What's with your violent hatred of us Boomers? Could it be your Boomer grandfather molested you, Matt? OK, whiny millennial. Have a nice life. Ok, whiny millennial.
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
I would like to mention something related to the last part discussed in this video. The thing about personhood. I feel that the argument that a baby is not an independent person should be considered valid and sufficient for settling the pro-abortion cause. I accept that a foetus is a living thing. Rather i accept it as a member of the human species and being alive. Now to support my argument for abortion, i feel that a foetus in no way or form contributes to the society, and humans living in that society. Rather it acts like a parasite just feeding off of the society(through the uterus in which it is living, as his mother is consuming the resources from the society.). One might say that some old people or people with disabilities might also require assistance, but these people are actually worthy of assistance as they have already interacted with the society or have contributed to it in some sort of way, and even if they are not contributing at that particular moment, they have gathered resources like money or friends, and they use such resources to defend themselves or to tackle their problems. In the case of a foetus, the mother is forced to supply resources to it (without getting anything in exchange), whereas in the case of aged and disabled people nobody has an obligation to take care of them. Let's say if they don't have enough money, the maid might stop working for them, or if they don't have any friends they might have to do all of their work on their own. If they don't have money to pay for the hospital bills, the hospital has a right to stop caring for them. Essentially, if someone is being cared for there is some sort of exchange of resources in this case. Even a newborn baby creates some sort of exchange in the real world that a foetus in the womb cannot. So caring for a newborn baby, at least has some sort of logic, but asking someone to care for a foetus against their will sounds absurd, as the person caring for it literally has nothing to gain.(I am not talking about the people who willingly want to have the baby and definitely see the current womb investment of nine months to be paid off in the form of love, affection, and even monetary support few years down the line.)
54 million a year globally. New York Times says estimates of war dead in human history combined range from 150 million to 1 billion dead. That’s 2.5 - 18 years of abortion.
Moloch has been taking child sacrifices, unabated for 2000 years. The people who rule us are very religious. Wether you believe or not, they do. And trust me, Jesus is a much better role model, than the side they chose. Ever seen star wars? Of course you have. Ever wonder why so many people followed the old crusty emperor? Well, just ask a Hillary supporter.
If you kill a woman carrying a child, you get charged with double homicide. But when she doesnt want to take responsibility for her actions, it's just a clump of cells.
Elijah Butterfield How do you know it wants to stay alive? Technically before around 20 weeks in utero the fetus doesn’t have the brain capacity to care. It’s central nervous system is not developed thus it cannot feel any sort of way about anything. Regardless, we are all at the mercy of whomever we depend upon.
Elijah Butterfield Please show me video proof that a fetus before 20 weeks “tries to escape” from a suction. I would love to see that. What I think you mean to say it is responds to outside stimuli, much like a plant or bacteria. Just because something physically responds to stimuli, doesn’t mean it is acting on intentional merit. It only means that it is alive.
@@anitabonghit7606 It depends on the situation. If a person is in action attempting to kill another person , that first person is no longer innocent therefore killing as an act of self defense is no murder.
So then every single president post world war 2 should be executed then? I mean Trump's first action in office was authorizing a drone strike that killed an innocent and defenseless 9 year old girl. So Trump is a murderer eh?
100% agree. This isn’t about women’s reproductive rights or what they do with their bodies. Its about the right of a defenseless human life to live! Great video!
Honestly for me the most incredible thing is how these same people will fight for protections for Bald Eagles eggs, or sea turtle eggs and the habitat that they need to lay those eggs, but the human growing within a mothers womb isn't worth protecting.
@@SuperSupermanX1999 The issue is that they chose to have unprotected sex where the consequence is the possibility of getting pregnant with a baby. When you chose to do that, you have created another life. You don't then get to kill that life out of convienience.
Exactly.. as a woman.. it's my "choice" to kill my unborn and return to normal activities/live life as normal. But shame on me if I choose to not vaccinate my children or if I decide I don't want to pay rent but I'd like to stay in the house for 2 more months. After all my body my choice or woman rights. Nope. It only applies to murdering my unborn. It's disgusting.
So Matt Walsh….. None of that “ALL lives matter” bullshit for YOU, eh?…. 😆 No wonder the forced-birthers failed in the court of public opinion…. they couldn’t sell their own message because they don’t believe it themselves!….
I was pro-choice at one point. It's all about perspective, and I was focusing more on the life of a woman over the life inside of her. However, I did still struggle internally with the idea of killing for the benefit of another person. I think it was Stephen Crowder's "I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind" segment on abortion that changed my mind. I am pro-life.
I was also pro-choice. Perspective really is everything. To me it was easy to emphasize with the women who were poor or young, or whatever stereotype I had for women who got abortions. My friend shattered this for me. She was a mid 20's comfortably employed, educated woman, she wanted children, she had stability and means, she just didn't have a boyfriend because she got pregnant from a one night stand. She killed her baby for her dating prospects because she figured being a single mom wouldn't be good for landing a husband. It felt so selfish to me, I just started questioning everything. I finally was able to see the other side.
Hopefully she still have her job and house cause the second any self respecting man finds out she killed her baby because she thought that it wouldn't help her get a husband they will call her out on BS and if she refuses to accept that she did something wrong leave her
@@sananton2821 Great, but there are still hungry, unloved and vulnerable children out there, with all of you anticomunists around. Anti communism hasn´t solved sh1t.
The reason why a baby needs to stay in the mothers body for 9 months, is for protection. Although in the west, in progressive society, it's the most dangerous place to be. If it wasin't so vulnerable, then it wouldint need to stay in the womb so long, so the 9 months is immaterial when your deciding if its human. Its human from conception.
I believe a little over halfway through the pregnancy the fetus has a higher than 50% chance of survival if removed from the womb... but I could be wrong its been so long since Ive debated abortion
I agree with you.. But tell a mother with a painful difficult pregnancy that 9 months is immaterial… Maybe philosophically, but definitely not medically..
might wanna have a glance of world wide abortion rates and realise its actually the east that aborts. you are probably also rooting for russia at this point.
@@bonbonpony lol of course…I know that But you don’t know if your pregnancy is going to be complicated or if there’s going to be a lot of health stuff to deal..and women can’t just not have sex in their marriage because of that risk..would the marriage last ? I’m pro life….so abortion is not the fix for this stuff… But the problem is doctors don’t always listen to women’s health concerns especially during pregnancy… My issue is you can’t just be like “meh it’s nothing” women need support..and that’s often the attitude I hear..
@@andrewstout5400 Remember the days where presidents of the United States were true statesmen and not absolute clowns? (This also applies to the current one, not just DT) If someone supports a person with an IQ of a potato, that one couldn't be much brighter too, don't you think?
Me and my boyfriend want to have kids but are waiting till we can support them and are married. Also we haven't had sex which is easy considering he's in Ireland at the moment. Also we want to adopt so anyone who gets pregnant and doesn't know what to do please consider your other options
Mama Bear that’s called being responsible adults making the right decisions waiting until you are ready is admirable and the right thing to do good for you
@@Shizo-friend Okay so like I have changed over the last four years and I regret my past self's actions but like don't criticize someone who doesn't wanna have sex.
The argument that ultimately changed my mind is this. "If you do nothing, the fetus will become a person." I can't articulate why that simple sentence had such an impact on me. But it rolls around in my head all the time now.
Trevor Sampson I’m glad it had an impact on you, but I would make one correction. The fetus is already a person. Otherwise you have to answer the question of exactly when the fetus becomes a person and why. Inevitably, as Walsh says in this video, you would have to come to the conclusion that some people outside the womb aren’t actually people either.
"Homo est et qui est futurus" - irenaeus. Roughly translates to 'who is to be a human being, is a human being!' The quote continues, [for the whole fruit is already present in the seed]. It is an interesting argument that has been used for almost 2 millennia.
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
@@strangelyukrainian7314 Wow you must be some sort of ignorant uneducated backwater cousin humping hillbilly to say such stupid stuff. Are you honestly that blind to what a woman goes through during pregnancy and after childbirth? Incontinence, vaginal tearing, stretch marks, c-section scars, hemorrhoids swollenfeet, sagging breasts, damage nipples, morning sickness, back pain, leg cramps, varicose veins, possible death, not to mention the excruciating pain of childbirth itself. That is what I mean by "ripped apart". When is the last time a man had to go through the same agony because he made the same choices a woman? I am not going to try and make sense of your inane rambling but I will say this, in a world where 55% of the population are woman and yet 80% of absentee fathers are men how is that equal? If we truly want men To be as responsible as women when it comes to their obligations that we need to threaten them with bodily harm not just give him some worthless fine or some meaningless jail time which has little impact. Do you understand that when a man points his pene'us at a women it is the equivalent of him pointing a gun at her when you consider all the bodily damage and possible death that will happen to her because of his choice? How come he is not risking the same damage? Where is the equality in that? So unless you are willing to mutilate a man for making the same choices of woman then you have no right to take away her right to choose to not be mutilated herself.
kunntakentay I think the top guy is long gone so will just ask you. If the mother is unable to take care of her offspring or has a pregnancy that is threatening her life is it permissible to have an abortion. I only ask because the dr. Minty is making it sound like, if you get raped are about to die whatever the contexts fuck you you’re have that baby no matter what. This seems a little extreme but what do you think.
DOMINICUS ROMULUS if the mom can’t raise the child, there’s adoption. Abortion is NEVER morally preferable to adoption. Also, this idea of the unborn fetus threatening the life of the mother; with the medicine and hospital facilities we have today; this issue is now virtually non-existent. It just doesn’t happen. But in the 0.000001% chance it ever did, then yes, abortion could be permissible. Of course, the focus remains on saving lives (pro-life) because the intent of it is to save the mother’s life. The intent is not to get rid of an unwanted baby.
@@Randomguy2341 A) If the mother cannot care for the child, the mother *should not be having a child.* I know the argument for "but muh contraception isnt 100% safe" is a common one, the simple solution is funnily enough..simple. Don't get your fuck on if you aren't willing to accept the 0.001% chance that you may become a parent. B) If the mothers life is greatly at risk, and it is a choice between the unborn child and the mother, then I can understand the argument for choosing to save the mother. My point isn't that, if you're a rape victim then you're on your own. I understand that there are severe cases. But people need to understand that these severe cases are, not exactly a majority. Just off the top of my head, 1% of women get an abortion due to rape, and in the case of incest it's less than 0.5% (I may be incorrect). In these dire situations, while I dont condone abortion and feel adoption may be better, I'm not going to hold these women accountable because let's face it... that must be terrifying to go through.
He didn't "end the argument" at all. He didn't even addressed the actual argument. Noone has said a fetus is not alive. By his own definition of "living states", even a spermatozoid is alive. I'm sure he has killed more than 60 million of those. And regarding the debate about the autonomy of a person, he didn't gave an answer either. This doesn't end absolutely anything.
The pro-life is flawed right from the start when they state that life begins at fertilization. Women's eggs become fertilized after the ejaculate reaches it. But not every fertilized eggs becomes a baby. Because under that logic, any woman who is sexually active and menstruating regularly is a serial killer
@@makroskonstopolis you are foolish if you dont think the experts know what a woman is, everyone does, except the very few psychotic individuals. they just dont want to offend anyone. if you seriously think the majority of the left dont know what a woman is you are stupid yourself
So my Dad is an OB/GYN and I’ve had some discussions with him on abortion. He’s never done an abortion out of convenience. I’ve come to agree with him that an abortion is valid, if the health of the mother is truly at risk. I am a religious conservative and very much pro-life, except for the exception I’ve stated above. This is something I invite y’all to think on.
I’m pro life as well But if it’s not just the mother’s life and it’s not emergent? What then? I’m not talking about discomfort of course, but severe, chronic complications.. Something that effects quality of life or functionality? Some pregnancies can further complicate chronic health conditions..or reproductive conditions.. I ended up having to have a hysterectomy recently and at 30…because of this.. And that had it’s own complications.. I’m pro life, but it seems this exception really doesn’t consider women’s health..
Ill play devils advocate. NOT FULLY MY BELIEFS: Simply because something is "living" does not mean its on the same standard as humans, trees and bugs are living yet we kill them easily, and the philosophical reason why humans are on the next standard of life and don't deserve to be killed (high intelligence, ability to use logic and reason, our ability to point out and preserve highly sophisticated patterns, our 5 senses, the happiness we cause others, and our subjected consciousness) are all not present for most of the fetus' development. I will also point out SOME people on the right are quick to forget their values in protecting innocent life as soon as a drone strike or civilian casualty rates gets brought up, then all of a sudden excuses to justify the death of innocent people are plentiful, so the whole "abortions bad because it kills an innocent, and that's never justified" does not really work for lots of conservatives who justify the loss of actual born children in the name of patriotism, or say "shouldn't of been resisting arrest" when a innocent black man is shot... Once again this clearly does not include all conservatives, some do actually practice what they preach about protecting the innocent, but so many are hypocrites when it comes to abortion
We need to redefine the American abortion phenomenon as “American Genocide.” Abortion is genocide. Murder. We are guilty of a worse societal crime than the Nazi Holocaust. The guilty always struggle with the problem of “language,” using words to say what they don’t mean.
