Hey Destiny, I don't know if you read the comments on your TH-cam videos but I made a comment regarding the brain development issue that was brought up in the conversation. You should take a look at it as a few other people have replied and discussed a bit. To summarize though, a brain develops its necessary components at 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy when a neural tube closes. People who never had their brain develope past this have lived and shown sentience and emotion for the time they live. Yes, it isn't a long life but the longest one was 12 years (to my knowledge, could be longer). Someone commented about a similar brain deformity where the person had a 126 IQ score at some point in school. It seems that a person, if linked to the brain, can exist without most of their brain. Meaning that the early stages of brain development should be where we look to determine if it is a clump of cells or human. If you gave the clump of cells a robot body at week 7 that was capable of sustaining it and allowing it to interact with the outside world, it seems that it could and would do so. Should give it a thought or two and maybe your position changes on the matter.
@@6lbbassfisherman bruh, he let someone dance with his wide you lunatic. Dancing. You know, the thing where you move to flow with some form of music and sometimes with other people. Significant others, family, friends, complete strangers. Doesn't ring a bell?
Again destiny why would you ever base it on consciousness? The most practical and consistent point would be viability. We don’t turn of machines of comatose patients because they don’t have a consciousness, but because the body will no longer be viable. If the brain heals the body will be “self sustaining” Or it will just be the equivalent of keeping a body part “alive” by artificial means as it will self expire. The same thing would be true for the viability of a featus. It’s currently about 20-23 week just as your consciousness limit, but can be adapted to technological progress of the ability to keep it alive outside the womb. In my opinion it doesn’t matter if it’s a person if it will still self expire.
Trent did a debate with Richard carrier way back when about the historicity of Jesus and holy shit they were nerding out. I don’t agree with Trent but he’s a smart dude
Actually though. Despite all the recent abortion debates/talks Destiny has done recently, this guy is the only guy with actually good and competent arguments.
This guy is a breath of fresh air. The pro-life twins were viciously bad faith, condescending, and unwilling to concede a single point. Not to mention the attempt at being victims ( How DARE you!!).
Oh don't worry, he might just turn into a screaming banshee as well when his awful points get tested and he finds out he is on a road to nowhere and can't defend his argument of enslaving women for possible 1+ celled lives developing inside them.
I think it's sad that even the most good faith "breath of fresh air" forced-birther person is still completely incapable of tackling the sentience argument.
I’m glad Trent pointed out that if pro lifers are wrong, they’re not just “inconveniencing” women, they’re oppressing them. I was genuinely surprised he acknowledged that.
In fairness, within most positions we could differentiate between the best and brightest minds and most people of a certain position. Pro-choices could of pro-lifers, Protestants could of Catholics, heck, Republicans of Democrats.
@@sweatybabypowderhands843 Just like the misandry of feminists. There's just something sexy about feminists telling men that all there problems are self-induced.😘
This guys seems pretty cool even if we might disagree on stuff like abortion. He is actually trying to critically engage with Destiny’s arguments and can actually describe them pretty well.
@@syncretictakeout2328 if we take destiny at his word, that he is open to a discussion that can change his mind, then the natural conclusion, assuming your premise is true, is that he will have to become a pro-life advocate.
@@lampad4549just because the other side did it first, doesn’t mean Destiny had to do it. I know this is not Destiny’s moral framework but religious people, for the most part, agree with the Bible in not returning bad for bad. Even if they fail to live up to it sometimes.
As a devout Catholic myself, I appreciate Destiny’s ability to see Trent and know his arguments are in good faith. It actually means a lot that he listens unlike SOOO many others
Trent doesn't argue in good faith. He lies about scientific facts when it comes to trans issues, and he bans comments that expose his biases and inconsistencies.
@@tomasrocha6139 in a recent video he talked about a few chromosomal conditions in which cis men are born with XXY chromosomes. You'll note that 'XY' is the 'normal' arrangement for males. But he completely avoided discussing XY females - where women with completely 'normal' female organs also have XY chromosomes. These particular chromosomal conditions are quite common, and show that sex is not binary, but depends on a suite of features, not all necessarily line up. This is an issue for someone who depends on the notion that sex is binary and simple to make their anti trnas arguments.
I know this is a reaction video (not a debate) from Trent but you can see the difference is he actually knows how to debate whereas the ladies do not. Trent will always circle back to his moral arguments but he can venture into logic and understand debate concepts. So it will be more interesting to speak to him.
