. Each one will develop uniquely from that point, but neither was first. If we had transporters like in Star Trek, and if you have a transporter malfunction that brings back two copies of the same person, both of them would have been the same until that point, but at that point neither came first and both become unique individuals despite having the same DNA. The point of saying all this is to point out that while twinning may be the only real life example of one person becoming two unique people, it doesn't mean that prior to that point the embryo wasn't human, alive, or a person, and thus the argument he's making isn't actually a legitimate argument.

Are

This did need to stfu with his protohuman shit lmao

Stephanies logic could hardly be tested by an educated person. This dude should have stayed at home with his mom... who didn’t abort him.

God bless Stephanie Gray for standing up for the rights of the unborn! Her arguments are powerful, moral, ethical, and fueled by the Holy Spirit!

th-cam.com/video/Fk5x1fifxrM/w-d-xo.htmlm00s "I doubt that mere species membership is enough to give right to life." I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that in the United States, "mere species membership" does in fact give one a right to life. Specifically, the 14th amendment addresses the right to life for those with"membership" in the human species.

Stephanie quite “dismembered” that young boring dude 😏. See what I did there? As empty and bad a joke as that guys arguments 🤓.