I've been agreeing that an unborn child is a person, it's not murder if it's legal though. Abortion is legal, therefore making it not murder. Me personally, I wouldn't want irresponsible people taking care of an unwanted child. Imagine that, I dare you
This is the most profound and emotional description of abortion ( even hard to write). Visulize this- "A baby is in the safest most perfect place a human being can be-warm and pesceful in it's Mother. Than comes excruciating, prolonged pain and death!!" Quote is from the High Impact channel. There are scant few reasons that a civilized culture should support this. [P.S.( Lets stop using a "nice" word "abortion" and do what Democrats do, use a descriptive, emotional producing term in this case "baby killers"] a Savvy Simple Guy
Okay we'll use "baby killing" if you change "pro-life" to "pro-silencing-controlling-and-harming-women-without-actually-saving-any-lives-especially-those-of-born-children". Or if you prefer the much shorter "forced-birth".
*I like to use the word “organism” when arguing with a pro-abortion individual. Since the left utilizes, only when advancing their argument of course, the lenses of science to view a topic, then surely they understand the life cycle of an ‘organism’. The entire pro-abortion stance and argument is one big hypocritical word salad, it makes no sense. This guy hit it on the head perfectly. Well done!*
I've come across several "biologists" who claim that any living cell(including somatic cells such as skin or hair cells) are organisms, rendering the word meaningless .
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
@@Boaz833 Acknowledging Abortion is evil/horrible and then calling it necessary is insane. You've essentially conceded that an unborn child is a human life, and even so you still would call it necessary, especially when it occurs (assuming Matt Walsh's number is correct) in 60 million different cases.
@@yee9574 I concede that an unborn child is a human life. But I also concede that evil is sometimes necessary. Just look at war. It is the most evil and terrible of things and yet it is continuous throughout our history. Innocent people are always being killed by soldiers does that mean that the soldier is a monster? You might make the argument well at least it's not a deliberate killing of an innocent person however we know that innocent people always die in war and yet we always have wars. Why? Because it is a necessary horror in our human condition. As an example the Civil War was fought for equality among the races. Would you argue that the cost of human life was too great and that keeping slavery legal was a better alternative to allowing hundreds of thousands of Americans to be killed? Of course not, because when it comes to equality and justice there is no price too high to pay. And in the same way abortion is a necessary horror as it is a battle for equality between the genders. If you truly want to end abortion and keep things equal between the genders I would suggest you pass a law that says if a man takes it out of his pants without being 100% ready for the responsibility of being a parent then his penis will be surgically removed. That would end most abortions because it would end unplanned pregnancies.
Given that there are significant opposing positions on abortion, it is too bad we couldn't come to a reasonable comprise. Oh, wait - we already did that with viability. The GOP needs to learn that they can't have everything their own way. Fighting over settled law only impedes the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancy. The over-reach is going to backfire.
The issue isn't about whether the fetus is or isn't a person. The issue is that our society is sick. The poor and lower members of the socio-economic system suffer much more by "unwanted" pregnancy. As a progressive society, we need to make sure women are safe and taken care of. Currently, they are not.
@@goranmilic442 However, the woman partook in the creation of that other human. If you and your son were playing baseball in the yard and accidentally smashed their neighbor's window, the neighbor would want you to pay. But you say that you weren't meaning to smash their window. But that's the assumed responsibility of the parent playing baseball with his or her kid, same with sex. You may not have meant to get pregnant, but that's the assumed responsibility the couple takes by partaking in it.
@@litterill First of all, if woman was raped, then she didn't partake in anything, did she? So your argument still allows raped women to abort. Next, in your baseball example, you are forgetting that responsibility comes from contracts or crimes or damages. Having sex is neither of those, so it's invalid to compare damaging someone's window and having sex. Woman doesn't lose right to control her body, just because she had sex.
@@goranmilic442 We both agree rape is a horrible atrocious that should happen to no one, however, it accounts for about 1% of abortions that occur. Abortion doesn't solve the pain that the rape did- locking up the man who did and receiving compassionate love and counseling does. During a rape, there are 1 guilty and 2 innocents- the guilty being the man who did it and the innocents being the woman and the baby. Adding more violence to the baby doesn't help anyone. In fact, there are stories of women who have been raped and contemplated suicide, but upon learning they were pregnant gave them a reason to live. I am in no way saying that the rape was a good thing, but just sharing another side of the story. I'm a bit confused about what you meant that responsibility comes from contracts or crimes or damages, could you explain it more please? Partaking in a recreational activity one enjoys but having an unintended consequence of said activity does make one liable. But what about the baby's body? the baby has a right to its body as well. It is its own unique person with unique DNA.
The main issue is that, while people are arguing that the child should be born, none of you care about the life that child will be born into. But will be quick to bash those living in poverty who continue to have kids and increasing the population thats living in poverty. People deserve to be able to decide what they want to do with their body, and frankly its not a strangers business 🤷🏾♂️
Yup. They care more about bringing a life into the world than the quality of life they'll have. It's well documented that the vast majority of unwanted children suffer greatly and are a net burden to society due to violence, not being able to keep a job, drug addiction, etc. Meanwhile, the forced-birthers distract from the fact the Republicans want to do away with minimum wage, abolish unions who will fight for fair pay, kill off the middle class while transfer the wealth to the ultra-rich, and ensure those without connections pop out as many cheap future labourers as possible (interfering with forced birth = imprisonment). Sounds like a dystopian/autocratic system trying to make cheap labour to the advantage of the very few to me.
I never understood the argument that an abortion should be permitted due to the fact that it is dependent on the mother for life. A newborn baby is also completely dependent on its mother for survival. Yes, we've circumvented that a little, developing infant formulas and such, but still the baby is now dependent on a "mother substitute". Think about premature babies. For one thing- If it's not ok to kill the 8 months developed baby outside of the womb, why then should it be ok when that baby is still in the womb? Additionally, many premature babies are dependent on medical technology,such as incubators, to survive. Should we be permitted to kill those babies just because they are not capable of survival without a "host"?
Abortion is about equality for everyone. A woman should not be forced to put her body through a pregnancy for the same reason a man should not be forced to donate an organ or marrow or even a tiny bit of blood to save a dying child.
You are assuming those two scenarios are the equivalent though. They aren't. Abortion is the intentional killing of a living and healthy fetus, whereas refusal to donate an organ is leaving someone in their original state, which so happens to be dying. Not to mention biological differences. The uterus is an organ designed for housing another being. Your kidney is not. Your kidney is designed for you to use (though you could be charitable and choose to give it someone). If you are interested you may want to look into Trent Horn's abortion conversations on yt.
@@hgrueber38 they are equivalent in the sense of bodily autonomy. A man and woman make the same choices, but only a woman has to put her body through a 9 month's medical and life-threatening ordeal that includes massive weight gain swollen hands and feet, hemorrhoids, gas bloating fatigue constipation limited movement, and let's not forget the hours of pain associated with labor and risk of death, not to mention postpart pregnancy symptoms such as vaginal tearing or possible prolapse, incontinencs, postpartum depression or psychosis etc, while the man who made the same exact choices as she did does not even have to donate a tiny bit of blood to the baby if it was dying and needed it. How is that equal?
Me, for example. I don't think I should give birth to an unwanted child. There are so many cases in Asia and in my country when newborns are killed by their mothers. Or left on the streets and die from hunger, beaten up to death. In Afghanistan, young girls are raped by the Taliban and forced to give birth to expand the group, and children are killed for illegal organ transplants because of lack of proper medical care and hygiene; women try to make an abortion from untrustful and unlicensed entities, or even to make it by themselves, and end up dying or severely injured after that. Abortion can be banned in the States, but I don't think it should be banned in my country. I don't think some population is ready to take responsibility for not getting pregnant in the first place.
Upon reviewing the text you provided, I have identified a few potential fallacies: 1. Straw Man Fallacy: There is a possibility of a straw man fallacy when the argument caricatures the pro-abortion position by suggesting that pro-abortion individuals claim that an unborn child is not a human person. While some pro-abortion arguments may focus on the development and dependency of the fetus, it does not necessarily mean they deny its humanity altogether. 2. False Dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy by asserting that if an unborn baby lacks inherent value, then nobody in the room has inherent value. This oversimplification ignores the possibility of alternative views on personhood and inherent value. 3. Appeal to Consequences: The argument implies that if an unborn baby does not have inherent value, then human value itself becomes impermanent and non-essential. This is an appeal to negative consequences and does not directly address the actual value or rights of the unborn. 4. Red Herring: The argument includes a red herring when it brings up the sick, infirm, disabled, and elderly as potential victims of devaluing personhood based on dependency. While it raises an important ethical question, it diverts attention from the specific focus on abortion. 5. Appeal to Tradition: The argument relies on an appeal to tradition by stating that the idea of inherent human rights lies at the foundation of the country and any notion of human rights. However, the historical acceptance of an idea does not necessarily make it logically or morally correct. It's important to note that identifying fallacies does not necessarily invalidate the entire argument, but it helps to recognize potential flaws in the reasoning presented.
I think it’s a massive misconception that the topic of abortion is a wrong doing. It is not demoralising, or inhumane, it’s simply the right to choose to continue on with the pregnancy or not depending on their present circumstances. These circumstances can be influenced by financial issues, health and medical conditions, age etc. The issue of abortion is, by most people, not taken lightly, and is proceeded after through thorough consideration. And the ignorance to this is quite reflective of the incapability of those against abortion to understand and empathise as well, with the party that is going through this matter. There are no hero’s or villains when it comes to these things, it’s just a grey area.
@@kingorange7739 what if your mother was raped tho? Would you want a half brother with a rapist of a father? Your mother was helpless and someone put a seed inside her, now she’s forced to give birth? I like how no one in the comment section mentions rape
@@JoshuaCurtin-gs6gb Because rape makes up so little of the abortion cases that to try to constantly mention it without covering majority cases first is blantant manipulation. But I’ll indulge you. Yes I and my mother for that matter (who is also pro life) would want to keep the baby. Because ultimately it’s not the baby’s fault for what happened and doing another crime against an innocent human being doesn’t right the previous one done to you. Should the rapist be castrated or killed? Yes. But ultimately the baby is also a victim like the mother
@@JoshuaCurtin-gs6gb Exactly! Also, no one mentioned that in Switzerland, when the fetus is conceived, they make a DNA test to determine whether they are going to have a healthy baby or not, and in the majority of cases, when tests show that a person will be born with a very bad illness they make abortion. Imagine saying this in the States?
@@califtom Looks like we have what could be another terribly brainwashed beta male incel here, pushing for murder rights thinking it's going to land him a girlfriend. Nope, ain't happening.
At it's earliest stage, what may develop into a full baby is only a single cell. Nothing more, nothing less. And somewhere along the way is that shift from barely an inconvenience to murder. Early on, the developing cells are no more alive than a tree. Would you call killing a tree murder? Would you mourn it? Hold a funeral for it?
The preborn baby develops extremely rapidly. By the time a woman typically finds out she's pregnant, the baby is already well on its way to being visually recognizable as such. And is quite alive. Why do you worship convenience?
@@axelfirestorm2080 Even still, it is not fully human. Also, why would I worship convenience? I am not religious, I don't worship anything. On the contrary, I think that religion often stands in the way of a nuanced perspective.
@@lucad9667 Worship as in you make it more important than anything else. And yes, an unborn baby IS fully human. His or her DNA isn't anything BUT human. I can still remember seeing my older son's first ultrasound with his mom. He was small but definitely looked like a baby, even at only 8 weeks or so. He was rolling around and everything. Now he's almost 18 and a happy young man.
@@axelfirestorm2080 Great for him, but that's just one example. There are plenty of others where abortion should be an acceptable solution. Recklessly sleeping without protection all the way up to rape, there are plenty of reasons, and it is no ones business but the mother's what to do in that situation.
How about: 1) access to and education on birth control, and 2) resources for women without the financial means, environment or mental/physical/emotional health to support themselves during pregnancy and after the baby is born, through childhood?