@@Spencerwalker21he doesn’t really have to. Even pro-life viewers know this was a bad showing. Destiny is putting forth arguments that are relatively new to the abortion debate space (what a phrase) so Trent is looking to answer and contend with them.
@@Spencerwalker21 He definitely danced around it and tried to do a “both sides” take. I guess he can’t really just come out and say oh wow they blew it 😂
@@missinterpretation4984 but he criticized them for the whole end segment and also said it was a poor showing in the begining although it was a short statement
@@missinterpretation4984 They are his friends. He has literally stood in the same room with them and chatted with both of them, probably many times. He is also pretty passionate about the abortion issue, having worked as a pro-life missionary on college campuses for a year, so he has a deep appreciation for people who work full-time in the pro-life movement. When such a friend says "this was a missed opportunity", enough was said.
Damn, this guys brings up some good points. With some of his points, I caught myself wondering if he was right, and had to think for a few minutes what I really believed. It would be so interesting to see these two have a conversation, so I hope they get it set up soon, as they both seem interested in talking with each other.
@@aaroncarl2493Trent has engaged some of the best pro choice philosophers like David boonin on this issue. Trent has studied the philosophical literature way more than Lila rose on abortion, and is on a different league than her in my opinion.
@@aaroncarl2493 Trent was actually a Pro-life advocate before he converted. His beliefs on Pro-life is actually what led him (among other things) to become Catholic.
It’s hard to be good faith in abortion debate because in an all actuality, the truth is that abortion is murder, but it is also such a morally insane biological essence, that it is palatable for the mother to abort too. This is why people have really hard time comming to terms with it. People are not psychopaths- so it’s hard to justify “it is Murder of a child but it is *necessary* because there is literally no other situation where this would be true.
@@Nosirt It really isn't. If you jack off you aren't a serial killer. So there clearly is a point where life isn't yet there but it doesn't really matter. What the whole thing comes down to is whether we want people completely unrelated to us to be stuck with their bad choices or do we give them a chance to take another path. Forcing someone to carry a baby in their belly for 9 months purely out of religious dogma is pretty fucked. If they wanted the kid they wouldn't want to abort it. After they have the kid then what? Do they need to shape their whole life around it as well or do they get to throw it in the adoption system where its gonna suffer even worse? I do not get how there even is a debate on this subject at all. Its just about whether you want people to be miserable or not.
@@Nosirt are you grand standing? lmao, the definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." If we dont agree on the definitions of a human being, then how is it a "morally insane" debate?
@@user-xn3sw9sr9r because, once again, this argument literaly does not apply to ANY other situation. No one says Hitler never murdered Jews because he technically didn’t see them as humans. We cannot moralize our position based on what the active agent in the act thinks is the truth. We don’t agree on the definition of person hood because if fetus are not person- we should be able to do ANYTHING to them and it should be no problem. Or if they are persons, we HAVE to give them all the rights of a person. If you think a woman has the right to get pregnant, until 20 weeks, and take the fetus out for a orgie/sex play fetish, and have men have sex with the fetus and her- and you think there is no moral wrong being committed here- you are insane. Even tho, by logic, this would be no different to a pro choice person as a woman taking out a tumor and engaging it in a fetish play. YOU DO NOT BELIVE THIS. NO ONE DOES. On the other hand, if the fetus is as “life” as a baby, the the pro life people also have to answer to very difficult questions like why does a 12 year old rape victim have the “moral right” to get an abortion? The situation SHOULD NOT MATTER if the question is to kill a life of a, what you belive is, a baby.
@@Nosirtyou're appealing to emotion with the orgy example. If I don't think the fetus is a person then it being used in some crazy kink scenario is morally irrelevant
@@OdinWannaBe Nothing? Do you have ears? They're at least thought-provoking rebuttals. You can disagree with someone and still concede that they make good points, jfc....
@@benjamink2398 thought provoking? I mean sure, you have to listen and consider his positions and hypothetical scenarios, but then it takes like 5 seconds max to realize the points suck and come up with multiple ways they fail. He just makes up nonsense that still supports the BS time travel shit of giving embryos consciousnesses, and pretends rats are on the same level as babies when lots of animals run mainly on instinct and need an intense amount of training to seem domesticated. Even before the toddler stage babies can understand concepts like fairness and sharing, and multiple levels of humor.
if u replace certain organs that produce hormones that changes ur future experiences. Would that be a different conscious experience or would that just be an altered behavior on future occasions`?