The scary thing is when a physicalist (belief that the physical world is all there is) claims that the idea that ‘mankind is inherently valuable’ is just speciesism and so it doesn’t matter if an animal (the human mother) wants to rid herself of child. That’s the logical outworking.
@@NEPtune-fy1ug lol how the fuck is that strawman? That is the point of the argument. If it is human, abortion is wrong. It is not about choice, it is about if it is scientifically human.
I didn't die when my car was totaled. I just simply got another car. Perhaps, I'm the same soul that came after my mother's miscarriage. If my mother never had children, perhaps I would've just found another organic vehicle.
1. It's not human beings. 2. You don't have to tolerate anyone's right when protecting your own body, property, life, freedom, etc. Even if you can to the point where you consider this as murder - woman doesn't have to bear it, to care about it, you force her to give her anything for another.
Lol silly!….. Forced-birthers always think they defeat the abortion argument…. They just can’t defeat abortion itself… They were 63,000,000 in 50 years….. What were you so victorious about, again?…..
I can. The Geneva convention considers any “woman forced to get pregnant, stay pregnant, or give birth; to be a crime against humanity." So most people don't buy into his BS. He is pro slavery. see the evil that he is.
Imagen advocating for the goverment being able to force women to stay pregnant. What is this world coming to :/ and the fact is that all of them are trying to give fetuses SPECIAL rights that none else has. A born child doesnt have the right to use their mothers body how ever they want, a parent doesnt even need to give their vhild a kidney, even if it will lead to that childs death. Why should a fetus have special rights none else has?
60 million children and the percentage of abortions due to rape/incest & problematic birth/health issues are both so immensely small that it is homestly so disgusting that all these other women try to put themselves under this umbrella when in reality most are just trying to run from responsibility. Men do not get this opportunity. They have their finances and even their lives taken away with prison sentences if they dont fulfill their end of the responsibility.
These are the arguments I have been making for the last 20+ years. I've been waiting for somebody in the public eye to finally make the same arguments instead of just quoting the Bible or conceding that zygotes and fetuses aren't people "but will become one".
@@KurNorock Good you are alive Saying "it is always wrong" to do something doesn't make that true. The fact his position is so simple means it is so simple to make it collapse because by proving anything he says to be incorrect brings that whole argument down. So he will talk about what pro abortion people will say to attack his simple premise which is an immediate misrepresentation. Being pro abortion means you are in favour of that outcome for all pregnancies when most people are fairly indifferent to the outcome of pregnancies, the interest is in the outcome of those pregnancies being what the pregnant woman wants. There are two main arguments for the availability of abortion 1 That the level of development is not sufficient for it to have the rights of a born child 2 That there are no rights to live inside someone against their wishes Matt Walsh tries to undermine what pro choice will say about the first argument, that it is dehumanising. Human reproduction is a process where a physical part of a woman separates and becomes another person therefore there is always going to be a point before which it is not going to be considered separate. How does a non sentient thing make moral claims for itself ? It doesn't, other people make moral claims for it. Should we spend time on the notion that a human ovum is not human ? The expectations he throwing at pro choice he could not himself address for his own position. Saying "It is a scientific fact the being in the womb is a being, a living being." doesn't make that description scientifically accurate. Then back to all living things have to be a member of some species or another. Yes a human ovum is of the human species. No intelligent person argues that an unborn is not of the species human. They argue that it is not "A human" because it has yet to separate or achieve criteria that would make it deemed separate. Matt Walsh is trying to give the impression that his own stance does not ever have to deem the ovum as not "a human" Answer the questions for an ovum, is it alive, dead or inanimate ? Has he settled that argument ? No Saying that it is not a person is really just a way of saying that it is not considered separate and individual yet. This criteria cannot be applied to a born person, it categorically does not implicate more than just the unborn. It is a reproductive development has not yet reached a stage to be considered separate from what will be its maternal parent. Gestation withing the internal reproductive organs of a pregnant woman is not comparable to infirm or dependent people. It is a personal choice by someone who it uniquely affects, the pregnant woman. An infirm person is not inside my body as far as I am aware. What does it matter if my opinion of someone is that they are not wholly as much as a person as me? I am not personally required to be responsible for their entry into the world. The personhood is innate, not inherent, an unborn has an age of less than zero, the number of children you have increases by an integer at birth, the foundation of modern principles revolves around birth. Our country doesn't revolve around abortion being made illegal. The human rights belong to the pregnant woman, the developing fetus within her is part of her human rights. Her right to be pregnant, her right not to be sexually molested or raped, impregnated against her will, her right to body autonomy, her right to decide if gestation is what she wants to happen and is going to continue. Every ovum is unique, it's part of what makes your siblings genetically different, do ova have inherent value, probably not, because every woman has a million ova. Potentially a woman could have only one ovum left, does that then have inherent value ? to her it might. That is an argument. The arguments of Matt Walsh do not stand up.
The key fact here is consciousness. The simple fact he doesn't deal with that argument demonstrates the flaw in it.Ultimately the outcome and intention here is control.
Daily Wire and most conservative speakers talk about the consciousness argument you’re using all the time…a person in a coma is not conscious, or when a person beats someone so hard they become unconscious- does this allow us to then kill them? They have no consciousness so it’s not like they’ll know we’re killing them right? There’s no brain activity at least not enough to care… Yeah, no. We don’t kill people and we don’t kill babies. Your desire to kill the unborn does not make you a hero, I have no clue who you’re trying to impress unless you’re worshipping the Aztec sun god or something.
You can pick any number of reasons to devalue another. “A fetus isn’t conscience so we should be able to kill it”. You’re not conscience when you’re asleep, so I guess we should be able to kill sleeping people too! The illogical of pro-aborts knows no bounds!
@@thatoneguy5694 the brain does not start to work on week 5. Its developing. But it so underdeveloped that it cannot possibly be used to experience subjective reality of this world( consciousness). The fact that there are a bunch of neurons copiled does not mean its functioning. There needs to be electrical activity, neural circuitry and various areas of the brain developed. If 99 percent of my brain dies with exception of some clusters of neurons, you wouldnt call me alive or conscious. You would call me brain dead.
I find this subject very confusing. These are all valid arguments and I am not saying I have the answers but the complication here is that the baby at this stage is not a separate entity. It is part of another human being, it is even inside that human and will affect that human's body dramatically, in some cases permanently. At what stage does someone dictate to that human that they must allow their body to be physically affected by this other human? Cannot that human, who's body is going to be affected by this, have any say in the matter at any stage in the process? What happens in rape cases? And then there is the matter of what happens to the baby when it is born? What kind of life is it going to have if it has been a mistake, the mother did not want it? OK, so sometimes the motherly instincts will kick in and the mother will actually fall in love with the baby, but .... the key word there is 'sometimes'. Sometimes the mother will *not* fall in love with the baby and resent it her whole life. What kind of life is that baby going to have? You might say, well she can put it up for adoption. Yes, sure she can, but will she? There are sometimes many different degrees of variables in situations. She may still have that tug of motherhood there that just won't allow her to give it away, but yet she still regrets having it but keeps it and .... well, again, what kind of life is that baby going to have?
You apparently don’t know the difference between needing CARE (which anyone can provide)…. And needing someone’s BODY to live off of, using their blood, oxygen and internal organs… Only the pregnant woman can do that for a fetus…. but if she doesn’t want to, there’s not much we can do about it…. Unless we wanna act like dictators….
I'm a teen girl and I've always been against abortion. It hurts to hear grown women say that I'm less of a woman just because I dont think abortion should be allowed.
@@wylierichardson-tu6zs The best way is not to perform the act of reproduction until you are ready to reproduce. I do agree with you that we have gone a tremendously long way in providing contraception.
If that is true, are we saying that accidental miscarriages are also man slaughter? Why should a woman being raped not have the right to not be a mother is she doesn't want to? Why do we want to give birth to all accidental pregnancies as well? The family structure all around the world is already broken. Millions of children have no one to take care of them. Why do we want to creat more broken families? Matt always makes it a point to define terms. What is a woman? Right? An adult female human. What is a human? A person who can cry, sleep, laugh and see the light outside the world, with a pair of lungs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, a nose etc etc. The population of the world is already 7 billion. And a vast proportion of them are struggling. We really do not need to bring in even more people if their parents themselves are not able to take care of them. The 3 months in which an abortion is allowed is actually to make a decision whether the particular being can be allowed to become a human and see the outer world. And that decision needs to be the parents' decision and the family's. Not the government's.. and not Matt's as well.
Ask a pro abortion advocate is it acceptable to torture a baby in the womb. Ask a pro abortion advocate is it ok to allow someone to kill the baby as part of a sex act. If they say yes, you are dealing with sheer evil. If they so no, you have blown away every argument they have.
I am pro-choice. I have a question for those of you who are pro-life: Hypothetically let's suppose someone was brought to the ER because their kidneys exploded through no fault of their own. They need someone to donate one of their kidneys to keep them alive, and it just so happens that you are the only person who has the type of kidney they need (remember, this is a hypothetical thought experiment). Do you think the government would have a right to step in and FORCE you to give up your kidney to keep this person alive? If you say no, they don't have that right, then by what principle do you believe the government can use force to make a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy?
Pro-life person here. I agree, the government has no right to demand you give up your organs. I assume you are referring to Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument. In it, Judith argues that because it is morally acceptable to unplug yourself from the violinist, it is ok to "unplug" yourself from the fetus. That reasoning would stand if the two examples were relevantly parallel, but they aren't. 1. Abortion and unplugging oneself are very different in nature, with the former being the intentional killing of a healthy human organism, and the latter being leaving someone in their original state, which so happens to be dying. 2. Organs are not meant for giving. That's why we each have our own set of them. We can, through commendable charity, give them to someone else, but in terms of anatomical design, they are meant for us, and us alone to use. The uterus is different though. It is meant to be inhabited. That's its fundamental function. 3. The violinist argument paints the relationship between a mother and her offspring as a stranger/stranger relationship when it is actually a mother/child relationship. Parents have a moral (and legal) obligation to their children, as seen by child support or child neglect laws. In the violinist argument, what if the violinist was instead your two year old daughter? 4. Sex is fundamentally ordered towards procreation. Heterosexual intercourse comes with the very real potential of pregnancy. When you consent to an action you simultaneously consent to all of the potential repercussions or side effects (ex. when you get in your car to buy groceries, you consent to the possibility of being in a fatal accident). Back to point 3, we have a moral obligation to our offspring. 5. If Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument of refusal was accepted, it would be well within a mother's right to refuse to breast feed her child (assuming she had no access to formula and breast feeding was the only option), thereby starving it. There's a lot more to be said on this topic, so feel free to ask! If you are open to it, I would recommend watching some of Trent Horn's abortion discussions or video by Emily Geiger at the Equal Rights Institute! Hope this helps.
A kidney is your body, not someone else’s. The baby conceived in a woman’s womb is not her body, it just needs her body to grow and survive. Abortion is the intentional destruction of human life and is wrong and displeasing to God.
This honestly made my brain lose cells 😂. If the woman doesn’t want to have a baby then why is she having unprotected sex knowing the consequences that could come with it. It’s her own fault so she should have to deal with it.
Same. I don't see it as the murder of a person, but rather the murder of a potential person. I'm pro choice because I think each person should mind their own business.
@@theomaid I dont think it is as easy as that, this is one of the reasons that i think that no one should define themselves as pro-something, i find abortion as a right, but i also understand that a lot of people would become even more irresponsible if it was legal, my position would be something like a regulated abortion
@@theomaid besides probably not being too healthy for the woman to have too many abortions, I don’t think that free casual sex is any good, it is a possibility that it can actualy be better but I don’t think it is a good idea, not socially at least. Back to the abortion issue I was thinking and probably it should be fully legal, with a limit yearly, if we have a technology to better control births it should be used, for good hopefully Also bonobos are pedophiles as well, they are freaks, I don’t think we should model any sex behavior by them
@@califtom How did you like that vote in Ohio the other day?…. The forced-birthers were trying to make it harder to pass an abortion measure in November…. The voters rejected that!…. The measure will probably pass and ensure abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution!…. Looks like Matt Walsh didn’t end the debate after all….. This is a case of false advertising…..
@@hexl702too5 how’d you like that Dobbs ruling? I hope it made you livid. Baby killers won’t ever turn Ohio into the vile states of California or New York whether that upsets you or not.
Someone tell me. Who is paying for these babies? We must show proof of funds and creditworthiness to get a house, car, credit card, phone and really anything. Why are we allowing people with no money or no desire to become parents? My kids will not suffer because their parents wanted them and had the means to support them.
How are you gonna decide for OTHER people when it’s the right time they should have a child . No one else can or should decide when it’s right to have a child except for the people involved
Yes, spoken from the heart of someone who is not affected by the laws they’re supporting, who knows that banning abortion doesn’t stop them from happening and is speaking like a life saving hero when they’re just a coward who is doing nothing to actually help the problem.
@@lukenath6983 It might be immoral, but it is not unethical. A women owns her womb and therefore has a right to decide who gets to use it, so she has the right to abort.
Agreed, a right to use it in the sense of whom gets to impregnate, but once that act is committed the growth of the baby there is a product of that choice.
The ONLY instance in which I get “grey” when it comes to abortion is in instance of rape or forced conception of a woman. Other than this I would say it is both immoral and unethical.
I agree with the points expressed in this video. And I understand that abortions are really just a matter of convenience and any "justice" is an excuse, but I also believe that abortions will continue to exist. So I think that we still need this safer procedure to exist and just reach a middle ground where the majority can agree on what is the line that shouldn't be shoved around by goal posting. Otherwise you'll just get clothes hangers and poisonous methods becoming popularized instead. I don't care for an argument that absolutely says yes or no on this issue, because abortions will continue to happen wether you like them or not. Stressing morals and getting rid of this infectious attitude that children can simply be destroyed. If you make more people conscious you can mitigate this, but removing it is an impossibility and should NEVER be the goal. Human desires will never allow either side to have a total victory without descending into tyranny.
Abortion will always exist in the same way as murder will always exist. There is no middle ground to be found. No innocent, defenseless human life is up for negotiation.
@@grrinc yup. And yes, we may even go back to the days of wire coat hangers. In my book, if a woman wants to kill that baby bad enough to risk her own life, go for it.
I agree to a certain degree. As others have said, there will be people who seek abortions out of convenience the same way that there are other kinds of murder out of convenience. That should be criminalized, and in my opinion, punishable by death. However, there are extremely rare circumstances in which surgical abortion is necessary, although not nearly to the degree that it’s practiced currently, I would like to point out. It needs to be classified as an ER procedure, like stitches to close a wound, not an elective procedure like Botox. There are birth defects that are thankfully extremely rare that, for example, cause a baby to be created in the womb with an incomplete skull. I don’t think we should have jagged bone fragments coming out of a woman’s birth canal only to have the baby killed because the birth canal squeezed its unprotected brain to the point of killing it, so abortion is a logical, relatively safe procedure in such an instance. I think that needs to be legal. But legal abortion needs to be the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The murder of over 60 million unborn babies in America will be remembered alongside the Nazi Holocaust and the Communist Gulags.
it's enough to convince moderates if said moderates have a conservative, old-school temperament to begin with or don't have many friends. in the modern era social acceptance has largely taken the places that were previously occupied by among others the church, the threat of imminent death round every corner, and in many cases even the concept of hell itself. even as in the church for example, that when the traditions of the church become incompatible with society, church must change or face nullification. see my point by looking at the rules set out millenias ago that are no longer followed even by some of the more strict adherents.that is to say that even the church is subject to ostracism and social coercion. still, a great speech though. very well thought out and articulated.
How is it moral to force a female (and I say "female" because if I say "woman" I would be leaving out pregnant children) to remain pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant? How do you deal with the medical need for abortion? Say, in cases of ectopic pregnancies?
The way I've explained it to people is that the moment that sperm and egg meet that is no longer the mother's DNA and it is no longer the father's DNA. It is a unique and different individual and you do NOT have the right to dictate whether that individual lives or dies. For pregnancies that arise from normal/typical means (consensual sex) I'd say it's a case of "You knew the risks so act like an adult and deal with the consequences." For other cases such as nonconsensual I would still say the baby should live. It is NOT the child's fault what happened to the mother. The child should NEVER be punished for the crimes of the father. Ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency that would endanger the mother's life and they are not comparable to normal pregnancies. On top of that, the baby would not survive 9 months growing in the fallopian tube. It's not made to house a growing baby. In such cases, the baby is doomed from the start either way. Untreated either the baby would die or the mother would die leading to the baby dying anyway.
There are so many forms of cheap, easily accessible, convenient birth control options to prevent pregnancy that I find it reckless, selfish, narcissistic, and cruel to decide that killing a living human organism that you helped create is your best birth control option.
A raped child should always get an abortion, should they want one. They are victims, too. No raper should be able to force his victim to have his kid. That's as sick as it gets.
So you're saying my husband shouldn't be alive? It's still a child. A woman/ girl who is raped still has the choice whether or not to have that baby. My husband's mother chose to have him, and gave him up for adoption at birth. It was a selfless act of pure love for him, knowing what happened to her wasn't his fault and wanting him to have a good life. Nobody forced her, this was her choice. Women just need to know abortion isn't their only option... it is ALWAYS a choice made from a place of disempowerment.
@@RanchMamaFox My god your perception of reality is twisted!! To take a person's life experience and say that you are destroying that by stopping it before it happened as the same thing is not only logically flawed but is repugnant, deceitful, and morally indefensible!! Take a look in the Bible for starts and do a body count on all the little children who were murdered under God's command - see Egypt for starts!
I don’t agree with a lot of what Matt Walsh says but dang, he makes a great case against abortion. I am anti-abortion/pro-life by the way. I’m saying that abortion is one of the few things I agree with Matt on
Well this is aging well😂, I love that these videos will still be up as we are remembering why roe vs wade was so important. the backlash against prolife republicans, by republicans, gives me some faith again, that we can make the right decisions.
Matt doesn't end the argument for me. He starts from the debatable premise that human life has a higher value than other life. Either all life is valuable or only human life is valuable? If that is true, why is it true, who decides which life has value is critical to the debate.
Matt is starting with the premise that he is speaking to a civilized audience. Therefore the people in his audience think murder should be against the law. He didn’t imagine there would be someone like you who thinks murder should be legal
@@gopher7691 You are confusing killing with murder. Murder is illegal. Killing is legalised in circumstances such as war, threat to life, food and abortion.
@@intensepete430 abortion for convenience is murder. Killing someone for convenience is murder whether it is legal or not. For example it was legal to kill Jews in Germany in 1943 but it was still murder.
*LIKE & SUBSCRIBE* - Don’t forget to ring the bell so you don't miss a thing!
Watch the full speech here: th-cam.com/video/82-VQYvzBoQ/w-d-xo.html
What's with your violent hatred of us Boomers? Could it be your Boomer grandfather molested you, Matt? OK, whiny millennial. Have a nice life. Ok, whiny millennial.
Your a racist piece of garbage.. You will burn in hell 1 day buddy.. Good luck with that.. You should go back to school lol
@@bwp714 What do you mean "racist"? I didn't see anything racist on this thread.
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
I would like to mention something related to the last part discussed in this video. The thing about personhood. I feel that the argument that a baby is not an independent person should be considered valid and sufficient for settling the pro-abortion cause. I accept that a foetus is a living thing. Rather i accept it as a member of the human species and being alive.
Now to support my argument for abortion, i feel that a foetus in no way or form contributes to the society, and humans living in that society. Rather it acts like a parasite just feeding off of the society(through the uterus in which it is living, as his mother is consuming the resources from the society.). One might say that some old people or people with disabilities might also require assistance, but these people are actually worthy of assistance as they have already interacted with the society or have contributed to it in some sort of way, and even if they are not contributing at that particular moment, they have gathered resources like money or friends, and they use such resources to defend themselves or to tackle their problems. In the case of a foetus, the mother is forced to supply resources to it (without getting anything in exchange), whereas in the case of aged and disabled people nobody has an obligation to take care of them. Let's say if they don't have enough money, the maid might stop working for them, or if they don't have any friends they might have to do all of their work on their own. If they don't have money to pay for the hospital bills, the hospital has a right to stop caring for them. Essentially, if someone is being cared for there is some sort of exchange of resources in this case.
Even a newborn baby creates some sort of exchange in the real world that a foetus in the womb cannot. So caring for a newborn baby, at least has some sort of logic, but asking someone to care for a foetus against their will sounds absurd, as the person caring for it literally has nothing to gain.(I am not talking about the people who willingly want to have the baby and definitely see the current womb investment of nine months to be paid off in the form of love, affection, and even monetary support few years down the line.)
60 million is mind blowing and a mountain of evil.
yet they want to ban guns. 1.4 million gun deaths since 1968 versus 60 million abortions since 1973
54 million a year globally. New York Times says estimates of war dead in human history combined range from 150 million to 1 billion dead. That’s 2.5 - 18 years of abortion.
Moloch has been taking child sacrifices, unabated for 2000 years. The people who rule us are very religious. Wether you believe or not, they do. And trust me, Jesus is a much better role model, than the side they chose. Ever seen star wars? Of course you have. Ever wonder why so many people followed the old crusty emperor? Well, just ask a Hillary supporter.
Philip Accaria 1.5 billion globally since 1980
It makes Mao and Stalin in the previous century lesser evil.
If you kill a woman carrying a child, you get charged with double homicide.
But when she doesnt want to take responsibility for her actions, it's just a clump of cells.
The difference is a woman wanting the child VS not wanting it.
And as long as the child depends on that womans uterus directly, her wants matter.
@@Lexightonportia
Are you saying the wants of the child dont?
Cause I can assure you, it is a fact that it wants to stay alive.
Elijah Butterfield How do you know it wants to stay alive? Technically before around 20 weeks in utero the fetus doesn’t have the brain capacity to care. It’s central nervous system is not developed thus it cannot feel any sort of way about anything.
Regardless, we are all at the mercy of whomever we depend upon.
@@Lexightonportia it moves away from the instrument when its stuck in. It tries to escape. Idk bout you, but to me that says that it wants to live.
Elijah Butterfield Please show me video proof that a fetus before 20 weeks “tries to escape” from a suction. I would love to see that.
What I think you mean to say it is responds to outside stimuli, much like a plant or bacteria. Just because something physically responds to stimuli, doesn’t mean it is acting on intentional merit. It only means that it is alive.
Killing an innocent person is Murder.
Killing a murderer is murder as well
Ken Lukasik Killing animals for meat is murder as well.
@@anitabonghit7606 nope
@@anitabonghit7606 It depends on the situation. If a person is in action attempting to kill another person , that first person is no longer innocent therefore killing as an act of self defense is no murder.
So then every single president post world war 2 should be executed then? I mean Trump's first action in office was authorizing a drone strike that killed an innocent and defenseless 9 year old girl. So Trump is a murderer eh?
"Undocumented Infant". What an amazing troll. I'm stealing that.
Pretty straight forward..... when you have a soul.
Fish The theme‘s more complex than that
No. No it’s not.
Good vs. evil. That's as simple as it gets.
Lol
Would you call it good or evil if a teenage female was forced to have a child after her uncle raped her?
100% agree. This isn’t about women’s reproductive rights or what they do with their bodies. Its about the right of a defenseless human life to live! Great video!
Honestly for me the most incredible thing is how these same people will fight for protections for Bald Eagles eggs, or sea turtle eggs and the habitat that they need to lay those eggs, but the human growing within a mothers womb isn't worth protecting.
well it is about women's bodies when the fetus' right to life comes at the cost of their right to bodily autonomy
@@SuperSupermanX1999 The issue is that they chose to have unprotected sex where the consequence is the possibility of getting pregnant with a baby. When you chose to do that, you have created another life. You don't then get to kill that life out of convienience.
Exactly.. as a woman.. it's my "choice" to kill my unborn and return to normal activities/live life as normal.
But shame on me if I choose to not vaccinate my children or if I decide I don't want to pay rent but I'd like to stay in the house for 2 more months. After all my body my choice or woman rights.
Nope. It only applies to murdering my unborn. It's disgusting.
SuperSupermanX1999 What about the baby’s bodily autonomy?
"It's not a human, it's a boomer"
-Matt Walsh, 2019
Cobalt Crusader thought I heard that right.
And it was so funny that no one laughed. I bet he was so excited to say it too. Sorry to comment 2 years later haha
@@parkermorhiser2927 i laughed out loud lol
So Matt Walsh…..
None of that “ALL lives matter” bullshit for YOU, eh?….
😆
No wonder the forced-birthers failed in the court of public opinion….
they couldn’t sell their own message because they don’t believe it themselves!….
@Brendan Anthony 🤡🌈🤡🌈🤡🌈
I was pro-choice at one point. It's all about perspective, and I was focusing more on the life of a woman over the life inside of her. However, I did still struggle internally with the idea of killing for the benefit of another person. I think it was Stephen Crowder's "I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind" segment on abortion that changed my mind. I am pro-life.