I'm devout Catholic and Trent is my favorite Catholic on youtube, but I've also been enjoying watching Destiny for the past year or so now, so I'm really looking forward to this crossover. I hope they have a friendly and fruitful discussion/debate and that they discuss more philisophical subjects in the future.
@kristianbasile7141 ..actually most religious/spiritual people are less likely to have a mental order. I know you cant accept others peoples views but its common sense.
I can see why Trent (and Lila and Kristan for that matter) perceived Destiny as engaging in troll behaviour. Destiny's debates are typically with other internet personalities with a similar sense of humour and casual debate style. But Trent, Lila and Kristan are all used to structured formal debates (and Kristan and Lila to college campus debates), so to hear Destiny's jokes and quips throughout would come off as trollish in the settings they're used to.
@@KinoTechUSA69 Yes, as usual the fat woman turns out to be trashy and the beautiful classy one turns out to be behaving nicely even if she disagree and litterally thinks he argues to allow murder.
You're joking, right? If they were more used to structured formal debates, they should have been more comfortable with listening out Destiny's points, taking notes and then responding instead of hearing a partial point and immediately starting a rebuttal like an immature teen. Even Battle Rappers have better listening skills
Trent’s awesome! Watched a lot of his debates including the one with david boonin. His book persuasive pro life is really good too, so excited for this conversation to happen!
This just shows debating with an end goal of one person winning and the other person losing is so pointless. Both sides made good and bad point and in the end nobody conceded to anything and both sides think they won. So everyone finished right where they started, including the ones that watched
This is because peoples egos get in the way - I am completely open to changing my mind immediately if the facts of the matter change. This is something that is hard to train yourself to do; because nobody wants to be wrong about anything they feel strongly about. But it’s definitely worth developing.
25:00 Steven is absolutely correct here. This is touching on extremely difficult questions of identity that can’t simply be shoehorned into any particular argument as if the answer is obvious.
Oh dang I totally forgot about that. I guess it means I didn't really see the movies. Well they were shit anyway so I don't care, nor my former self who saw it.
Pearl being the female milo is too true, unfortunately her family is too rich to allow her to reach the QVC saleman which is what we're all waiting for
I love watching media personalities pander to a specific group of audiences and support every single bullet point that will make them have all the views and income Only to then disappear as their main talking trends die out.
Chat gets so annoyed when conservatives dont want to engage with Destiny's hypotheticals, but kept soying out whenever Trent tried to make hypotheticals that challenged their views
chat is dumb I agree, but I still got confused about him saying that fetuses (under 20 weeks) have the natural capacity for consciousness? His example with mandarin is, that he has all the parts to be able to learn it, but he can not speak it right now? But a fetus doesn't have all the parts yet to form consciousness, it will eventually but not at that point yet. Or is he comparing the learning of a language to the fetus "learning" consciousness? It's the first time I'm hearing about this differentiation yet though, might just need to read up on it.
Chat is right. You're wrong. The dude is making up nonsense and still playing time traveler. Your ability to learn a language isn't the same as one day developing the brain parts necessary to learn it. you can already do it. Hell, you can start learning right now! You could probably say a few sentences almost fluently in a single day.
I think, with the whole "Killing a 16 wk pregnant woman is double homicide" thing, we give really large deference to pregnant parents who are planning to have the child because they intensely value the child. I think framing it as property crime of some sort would feel a little strange as well.
Also, if someone were to say it counts as a life because the mother valued the unborn baby, the definition for what is a life would just be someone who you believe has value. We can see how that would go for racist, sexist, homophobes, or any hate groups in general.
Don't forget that we have conservative justices and legislators that rule on on these types of issues which their personal bias has a huge effect on laws therefore of course it would be labeled as double homicide
This guy kind of had me questioning things but then Destiny made the point that when someone loses their memories and such we do often equate it to having lost that person so that kind of further solidifies the idea that our consciousness is where the heart of personhood lies. Edit: This topic comes up in another area I frequent on youtube, in the space exploration, futurism, and megastructures stuff, when they talk about the idea of uploading your mind into a robot or into some virtual world or even cloning where issues can pop up over what it means to be you. But it always seems to focus on your consciousness too.