I was also pro-choice. Perspective really is everything. To me it was easy to emphasize with the women who were poor or young, or whatever stereotype I had for women who got abortions. My friend shattered this for me. She was a mid 20's comfortably employed, educated woman, she wanted children, she had stability and means, she just didn't have a boyfriend because she got pregnant from a one night stand. She killed her baby for her dating prospects because she figured being a single mom wouldn't be good for landing a husband. It felt so selfish to me, I just started questioning everything. I finally was able to see the other side.
Hopefully she still have her job and house cause the second any self respecting man finds out she killed her baby because she thought that it wouldn't help her get a husband they will call her out on BS and if she refuses to accept that she did something wrong leave her
Sushi, do you recall the particular point or points in Stephen Crowder's pro-life reasoning that changed your mind?
Congratulations
same thing for me fam
Why can't this level of concern and determination be shown to the tens of millions of hungry, unloved, desperate children already here?
They are. It is called anti communist action.
Sure, clearly "anti communism" has solved hunger.
@@vichomangiola Better than communism ever did!
@@sananton2821 Great, but there are still hungry, unloved and vulnerable children out there, with all of you anticomunists around. Anti communism hasn´t solved sh1t.
@@sananton2821 I'm not convinced you know much about anything
The reason why a baby needs to stay in the mothers body for 9 months, is for protection. Although in the west, in progressive society, it's the most dangerous place to be. If it wasin't so vulnerable, then it wouldint need to stay in the womb so long, so the 9 months is immaterial when your deciding if its human. Its human from conception.
I believe a little over halfway through the pregnancy the fetus has a higher than 50% chance of survival if removed from the womb... but I could be wrong its been so long since Ive debated abortion
I agree with you..
But tell a mother with a painful difficult pregnancy that 9 months is immaterial…
Maybe philosophically, but definitely not medically..
might wanna have a glance of world wide abortion rates and realise its actually the east that aborts. you are probably also rooting for russia at this point.
@@robertalust5466 Pregnancies don't happen at random, you know? There are things that lead to it, and a mature person would know it.
@@bonbonpony lol of course…I know that
But you don’t know if your pregnancy is going to be complicated or if there’s going to be a lot of health stuff to deal..and women can’t just not have sex in their marriage because of that risk..would the marriage last ?
I’m pro life….so abortion is not the fix for this stuff…
But the problem is doctors don’t always listen to women’s health concerns especially during pregnancy…
My issue is you can’t just be like “meh it’s nothing” women need support..and that’s often the attitude I hear..
He’s a good speaker
Except I just found out he thinks Trump supporters are morons ? Daily Wire has a problem they need to address, not delete old tweets
ANDREW STOUT, we may agree or disagree with an individual’s positions or arguments but it still may not invalidate the whole, of you catch my meaning
Corey R ??? Lmao
@@andrewstout5400 Remember the days where presidents of the United States were true statesmen and not absolute clowns? (This also applies to the current one, not just DT) If someone supports a person with an IQ of a potato, that one couldn't be much brighter too, don't you think?
He talks rubbish like he means it but he is fundamentally wrong on all levels
We were all a fetus at a point , were't we?
Me and my boyfriend want to have kids but are waiting till we can support them and are married. Also we haven't had sex which is easy considering he's in Ireland at the moment.
Also we want to adopt so anyone who gets pregnant and doesn't know what to do please consider your other options
Mama Bear that’s called being responsible adults making the right decisions waiting until you are ready is admirable and the right thing to do good for you
You are a very wise woman. God bless you and your lives together!
So you're losers. It's just that
@@Shizo-friend Okay so like I have changed over the last four years and I regret my past self's actions but like don't criticize someone who doesn't wanna have sex.
@@mamabear1394 everybody wants to have sex. Everybody normal at least.
The argument that ultimately changed my mind is this. "If you do nothing, the fetus will become a person." I can't articulate why that simple sentence had such an impact on me. But it rolls around in my head all the time now.
Trevor Sampson I’m glad it had an impact on you, but I would make one correction. The fetus is already a person. Otherwise you have to answer the question of exactly when the fetus becomes a person and why. Inevitably, as Walsh says in this video, you would have to come to the conclusion that some people outside the womb aren’t actually people either.
"Homo est et qui est futurus" - irenaeus. Roughly translates to 'who is to be a human being, is a human being!' The quote continues, [for the whole fruit is already present in the seed]. It is an interesting argument that has been used for almost 2 millennia.
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
Boaz V This is, by far, the single most retarded thing I have ever seen in my life. Literally what the fuck.
@@strangelyukrainian7314 Wow you must be some sort of ignorant uneducated backwater cousin humping hillbilly to say such stupid stuff. Are you honestly that blind to what a woman goes through during pregnancy and after childbirth? Incontinence, vaginal tearing, stretch marks, c-section scars, hemorrhoids swollenfeet, sagging breasts, damage nipples, morning sickness, back pain, leg cramps, varicose veins, possible death, not to mention the excruciating pain of childbirth itself. That is what I mean by "ripped apart". When is the last time a man had to go through the same agony because he made the same choices a woman? I am not going to try and make sense of your inane rambling but I will say this, in a world where 55% of the population are woman and yet 80% of absentee fathers are men how is that equal? If we truly want men To be as responsible as women when it comes to their obligations that we need to threaten them with bodily harm not just give him some worthless fine or some meaningless jail time which has little impact. Do you understand that when a man points his pene'us at a women it is the equivalent of him pointing a gun at her when you consider all the bodily damage and possible death that will happen to her because of his choice? How come he is not risking the same damage? Where is the equality in that? So unless you are willing to mutilate a man for making the same choices of woman then you have no right to take away her right to choose to not be mutilated herself.
What I'm going to say, may sound indelicate.
*Women. There are things, on this is very planet, that are more important than you are.*
Dr. Minty it’s that simple, thank you
THANK YOU
kunntakentay I think the top guy is long gone so will just ask you. If the mother is unable to take care of her offspring or has a pregnancy that is threatening her life is it permissible to have an abortion. I only ask because the dr. Minty is making it sound like, if you get raped are about to die whatever the contexts fuck you you’re have that baby no matter what. This seems a little extreme but what do you think.
DOMINICUS ROMULUS if the mom can’t raise the child, there’s adoption. Abortion is NEVER morally preferable to adoption.
Also, this idea of the unborn fetus threatening the life of the mother; with the medicine and hospital facilities we have today; this issue is now virtually non-existent. It just doesn’t happen. But in the 0.000001% chance it ever did, then yes, abortion could be permissible. Of course, the focus remains on saving lives (pro-life) because the intent of it is to save the mother’s life. The intent is not to get rid of an unwanted baby.
@@Randomguy2341
A) If the mother cannot care for the child, the mother *should not be having a child.* I know the argument for "but muh contraception isnt 100% safe" is a common one, the simple solution is funnily enough..simple. Don't get your fuck on if you aren't willing to accept the 0.001% chance that you may become a parent.
B) If the mothers life is greatly at risk, and it is a choice between the unborn child and the mother, then I can understand the argument for choosing to save the mother.
My point isn't that, if you're a rape victim then you're on your own. I understand that there are severe cases. But people need to understand that these severe cases are, not exactly a majority. Just off the top of my head, 1% of women get an abortion due to rape, and in the case of incest it's less than 0.5% (I may be incorrect).
In these dire situations, while I dont condone abortion and feel adoption may be better, I'm not going to hold these women accountable because let's face it... that must be terrifying to go through.
He didn't "end the argument" at all. He didn't even addressed the actual argument. Noone has said a fetus is not alive. By his own definition of "living states", even a spermatozoid is alive. I'm sure he has killed more than 60 million of those. And regarding the debate about the autonomy of a person, he didn't gave an answer either. This doesn't end absolutely anything.
Sperm's life expectancy is 3-5 days.
Wherever it is
Sperms are not humans
@@masterbateman2686 neither is the zygote, because it's just a tiny blob with no organs yet.
Neither is the pre big bang universe. Because it is just a tiny blob with no significant galaxys yet.
The pro-life is flawed right from the start when they state that life begins at fertilization. Women's eggs become fertilized after the ejaculate reaches it. But not every fertilized eggs becomes a baby. Because under that logic, any woman who is sexually active and menstruating regularly is a serial killer
I’m assuming some of those people who walked out didn’t want to hear the truth.
Luke Andrews maybe they either had an abortion or supported someone who did...
@@Mnpat how do you support someone in the process of killing their baby?
Or mabey they’re like me and had tacobell for lunch 🌮
@@Mnpat Also known as...Not wanting to hear the truth.
Thomas B huh? I am 100% pro-life.
You can tell Matt is used to debating people that don’t really know why they’re talking about rather than subject matter experts.
Lol, the subject matter experts can't answer the question "what is a woman?"
@@makroskonstopolis you are foolish if you dont think the experts know what a woman is, everyone does, except the very few psychotic individuals. they just dont want to offend anyone. if you seriously think the majority of the left dont know what a woman is you are stupid yourself
Well, Matt just got schooled by the voters in Ohio, I guess, lol
The "subject matter experts" don't really know what they're talking about either 😂
@@MarvelGamer2023 I mean, if you don’t think people like Trent Horn know what they’re talking about that’s your prerogative.
Irresponsibility is no excuse for murder. Teach the young responsibility to cure unborn murder.
@linnea falk no, but teach the young responsibility and the responsibility stays with you all your life.
Including the responsibility to not rape, I assume?
I need to know more about this.
There is no issue in politics I've tried to stay away from longer but, the time for courage has come.
Jack Little - good for you, Daily Wire and Live Action have good videos to watch
Look up Scott Klusendorf on TH-cam.
There is nothing courageous about educating yourself. It's simply not being a dipshit.
Watch the procedure
@@BulletsAndBloomers you don't need to be so rude to her. She's admitted she has kept her head in the sand and she's ready to try and understand. Geez
Great video! Logical and precise
Great commentary. Appreciate it. Definitely shared it, but unfortunately it will not be recognized. I’m sure you know how that goes
So my Dad is an OB/GYN and I’ve had some discussions with him on abortion. He’s never done an abortion out of convenience. I’ve come to agree with him that an abortion is valid, if the health of the mother is truly at risk. I am a religious conservative and very much pro-life, except for the exception I’ve stated above. This is something I invite y’all to think on.
I’m pro life as well
But if it’s not just the mother’s life and it’s not emergent?
What then?
I’m not talking about discomfort of course, but severe, chronic complications..
Something that effects quality of life or functionality?
Some pregnancies can further complicate chronic health conditions..or reproductive conditions..
I ended up having to have a hysterectomy recently and at 30…because of this..
And that had it’s own complications..
I’m pro life, but it seems this exception really doesn’t consider women’s health..
Ill play devils advocate. NOT FULLY MY BELIEFS: Simply because something is "living" does not mean its on the same standard as humans, trees and bugs are living yet we kill them easily, and the philosophical reason why humans are on the next standard of life and don't deserve to be killed (high intelligence, ability to use logic and reason, our ability to point out and preserve highly sophisticated patterns, our 5 senses, the happiness we cause others, and our subjected consciousness) are all not present for most of the fetus' development. I will also point out SOME people on the right are quick to forget their values in protecting innocent life as soon as a drone strike or civilian casualty rates gets brought up, then all of a sudden excuses to justify the death of innocent people are plentiful, so the whole "abortions bad because it kills an innocent, and that's never justified" does not really work for lots of conservatives who justify the loss of actual born children in the name of patriotism, or say "shouldn't of been resisting arrest" when a innocent black man is shot... Once again this clearly does not include all conservatives, some do actually practice what they preach about protecting the innocent, but so many are hypocrites when it comes to abortion
We need to redefine the American abortion phenomenon as “American Genocide.” Abortion is genocide. Murder. We are guilty of a worse societal crime than the Nazi Holocaust. The guilty always struggle with the problem of “language,” using words to say what they don’t mean.
I've been agreeing that an unborn child is a person, it's not murder if it's legal though. Abortion is legal, therefore making it not murder. Me personally, I wouldn't want irresponsible people taking care of an unwanted child. Imagine that, I dare you
This is the most profound and emotional description of abortion ( even hard to write). Visulize this- "A baby is in the safest most perfect place a human being can be-warm and pesceful in it's Mother. Than comes excruciating, prolonged pain and death!!" Quote is from the High Impact channel. There are scant few reasons that a civilized culture should support this. [P.S.( Lets stop using a "nice" word "abortion" and do what Democrats do, use a descriptive, emotional producing term in this case "baby killers"] a Savvy Simple Guy
Okay we'll use "baby killing" if you change "pro-life" to "pro-silencing-controlling-and-harming-women-without-actually-saving-any-lives-especially-those-of-born-children". Or if you prefer the much shorter "forced-birth".