@@nickhalden3270 no but this just means the argument is over having never had a consciousness to begin with. If there has never been a consciousness to begin with then there is no person being 'killed'.
@@nickhalden3270 You need consciousness in order to even deploy memories, so I don't think anyone would say it would be ok to kill the future person because the previous person that they were is gone.
@@ZeroKage69 But if you're saying that a person is lost when he loses his memory, then who is being harmed if we kill him while he's still unconscious?
@@nickhalden3270 well saying the person is lost is only relevant to the people who knew the person in the first place. To a complete stranger that person wouldn't be different at all. The point is that what we appear to care about is a persons consciousness.
Chat spamming "nurse" is really telling, and retarded. Nurses simply lack the authority and breadth of diagnostic experience to choose what tests and evaluations are to be done. But when it comes to interpreting, considering (and giving input) and volume is anecdotal experiences that lead to a great understanding of said tests; nurses are extremely reliable medical providers.
To add on to the Wolfenstein new body comparison. In the movie Avatar, they inhabit completely new bodies, yet are still considered to be the same person despite being completely different species and bodies.
The polaroid would be more complete than an embryo at the stage they are referring to. If anything it would be similar to being after 20 weeks where it can be removed from the polaroid after the image is imprinted on the film and has everything it needs to become the image but before the final stage of releasing the chemicals to allow the light to invert the image.
To be fair I think it was more a video aimed at pro-lifers telling them what not to do. I think if they got a chance to debate it would be very insightful
Pretty sure I agree with the brain wave addendum there, I don't think we consider "autonomic" brain functions as "brain activity" worth accepting as "signs of life" beyond that of a vegetative state. There would have to be some outlying factor to inspire a longer rehab program unless I misunderstood past deaths. Like there's a point when people are "autonomically" still functioning but without "brain activity" you can breath, but you can also unintentionally swallow your own tongue. That state is usually one beyond saving, but your body will still digest food, breathe, eyelids shake, etc.
Correct. It’s higher cortical functioning that’s needed for consciousness, not lower brain areas that basically do everything in your body you’re not aware of
Wait... am I retarded? Why does he argue that if Destiny's arguments extend to other animals, then it's, therefore, a bad argument? That makes no sense whatsoever. A lot of moral arguments extend to other animals. Let's take slavery for example; for me, at least, any argument we present as to why slavery of humans is wrong can also be applied to the ownership of pets by logical extension. I don't see us ever getting past that. The difference is we are humans and therefore biased. So we simply don't care when it comes to other animals. Likewise, Destiny's arguments apply to any conscious entity but we dont care about any other conscious entity but ourselves. We can do this with murder. His example of using poison on a rat, asking should we lock people up for poisoning rats; on simple logic terms, yes. There isnt fundamentally anyway to get round it other than saying "well we dont care when it comes to other animals," which is the actual fact of the matter. It's humans special pleading for ourselves. That doesnt make the arguments bad. It just means we are biased. And we don't think this seriously when it comes to other entities.
We are biased because we implicitly value humanity over the capacity for (continued) consciousness. If we'd value the capacity for continued consciousness more than the mere humanity of an entity, we could not say that a mother who shoots/kills a pitbul who tries to attack a preemie (being in a state which is prior to gaining capacity for consciousness), is justified in shooting/killing the pitbul. This hypothetical would of course envolve a future possibility where even younger preemies than now can be raised in incubators (or through some other technology). Furthermore, there are now scientits who say we can no longer exclude the possibility that the unborn have a greater level of consciousness and capacity to feel pain much earlier on than previosly expected, including even in the 1. trimester. See: " Dr. Bridget Thill’s dissertation “Fetal Pain in the First Trimester” or the article “Reconsidering Fetal Pain.” by Dr. Stuart Derbyshire.
@@chichilinha2895 just because you cant rule something out entirely doesn’t make it probable. Pain is highly subjective and depends a lot on past experiences and culture. To say a first trimester fetus feels pain in the way you and i feel pain is highly dubious. But pain is not a good marker of what makes something good or bad anyway so the point is moot. And saying we value humans because of our humanness is circular reasoning. We value humanness because of what being human can afford us-the capacity to reason, love, etc, but without a working brain, the answer is not much that any other animal couldn’t do.