@@millili7980 Troll
A woman is actually a person, not a human incubator.
@@DanT-godofpain Cant she be both? Two things can be true at the same time you know. Why do you think that having a child is so bad?
@@avivastudios2311 No. Do not put words in my mouth.
*I like to use the word “organism” when arguing with a pro-abortion individual. Since the left utilizes, only when advancing their argument of course, the lenses of science to view a topic, then surely they understand the life cycle of an ‘organism’. The entire pro-abortion stance and argument is one big hypocritical word salad, it makes no sense. This guy hit it on the head perfectly. Well done!*
I've come across several "biologists" who claim that any living cell(including somatic cells such as skin or hair cells) are organisms, rendering the word meaningless .
How has using the word organism benefited you at all when talking to a prochoice person? If at all 🤔🙂
Abortion is about equality between men and women. A man and a woman engage in the same act however only the woman has to spend the next 9 months having her body ripped apart. Where is the equality in that? The only way I will become anti choice is if we pass a law that says if a man impregnates a woman he has to spend the next 9 months in a jail cell preferably with a rapist. Because in order to maintain equality a man has to have his body ripped apart like a woman after having sex. Abortion is about giving woman a choice to not go through 9 months of suffering just like a man does not have to go through it. Abortion is horrible yes, but in our male dominated, "boys will be boys" world that we live in, it is a necessary evil.
@@Boaz833 Acknowledging Abortion is evil/horrible and then calling it necessary is insane. You've essentially conceded that an unborn child is a human life, and even so you still would call it necessary, especially when it occurs (assuming Matt Walsh's number is correct) in 60 million different cases.
@@yee9574 I concede that an unborn child is a human life. But I also concede that evil is sometimes necessary. Just look at war. It is the most evil and terrible of things and yet it is continuous throughout our history. Innocent people are always being killed by soldiers does that mean that the soldier is a monster? You might make the argument well at least it's not a deliberate killing of an innocent person however we know that innocent people always die in war and yet we always have wars. Why? Because it is a necessary horror in our human condition. As an example the Civil War was fought for equality among the races. Would you argue that the cost of human life was too great and that keeping slavery legal was a better alternative to allowing hundreds of thousands of Americans to be killed? Of course not, because when it comes to equality and justice there is no price too high to pay. And in the same way abortion is a necessary horror as it is a battle for equality between the genders. If you truly want to end abortion and keep things equal between the genders I would suggest you pass a law that says if a man takes it out of his pants without being 100% ready for the responsibility of being a parent then his penis will be surgically removed. That would end most abortions because it would end unplanned pregnancies.
Very succinct as usual. Well done.
Given that there are significant opposing positions on abortion, it is too bad we couldn't come to a reasonable comprise. Oh, wait - we already did that with viability. The GOP needs to learn that they can't have everything their own way. Fighting over settled law only impedes the common goal of reducing unwanted pregnancy. The over-reach is going to backfire.
The issue isn't about whether the fetus is or isn't a person. The issue is that our society is sick. The poor and lower members of the socio-economic system suffer much more by "unwanted" pregnancy. As a progressive society, we need to make sure women are safe and taken care of. Currently, they are not.
That is something that can be changed. But it won’t change if it just keeps being used as an excuse to kill the unborn
Do other humans have right to use woman's body without her consent? If the answer is no, then fetus also doesn't have that right.
@@goranmilic442 However, the woman partook in the creation of that other human. If you and your son were playing baseball in the yard and accidentally smashed their neighbor's window, the neighbor would want you to pay. But you say that you weren't meaning to smash their window. But that's the assumed responsibility of the parent playing baseball with his or her kid, same with sex. You may not have meant to get pregnant, but that's the assumed responsibility the couple takes by partaking in it.
@@litterill First of all, if woman was raped, then she didn't partake in anything, did she? So your argument still allows raped women to abort. Next, in your baseball example, you are forgetting that responsibility comes from contracts or crimes or damages. Having sex is neither of those, so it's invalid to compare damaging someone's window and having sex. Woman doesn't lose right to control her body, just because she had sex.
@@goranmilic442 We both agree rape is a horrible atrocious that should happen to no one, however, it accounts for about 1% of abortions that occur. Abortion doesn't solve the pain that the rape did- locking up the man who did and receiving compassionate love and counseling does. During a rape, there are 1 guilty and 2 innocents- the guilty being the man who did it and the innocents being the woman and the baby. Adding more violence to the baby doesn't help anyone. In fact, there are stories of women who have been raped and contemplated suicide, but upon learning they were pregnant gave them a reason to live. I am in no way saying that the rape was a good thing, but just sharing another side of the story. I'm a bit confused about what you meant that responsibility comes from contracts or crimes or damages, could you explain it more please? Partaking in a recreational activity one enjoys but having an unintended consequence of said activity does make one liable. But what about the baby's body? the baby has a right to its body as well. It is its own unique person with unique DNA.
The main issue is that, while people are arguing that the child should be born, none of you care about the life that child will be born into. But will be quick to bash those living in poverty who continue to have kids and increasing the population thats living in poverty.
People deserve to be able to decide what they want to do with their body, and frankly its not a strangers business 🤷🏾♂️
Yup. They care more about bringing a life into the world than the quality of life they'll have. It's well documented that the vast majority of unwanted children suffer greatly and are a net burden to society due to violence, not being able to keep a job, drug addiction, etc.
Meanwhile, the forced-birthers distract from the fact the Republicans want to do away with minimum wage, abolish unions who will fight for fair pay, kill off the middle class while transfer the wealth to the ultra-rich, and ensure those without connections pop out as many cheap future labourers as possible (interfering with forced birth = imprisonment). Sounds like a dystopian/autocratic system trying to make cheap labour to the advantage of the very few to me.
I never understood the argument that an abortion should be permitted due to the fact that it is dependent on the mother for life. A newborn baby is also completely dependent on its mother for survival. Yes, we've circumvented that a little, developing infant formulas and such, but still the baby is now dependent on a "mother substitute".
Think about premature babies. For one thing- If it's not ok to kill the 8 months developed baby outside of the womb, why then should it be ok when that baby is still in the womb? Additionally, many premature babies are dependent on medical technology,such as incubators, to survive. Should we be permitted to kill those babies just because they are not capable of survival without a "host"?
Bill Burr said it good in an analogy about baking a cake but Matt puts it in a great perspective
Abortion is about equality for everyone. A woman should not be forced to put her body through a pregnancy for the same reason a man should not be forced to donate an organ or marrow or even a tiny bit of blood to save a dying child.
You are assuming those two scenarios are the equivalent though. They aren't. Abortion is the intentional killing of a living and healthy fetus, whereas refusal to donate an organ is leaving someone in their original state, which so happens to be dying.
Not to mention biological differences. The uterus is an organ designed for housing another being. Your kidney is not. Your kidney is designed for you to use (though you could be charitable and choose to give it someone).
If you are interested you may want to look into Trent Horn's abortion conversations on yt.
@@hgrueber38 they are equivalent in the sense of bodily autonomy. A man and woman make the same choices, but only a woman has to put her body through a 9 month's medical and life-threatening ordeal that includes massive weight gain swollen hands and feet, hemorrhoids, gas bloating fatigue constipation limited movement, and let's not forget the hours of pain associated with labor and risk of death, not to mention postpart pregnancy symptoms such as vaginal tearing or possible prolapse, incontinencs, postpartum depression or psychosis etc, while the man who made the same exact choices as she did does not even have to donate a tiny bit of blood to the baby if it was dying and needed it. How is that equal?
@@Boaz833 By making this argument you are imparting blame onto the fundamental inherent differences in biology.
@@ababahajabingo!!!
Someone should suit Planned Parenthood for human rights abuses against the unborn. Better yet, file criminal charges against them.
Why don't you do it then?
Really curious to hear from one of the very few that downvoted this video? Was there anything in particular they disagree with?
Me, for example. I don't think I should give birth to an unwanted child. There are so many cases in Asia and in my country when newborns are killed by their mothers. Or left on the streets and die from hunger, beaten up to death. In Afghanistan, young girls are raped by the Taliban and forced to give birth to expand the group, and children are killed for illegal organ transplants because of lack of proper medical care and hygiene; women try to make an abortion from untrustful and unlicensed entities, or even to make it by themselves, and end up dying or severely injured after that. Abortion can be banned in the States, but I don't think it should be banned in my country. I don't think some population is ready to take responsibility for not getting pregnant in the first place.
Why would we need to ring the bell for updates if this ends the abortion argument once and for all ?
Upon reviewing the text you provided, I have identified a few potential fallacies:
1. Straw Man Fallacy: There is a possibility of a straw man fallacy when the argument caricatures the pro-abortion position by suggesting that pro-abortion individuals claim that an unborn child is not a human person. While some pro-abortion arguments may focus on the development and dependency of the fetus, it does not necessarily mean they deny its humanity altogether.
2. False Dichotomy: The argument presents a false dichotomy by asserting that if an unborn baby lacks inherent value, then nobody in the room has inherent value. This oversimplification ignores the possibility of alternative views on personhood and inherent value.
3. Appeal to Consequences: The argument implies that if an unborn baby does not have inherent value, then human value itself becomes impermanent and non-essential. This is an appeal to negative consequences and does not directly address the actual value or rights of the unborn.
4. Red Herring: The argument includes a red herring when it brings up the sick, infirm, disabled, and elderly as potential victims of devaluing personhood based on dependency. While it raises an important ethical question, it diverts attention from the specific focus on abortion.
5. Appeal to Tradition: The argument relies on an appeal to tradition by stating that the idea of inherent human rights lies at the foundation of the country and any notion of human rights. However, the historical acceptance of an idea does not necessarily make it logically or morally correct.
It's important to note that identifying fallacies does not necessarily invalidate the entire argument, but it helps to recognize potential flaws in the reasoning presented.
crazy chat gpt response with a "try to identify any fallacies and give a pro choice answer" input. do better.
I think it’s a massive misconception that the topic of abortion is a wrong doing. It is not demoralising, or inhumane, it’s simply the right to choose to continue on with the pregnancy or not depending on their present circumstances. These circumstances can be influenced by financial issues, health and medical conditions, age etc. The issue of abortion is, by most people, not taken lightly, and is proceeded after through thorough consideration. And the ignorance to this is quite reflective of the incapability of those against abortion to understand and empathise as well, with the party that is going through this matter. There are no hero’s or villains when it comes to these things, it’s just a grey area.
Financies don’t excuse killing another human being
@@kingorange7739 what if your mother was raped tho? Would you want a half brother with a rapist of a father? Your mother was helpless and someone put a seed inside her, now she’s forced to give birth? I like how no one in the comment section mentions rape
@@JoshuaCurtin-gs6gb Because rape makes up so little of the abortion cases that to try to constantly mention it without covering majority cases first is blantant manipulation.
But I’ll indulge you. Yes I and my mother for that matter (who is also pro life) would want to keep the baby. Because ultimately it’s not the baby’s fault for what happened and doing another crime against an innocent human being doesn’t right the previous one done to you. Should the rapist be castrated or killed? Yes. But ultimately the baby is also a victim like the mother
@@JoshuaCurtin-gs6gb Exactly! Also, no one mentioned that in Switzerland, when the fetus is conceived, they make a DNA test to determine whether they are going to have a healthy baby or not, and in the majority of cases, when tests show that a person will be born with a very bad illness they make abortion. Imagine saying this in the States?
@@JoshuaCurtin-gs6gb
Need I say one thing, if you don’t Want the kid, put them up for adoption post birth, let’s stop fucking killing them ey?
How many children have YOU adopted??
How many children have you killed?
@@mr.d.572 one too few it seems
@@mr.d.572 happy to help. Be sure to post pics of the children you adopt. TC
I haven't taken in any homeless people recently either. Is it okay to kill them too?
@@califtom
Looks like we have what could be another terribly brainwashed beta male incel here, pushing for murder rights thinking it's going to land him a girlfriend. Nope, ain't happening.
Almost all of my friends have gotten abortions before.
Imagine smashing an egg that had baby birds in it… exactly, it’s sick. That’s abortion .
At it's earliest stage, what may develop into a full baby is only a single cell.
Nothing more, nothing less.
And somewhere along the way is that shift from barely an inconvenience to murder.
Early on, the developing cells are no more alive than a tree. Would you call killing a tree murder? Would you mourn it? Hold a funeral for it?
The preborn baby develops extremely rapidly. By the time a woman typically finds out she's pregnant, the baby is already well on its way to being visually recognizable as such. And is quite alive. Why do you worship convenience?