@@vvieites001 You said: "just because you cant rule something out entirely doesn’t make it probable." Yes, but in case we can't exclude a painful death for any human being for sure, even pro-choicers should err on the side of caution and assume it is the case if they value empathy. You wrote: "But pain is not a good marker of what makes something good or bad anyway so the point is moot." I partly agree, but not completely, this would also make Destiny's cut-off point moot, if you feel pain you have at least some level of consciousness above zero. But I would agree that whether someone feels pain or not has no bearing on whether someone should be killed or not. Active intentional killing is wrong, even if done painlessly. You wrote: "We value humanness because of what being human can afford us-the capacity to reason, love", I partly agree, but the capacity for reason and love is also something animals can have. My point is: I don't really think Destiny would want any animals to attack preemies which never had the capacity for consciousness without someone stopping the animal (with violent or potentially lethal force if needed), so I believe Destiny either needs to ammend or shift his position or admit that he values the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness itself (which animals can clearly have). If he indeed values the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness, he cannot then turn around and criticize pro-lifers for valueing the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who's studied animal behavior, animals absolutely have languages and ways of communicating, including hierarchical systems within their communities. There's been studies on orca calls that they believe each pod have their own unique vocal signals that are only understood among other individuals. Animals have memories even simple organisms such as banana slugs can be trained to remember simultaneous stimuli. I did research with Burying Beetles in college and they are a species that exhibit biparental care which is rare for insects, in the species females will remember who they mated with and pressure him to be present to regurgitate food to the Larvae. In my experience most Catholics deny the consciousness of animals because the church has determined animals don't have souls... it doesn't make sense to me as a Catholic
The Catholic Church doesn't deny that animals have souls, insofar as souls are understood as principles of life or "forms" of the body. In fact, both the scholastic notion of soul and the biblical term for soul are applied to animals and humans alike, and the scholastic notion is applied to plants as well. Animals have the capacity to feel, communicate, sense, and they often have memories. They also have the capacity for affection and whatnot. What is unknown is whether such souls are immortal, and it's commonly understood that animal souls aren't what you call "rational souls". Their actions are based on instinct more than free will, for instance.
This debate is exactly why I have gained so much respect for Destiny over the last few years. Not only is he open to other points of view and debates in good faith trying to get to the logical conclusion rather than just win the debate but is able to calmly do so despite the other person not showing the same respect and just trying to dunk on him to "win" the debate. Few people can pull off.
I think my main issue with the locked in syndrome thing is that he's arguing that they have concious experience and some would argue that it's ok to kill/euthenise them in that state... but he's using it as an argument as to where the lines between life and death are. For locked in syndrome to matter in that context, he'd have to be arguing that someone with locked in syndrome is actually not alive and killing them is just removing a mass of cells and not killing them to disprove destiny's position on where the borders are and why they're important right?
ahhh i hope there is a debate with this guy!! when he said 'if a baby is born unconcious but will become conscious, are they equivalent to a young fetus in terms of rights' was an very tricky one for me! my answer would probably be that it would be if it could happen, but if that human got to the point of birth having never been conscious, that's not going to be a thing that has happened just due to how biology works. the brain would never have developed to the point it could be conscious. the identity thing is even harder! it made me think of people who had a brain injury & no longer remember or know their family. their personality is totally different. this does happen & they are essentially a different person.
At least a discussion with this guy will be in better faith, though I think you'll run into one major obstacle, and this is an assumption on my part to both parties. One party believes in a "Soul" and the other does not. That is going to be the road block they need to address or they'll make little progress.
I think what religious people mean when they talk about souls is essentially the mind…the idea of “looking down from heaven and smiling at your loved ones” yada yada they always alude to only works if you think of the soul as your mind with all its lifelong memories going into the afterlife..,but Trent might not outright say that because he’d have to admit you are not your body and it would kill his anti abortion stance
So you listened to an hour long rebuttal of arguments using only logic and hypotheticals with no religious arguments, and your takeaway was "they'll make no progress because he will invoke the soul?"
@@sigigle It just gets really annoying when someone says "If you are pro life, why dont you care about lives lost in war, capital punishment, etc..." and then the response of "If you are pro choice, how come you dont support my choice in owning a gun, paying taxes... or even whether or not I want to ignore ALL laws?" seems to follow. Too often, the dumb labels causes tangents in the conversation that end up completely taking over it. It should just be "pro abortion" vs "anti abortion"... because abortion is what the conversation is supposed to be about.