@@axelfirestorm2080 Even still, it is not fully human. Also, why would I worship convenience? I am not religious, I don't worship anything. On the contrary, I think that religion often stands in the way of a nuanced perspective.
@@lucad9667 Worship as in you make it more important than anything else. And yes, an unborn baby IS fully human. His or her DNA isn't anything BUT human. I can still remember seeing my older son's first ultrasound with his mom. He was small but definitely looked like a baby, even at only 8 weeks or so. He was rolling around and everything. Now he's almost 18 and a happy young man.
@@axelfirestorm2080 Great for him, but that's just one example. There are plenty of others where abortion should be an acceptable solution. Recklessly sleeping without protection all the way up to rape, there are plenty of reasons, and it is no ones business but the mother's what to do in that situation.
Spoilers: He didn't end it. Still going 2023.
How about: 1) access to and education on birth control, and 2) resources for women without the financial means, environment or mental/physical/emotional health to support themselves during pregnancy and after the baby is born, through childhood?
You have not ended anything. In fact you just started the debate not ended.
matt, nice big argument we have all herd before, what right do you have to determine another person's life.
The scary thing is when a physicalist (belief that the physical world is all there is) claims that the idea that ‘mankind is inherently valuable’ is just speciesism and so it doesn’t matter if an animal (the human mother) wants to rid herself of child. That’s the logical outworking.
Not sure what you are getting at. Matt Walsh is not a physicalist.
When people get more upset about a puppy being mistreated then their own baby, where in a very dark place
The moment we dehumanize an unborn baby is the moment we dehumanize everyone.
yeah nice strawman there. unborn fetuses are just unborn fetuses
@@NEPtune-fy1ug lol how the fuck is that strawman? That is the point of the argument. If it is human, abortion is wrong. It is not about choice, it is about if it is scientifically human.
@@NEPtune-fy1ug So when do you become a human? Because it sounds like you're still a fetus.
@@brianyi2995 a clump of cells isnt human, without any memories or consciousness
@@celestekoluria2695 when fetuses develop consciousness
Curious to see the orphanage Matt opens to take care of other people’s children.
Oh wait
😂😂be the main one saying give the child up for adoption but never adopt a child . Don’t even want kids to begin with
I didn't die when my car was totaled. I just simply got another car. Perhaps, I'm the same soul that came after my mother's miscarriage. If my mother never had children, perhaps I would've just found another organic vehicle.
1. It's not human beings.
2. You don't have to tolerate anyone's right when protecting your own body, property, life, freedom, etc. Even if you can to the point where you consider this as murder - woman doesn't have to bear it, to care about it, you force her to give her anything for another.
Excellent speech Matt. Well said and packed with facts that the other side can't refute or deny. They will try but ultimately they will fail.
Not rly, I have seen both sides of the arguement have a few and strong valid points.
Lol silly!…..
Forced-birthers always think they defeat the abortion argument….
They just can’t defeat abortion itself…
They were 63,000,000 in 50 years…..
What were you so victorious about, again?…..
I can. The Geneva convention considers any “woman forced to get pregnant, stay pregnant, or give birth; to be a crime against humanity." So most people don't buy into his BS. He is pro slavery. see the evil that he is.
There was no argument, it was just arguments from emotion
Imagen advocating for the goverment being able to force women to stay pregnant. What is this world coming to :/ and the fact is that all of them are trying to give fetuses SPECIAL rights that none else has. A born child doesnt have the right to use their mothers body how ever they want, a parent doesnt even need to give their vhild a kidney, even if it will lead to that childs death. Why should a fetus have special rights none else has?
60 million children and the percentage of abortions due to rape/incest & problematic birth/health issues are both so immensely small that it is homestly so disgusting that all these other women try to put themselves under this umbrella when in reality most are just trying to run from responsibility. Men do not get this opportunity. They have their finances and even their lives taken away with prison sentences if they dont fulfill their end of the responsibility.
Matt Walsh speaking facts.
It is not always wrong to kill innocent human beings. That's the mother's decision.
How’d the question by Vincent James go there Matt?
His speech was excellent.
These are the arguments I have been making for the last 20+ years. I've been waiting for somebody in the public eye to finally make the same arguments instead of just quoting the Bible or conceding that zygotes and fetuses aren't people "but will become one".
They are all fundamentally incorrect
@@bulletanarchy6447 Just saying "Yeah well you're wrong" is not an argument.
@@KurNorock Good you are alive
Saying "it is always wrong" to do something doesn't make that true.
The fact his position is so simple means it is so simple to make it collapse because by proving anything he says to be incorrect brings that whole argument down.
So he will talk about what pro abortion people will say to attack his simple premise which is an immediate misrepresentation.
Being pro abortion means you are in favour of that outcome for all pregnancies when most people are fairly indifferent to the outcome of pregnancies, the interest is in the outcome of those pregnancies being what the pregnant woman wants.
There are two main arguments for the availability of abortion
1 That the level of development is not sufficient for it to have the rights of a born child
2 That there are no rights to live inside someone against their wishes
Matt Walsh tries to undermine what pro choice will say about the first argument, that it is dehumanising.
Human reproduction is a process where a physical part of a woman separates and becomes another person therefore there is always going to be a point before which it is not going to be considered separate.
How does a non sentient thing make moral claims for itself ? It doesn't, other people make moral claims for it.
Should we spend time on the notion that a human ovum is not human ? The expectations he throwing at pro choice he could not himself address for his own position.
Saying "It is a scientific fact the being in the womb is a being, a living being." doesn't make that description scientifically accurate.
Then back to all living things have to be a member of some species or another. Yes a human ovum is of the human species.
No intelligent person argues that an unborn is not of the species human.
They argue that it is not "A human" because it has yet to separate or achieve criteria that would make it deemed separate.
Matt Walsh is trying to give the impression that his own stance does not ever have to deem the ovum as not "a human"
Answer the questions for an ovum, is it alive, dead or inanimate ? Has he settled that argument ? No
Saying that it is not a person is really just a way of saying that it is not considered separate and individual yet.
This criteria cannot be applied to a born person, it categorically does not implicate more than just the unborn.
It is a reproductive development has not yet reached a stage to be considered separate from what will be its maternal parent.
Gestation withing the internal reproductive organs of a pregnant woman is not comparable to infirm or dependent people.
It is a personal choice by someone who it uniquely affects, the pregnant woman. An infirm person is not inside my body as far as I am aware.
What does it matter if my opinion of someone is that they are not wholly as much as a person as me? I am not personally required to be responsible for their entry into the world.
The personhood is innate, not inherent, an unborn has an age of less than zero, the number of children you have increases by an integer at birth, the foundation of modern principles revolves around birth. Our country doesn't revolve around abortion being made illegal.
The human rights belong to the pregnant woman, the developing fetus within her is part of her human rights.
Her right to be pregnant, her right not to be sexually molested or raped, impregnated against her will, her right to body autonomy, her right to decide if gestation is what she wants to happen and is going to continue.
Every ovum is unique, it's part of what makes your siblings genetically different, do ova have inherent value, probably not, because every woman has a million ova.
Potentially a woman could have only one ovum left, does that then have inherent value ? to her it might.
That is an argument.
The arguments of Matt Walsh do not stand up.
@@bulletanarchy6447Prove it.
@@Namato360 Prove you read what I wrote
The key fact here is consciousness. The simple fact he doesn't deal with that argument demonstrates the flaw in it.Ultimately the outcome and intention here is control.
Daily Wire and most conservative speakers talk about the consciousness argument you’re using all the time…a person in a coma is not conscious, or when a person beats someone so hard they become unconscious- does this allow us to then kill them? They have no consciousness so it’s not like they’ll know we’re killing them right? There’s no brain activity at least not enough to care…
Yeah, no. We don’t kill people and we don’t kill babies. Your desire to kill the unborn does not make you a hero, I have no clue who you’re trying to impress unless you’re worshipping the Aztec sun god or something.
@@THELAW360 I don't think they allow the Islamic conservative speakers on The Daily Wire
@@bulletanarchy6447 they’re firmly Christian denominated so yeah you probably won’t hear much about Islam
@@THELAW360 Not left enough for them
Individual autonomy trumps this bs.
A fetus isn’t conscious, when a person is deemed brain dead in the hospital (ie. unconscious) we often pull the machines keeping them alive.
You can pick any number of reasons to devalue another. “A fetus isn’t conscience so we should be able to kill it”. You’re not conscience when you’re asleep, so I guess we should be able to kill sleeping people too! The illogical of pro-aborts knows no bounds!
But that’s just false. The brain and the heart start working at week 5. That, by definition, means they are fully conscious.
@@thatoneguy5694 the brain does not start to work on week 5. Its developing. But it so underdeveloped that it cannot possibly be used to experience subjective reality of this world( consciousness). The fact that there are a bunch of neurons copiled does not mean its functioning.
There needs to be electrical activity, neural circuitry and various areas of the brain developed.
If 99 percent of my brain dies with exception of some clusters of neurons, you wouldnt call me alive or conscious. You would call me brain dead.
Tell that to a rape or incest victim. Or, better yet, tell that to a 12 year old that has just been raped.
How many abortions were done because of rape or incest?
@@georgepierson4920
Mine would had been. The rapist did not get me pregnant. Now, any questions?
This video is so hard to find thanks to youtube bogus algorythms
I find this subject very confusing. These are all valid arguments and I am not saying I have the answers but the complication here is that the baby at this stage is not a separate entity. It is part of another human being, it is even inside that human and will affect that human's body dramatically, in some cases permanently. At what stage does someone dictate to that human that they must allow their body to be physically affected by this other human? Cannot that human, who's body is going to be affected by this, have any say in the matter at any stage in the process? What happens in rape cases?
And then there is the matter of what happens to the baby when it is born? What kind of life is it going to have if it has been a mistake, the mother did not want it? OK, so sometimes the motherly instincts will kick in and the mother will actually fall in love with the baby, but .... the key word there is 'sometimes'. Sometimes the mother will *not* fall in love with the baby and resent it her whole life. What kind of life is that baby going to have? You might say, well she can put it up for adoption. Yes, sure she can, but will she? There are sometimes many different degrees of variables in situations. She may still have that tug of motherhood there that just won't allow her to give it away, but yet she still regrets having it but keeps it and .... well, again, what kind of life is that baby going to have?
Very good speaker!
The dependency on another person is the worst argument. Even after a baby is born it’s STILL DEPENDENT. No baby could be born, left alone and survive.
You apparently don’t know the difference between needing CARE (which anyone can provide)….
And needing someone’s BODY to live off of, using their blood, oxygen and internal organs…
Only the pregnant woman can do that for a fetus….
but if she doesn’t want to, there’s not much we can do about it….
Unless we wanna act like dictators….
I'm a teen girl and I've always been against abortion. It hurts to hear grown women say that I'm less of a woman just because I dont think abortion should be allowed.
I do not think you can turn off abortion like some sort of big switch that will make everything right. We need to work toward eliminating abortion.
We have done much in that regard, in that we have freely available contraception. That is the main way to avoid accidental / unwanted pregnancy.
@@wylierichardson-tu6zs The best way is not to perform the act of reproduction until you are ready to reproduce. I do agree with you that we have gone a tremendously long way in providing contraception.
agree with him 100%
If that is true, are we saying that accidental miscarriages are also man slaughter? Why should a woman being raped not have the right to not be a mother is she doesn't want to? Why do we want to give birth to all accidental pregnancies as well? The family structure all around the world is already broken. Millions of children have no one to take care of them. Why do we want to creat more broken families? Matt always makes it a point to define terms. What is a woman? Right? An adult female human. What is a human? A person who can cry, sleep, laugh and see the light outside the world, with a pair of lungs, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, a nose etc etc. The population of the world is already 7 billion. And a vast proportion of them are struggling. We really do not need to bring in even more people if their parents themselves are not able to take care of them. The 3 months in which an abortion is allowed is actually to make a decision whether the particular being can be allowed to become a human and see the outer world. And that decision needs to be the parents' decision and the family's. Not the government's.. and not Matt's as well.
Ask a pro abortion advocate is it acceptable to torture a baby in the womb. Ask a pro abortion advocate is it ok to allow someone to kill the baby as part of a sex act. If they say yes, you are dealing with sheer evil. If they so no, you have blown away every argument they have.
how about this, is it acceptable for me to use your kidneys without your consent if i was dying and you were the only match?
@@AneurysmXX absolutely not. Why?
So which of these three states and which species is a human ovum ?
I am pro-choice. I have a question for those of you who are pro-life:
Hypothetically let's suppose someone was brought to the ER because their kidneys exploded through no fault of their own. They need someone to donate one of their kidneys to keep them alive, and it just so happens that you are the only person who has the type of kidney they need (remember, this is a hypothetical thought experiment). Do you think the government would have a right to step in and FORCE you to give up your kidney to keep this person alive? If you say no, they don't have that right, then by what principle do you believe the government can use force to make a woman carry an unwanted pregnancy?
Pro-life person here. I agree, the government has no right to demand you give up your organs. I assume you are referring to Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist argument. In it, Judith argues that because it is morally acceptable to unplug yourself from the violinist, it is ok to "unplug" yourself from the fetus. That reasoning would stand if the two examples were relevantly parallel, but they aren't.
1. Abortion and unplugging oneself are very different in nature, with the former being the intentional killing of a healthy human organism, and the latter being leaving someone in their original state, which so happens to be dying.
2. Organs are not meant for giving. That's why we each have our own set of them. We can, through commendable charity, give them to someone else, but in terms of anatomical design, they are meant for us, and us alone to use. The uterus is different though. It is meant to be inhabited. That's its fundamental function.
3. The violinist argument paints the relationship between a mother and her offspring as a stranger/stranger relationship when it is actually a mother/child relationship. Parents have a moral (and legal) obligation to their children, as seen by child support or child neglect laws. In the violinist argument, what if the violinist was instead your two year old daughter?
4. Sex is fundamentally ordered towards procreation. Heterosexual intercourse comes with the very real potential of pregnancy. When you consent to an action you simultaneously consent to all of the potential repercussions or side effects (ex. when you get in your car to buy groceries, you consent to the possibility of being in a fatal accident). Back to point 3, we have a moral obligation to our offspring.
5. If Judith Jarvis Thomson's argument of refusal was accepted, it would be well within a mother's right to refuse to breast feed her child (assuming she had no access to formula and breast feeding was the only option), thereby starving it.
There's a lot more to be said on this topic, so feel free to ask! If you are open to it, I would recommend watching some of Trent Horn's abortion discussions or video by Emily Geiger at the Equal Rights Institute! Hope this helps.
A kidney is your body, not someone else’s. The baby conceived in a woman’s womb is not her body, it just needs her body to grow and survive. Abortion is the intentional destruction of human life and is wrong and displeasing to God.
This honestly made my brain lose cells 😂. If the woman doesn’t want to have a baby then why is she having unprotected sex knowing the consequences that could come with it. It’s her own fault so she should have to deal with it.
Stupidest argument I have EVER heard. But I appreciate the effort mate
Completely different topic. What are you on about.
I agree, he is right
I still find that it’s better for 1 person to have a decent life than 2 people to have a mediocre one
Same. I don't see it as the murder of a person, but rather the murder of a potential person. I'm pro choice because I think each person should mind their own business.
@@theomaid I dont think it is as easy as that, this is one of the reasons that i think that no one should define themselves as pro-something, i find abortion as a right, but i also understand that a lot of people would become even more irresponsible if it was legal, my position would be something like a regulated abortion
@@carlosnunes2847 What's wrong with too many abortions? I like the idea of casual sex, free of consequences. It works really well for Bonobos
@@theomaid besides probably not being too healthy for the woman to have too many abortions, I don’t think that free casual sex is any good, it is a possibility that it can actualy be better but I don’t think it is a good idea, not socially at least.
Back to the abortion issue I was thinking and probably it should be fully legal, with a limit yearly, if we have a technology to better control births it should be used, for good hopefully
Also bonobos are pedophiles as well, they are freaks, I don’t think we should model any sex behavior by them
@@carlosnunes2847 I don't agree with pro life as a way to reduce abortion numbers.
A fetus has inherent value. It is a baby, plain and simple.
He didn’t end anything.
well, considering pro aborts have never had a coherent argument perhaps it never started
Thomas B They do, but pro lifers are too stupid to understand simple facts.
@@califtom
How did you like that vote in Ohio the other day?….
The forced-birthers were trying to make it harder to pass an abortion measure in November….
The voters rejected that!….
The measure will probably pass and ensure abortion rights in the Ohio Constitution!….
Looks like Matt Walsh didn’t end the debate after all…..
This is a case of false advertising…..
@@hexl702too5 how’d you like that Dobbs ruling? I hope it made you livid. Baby killers won’t ever turn Ohio into the vile states of California or New York whether that upsets you or not.
It's no different than a thumb - a part of something that is human but not human itself. Done.
So you're a thumb, hmm....🤔
a thumb has a beating heart, a nervous system, functioning brain and eyes? Did you fall asleep in biology class or are you just really REALLY stupid?
@@califtom a thumb is not self sufficient. Go ask your mom if the meatloaf is ready.
@Wotyagunna Doboutthat thumb.
@Wotyagunna Doboutthat and THERE's your true colors. TC
Someone tell me. Who is paying for these babies? We must show proof of funds and creditworthiness to get a house, car, credit card, phone and really anything. Why are we allowing people with no money or no desire to become parents? My kids will not suffer because their parents wanted them and had the means to support them.
How are you gonna decide for OTHER people when it’s the right time they should have a child . No one else can or should decide when it’s right to have a child except for the people involved
@@vincentwilliams2314 We have a winner! Exactly!, "No one else can or should decide when it’s right to have a child except for the people involved"
If we don’t place value on our most innocent and our most vulnerable - the baby in the womb - then we no longer know how to love.
Love is omnipresent tho.
Very well spoken, very coherent argument. Bravo!
Yes, spoken from the heart of someone who is not affected by the laws they’re supporting, who knows that banning abortion doesn’t stop them from happening and is speaking like a life saving hero when they’re just a coward who is doing nothing to actually help the problem.
Killing a child in the womb (for those pregnancies which are viable) is still an immoral act, regardless of how you feel about Matt Walsh.
@@lukenath6983 It might be immoral, but it is not unethical. A women owns her womb and therefore has a right to decide who gets to use it, so she has the right to abort.
Agreed, a right to use it in the sense of whom gets to impregnate, but once that act is committed the growth of the baby there is a product of that choice.
The ONLY instance in which I get “grey” when it comes to abortion is in instance of rape or forced conception of a woman. Other than this I would say it is both immoral and unethical.
I agree with the points expressed in this video.
And I understand that abortions are really just a matter of convenience and any "justice" is an excuse, but I also believe that abortions will continue to exist. So I think that we still need this safer procedure to exist and just reach a middle ground where the majority can agree on what is the line that shouldn't be shoved around by goal posting. Otherwise you'll just get clothes hangers and poisonous methods becoming popularized instead.
I don't care for an argument that absolutely says yes or no on this issue, because abortions will continue to happen wether you like them or not.
Stressing morals and getting rid of this infectious attitude that children can simply be destroyed. If you make more people conscious you can mitigate this, but removing it is an impossibility and should NEVER be the goal. Human desires will never allow either side to have a total victory without descending into tyranny.
Abortion will always exist in the same way as murder will always exist. There is no middle ground to be found. No innocent, defenseless human life is up for negotiation.
There will always be people who break every law. The goal is to set a moral standard and limit the behavior, not eliminate it altogether.
@@grrinc yup. And yes, we may even go back to the days of wire coat hangers. In my book, if a woman wants to kill that baby bad enough to risk her own life, go for it.
I agree to a certain degree. As others have said, there will be people who seek abortions out of convenience the same way that there are other kinds of murder out of convenience. That should be criminalized, and in my opinion, punishable by death. However, there are extremely rare circumstances in which surgical abortion is necessary, although not nearly to the degree that it’s practiced currently, I would like to point out. It needs to be classified as an ER procedure, like stitches to close a wound, not an elective procedure like Botox. There are birth defects that are thankfully extremely rare that, for example, cause a baby to be created in the womb with an incomplete skull. I don’t think we should have jagged bone fragments coming out of a woman’s birth canal only to have the baby killed because the birth canal squeezed its unprotected brain to the point of killing it, so abortion is a logical, relatively safe procedure in such an instance. I think that needs to be legal. But legal abortion needs to be the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. The murder of over 60 million unborn babies in America will be remembered alongside the Nazi Holocaust and the Communist Gulags.
@@talongreenlee7704 jagged bone fragments? When has this happened?!
it's enough to convince moderates if said moderates have a conservative, old-school temperament to begin with or don't have many friends. in the modern era social acceptance has largely taken the places that were previously occupied by among others the church, the threat of imminent death round every corner, and in many cases even the concept of hell itself. even as in the church for example, that when the traditions of the church become incompatible with society, church must change or face nullification. see my point by looking at the rules set out millenias ago that are no longer followed even by some of the more strict adherents.that is to say that even the church is subject to ostracism and social coercion. still, a great speech though. very well thought out and articulated.
Bravo Matt 👏🏼
Thank you 🙏🏻
no prob
Yeah nice try
How is it moral to force a female (and I say "female" because if I say "woman" I would be leaving out pregnant children) to remain pregnant when they don't want to be pregnant?
How do you deal with the medical need for abortion? Say, in cases of ectopic pregnancies?
Ectopic pregnancies are not viable
Ectopic pregnancies are non-viable.
The way I've explained it to people is that the moment that sperm and egg meet that is no longer the mother's DNA and it is no longer the father's DNA. It is a unique and different individual and you do NOT have the right to dictate whether that individual lives or dies.
For pregnancies that arise from normal/typical means (consensual sex) I'd say it's a case of "You knew the risks so act like an adult and deal with the consequences." For other cases such as nonconsensual I would still say the baby should live. It is NOT the child's fault what happened to the mother. The child should NEVER be punished for the crimes of the father.
Ectopic pregnancies are a medical emergency that would endanger the mother's life and they are not comparable to normal pregnancies. On top of that, the baby would not survive 9 months growing in the fallopian tube. It's not made to house a growing baby. In such cases, the baby is doomed from the start either way. Untreated either the baby would die or the mother would die leading to the baby dying anyway.
@@pcdeltalink036 So you think it's an actual person from conception?
@@maxxam3590 Yes, yes I do.
Did he just say It is not human, it's a boomer😂😂😅
watt malsh, unironically is a prime example of why abortion should be legalised!
There are so many forms of cheap, easily accessible, convenient birth control options to prevent pregnancy that I find it reckless, selfish, narcissistic, and cruel to decide that killing a living human organism that you helped create is your best birth control option.
Where is the information on 3 states of physical beings?
It's such a obvious point, there is none needed. Kind of like "where's the information that people need air to survive".
Concise, well said and most importantly, the truth!
All five of his points were drivel
A raped child should always get an abortion, should they want one. They are victims, too. No raper should be able to force his victim to have his kid. That's as sick as it gets.
So you're saying my husband shouldn't be alive?
It's still a child. A woman/ girl who is raped still has the choice whether or not to have that baby. My husband's mother chose to have him, and gave him up for adoption at birth. It was a selfless act of pure love for him, knowing what happened to her wasn't his fault and wanting him to have a good life. Nobody forced her, this was her choice.
Women just need to know abortion isn't their only option... it is ALWAYS a choice made from a place of disempowerment.
@@RanchMamaFox My god your perception of reality is twisted!! To take a person's life experience and say that you are destroying that by stopping it before it happened as the same thing is not only logically flawed but is repugnant, deceitful, and morally indefensible!! Take a look in the Bible for starts and do a body count on all the little children who were murdered under God's command - see Egypt for starts!
I don’t agree with a lot of what Matt Walsh says but dang, he makes a great case against abortion. I am anti-abortion/pro-life by the way. I’m saying that abortion is one of the few things I agree with Matt on
Matt, you please read my previous comment- worth your time.
Good points that couldn’t be argued any better
It seems like he missed the idea of consciousness. Do you have a reason why abortion is immoral?
Well this is aging well😂, I love that these videos will still be up as we are remembering why roe vs wade was so important. the backlash against prolife republicans, by republicans, gives me some faith again, that we can make the right decisions.
Matt doesn't end the argument for me. He starts from the debatable premise that human life has a higher value than other life. Either all life is valuable or only human life is valuable? If that is true, why is it true, who decides which life has value is critical to the debate.
Because we are top of the food chain we set value for life outside of our species
So you think murder should be legal?
Matt is starting with the premise that he is speaking to a civilized audience. Therefore the people in his audience think murder should be against the law. He didn’t imagine there would be someone like you who thinks murder should be legal
@@gopher7691 You are confusing killing with murder. Murder is illegal. Killing is legalised in circumstances such as war, threat to life, food and abortion.
@@intensepete430 abortion for convenience is murder. Killing someone for convenience is murder whether it is legal or not. For example it was legal to kill Jews in Germany in 1943 but it was still murder.