@@grimtrix Yeah that's true too, but I think even the pro abortion vs. anti abortion labels create a false dichotomy, as the ideal is certainty going to include both to one degree or another. Like a first trimester cut off, etc.
I think Destiny didn't properly engage with the hypothetical of the already born living "thing", that hasn't developed a consciousness yet, but will do so in a few weeks. He just briefly wrote it off as "intuition pumping". If it is something that is living, breathing and somewhat looking like a baby, most people wouldn't care whether or not it has or hasn't asserted any type of consciousness yet. The common consensus would be that it is a person and should therefore not be killed. So I think that aesthetics plays a much bigger role in the common intuition about what's moral and what's immoral than he has realized yet.
Yeah I noticed that brush off that he did. He's gonna need to think about it because it potentially brings down his whole argument. I'm sure he'll get around it some how but it may not be possible
@@noahfletcher3019 we can’t just assume a born human is a person just because we may not like where the conclusion leads or how it sounds. It may be the case that a never conscious human being/organism born/outside a womb (whether it’s embryos in IVF clinics i or brain dead people or people in irreversible comas) are not persons. Some were persons (like the brain dead or coma patient) but no longer. some never were persons (like the frozen embryos). But with that said, just because something isn’t a person that doesn’t mean you must go and kill/destroy it. In the US animals aren’t thought to have a right to life but that doesn’t mean animal cruelty isn’t illegal. A puppy dog doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t mean we can just go wack it on the head. There can still be good reasons for not killing a non person, such as the fact that they may “wake up” AND their waking up doesn’t come at a great (and mandatory) physical cost to anyone else.
we can’t just assume a born human is a person just because we may not like where the conclusion leads or how it sounds. It may be the case that a never conscious human being/organism born/outside a womb (whether it’s embryos in IVF clinics i or brain dead people or people in irreversible comas) are not persons. Some were persons (like the brain dead or coma patient) but no longer. some never were persons (like the frozen embryos). But with that said, just because something isn’t a person that doesn’t mean you must go and kill/destroy it. In the US animals aren’t thought to have a right to life but that doesn’t mean animal cruelty isn’t illegal. A puppy dog doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t mean we can just go wack it on the head. There can still be good reasons for not killing a non person, such as the fact that they may “wake up” AND their waking up doesn’t come at a great (and mandatory) physical cost to anyone else.
@@vvieites001 of course we can assume it based on how we feel about the conclusion. Destiny's whole argument is that we value consciousness. If it happened to be that we valued babies when they grow hair then he'd say we can abort it before it grows hair. His whole argument is centered around his assessment of what we value. Which is also why it falls flat. Because people clearly value fetuses before consciousness otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate
@@vvieites001 The reason I assume that a born baby without consciousness is still a person is for the same reason that Destiny believes the contrary: What we believe human intuition demands. It has nothing to do with me not liking a conclusion.
At the root of this entire “pro life” “pro choice” debate is the question of “personhood.” What is a “Person”? A consciousness? I would like to see “pro lifers” return to the art of metaphysics to answer this question. Boethiuss definition of a Person is “an individual substance of a rational nature.” If we begin the pro life argument with this definition (namely, a metaphysical one) then we set ourselves up for a meaningful engagement. “What’s a rational nature”? What constitutes an “individual”? How do we differentiate one person from another? Is it purely “conscious experience” or is personhood fundamentally the substrate of existence, quantitative extension, and essential movement? I am not identified merely by my “experience” but by my unique compositional make up as well. We have to get the body in the conversation or else we reduce personhood to the brain (this is the argument of pro choicers). Trent is a great apologist, but how do I long to see someone engage at a “metaphysical” level.
15:06 "The capacity for language..." "Capacity"? What? I thought we weren't appealing to what something becomes or what something attains later...That's Destiny's whole point about "while A becomes B, A is not B," yet he goes against that here with language... Last time I checked, babies aren't speaking out of the womb, nor do we have any guarantee that they won't be stunted in some manner and lack the congitive capacity for langauge later in life... As a fetus is not a person given they do not possess but will later develop congnative functions, so to is a baby not a person given they do not possess but will later develop the cognative ability for langauge. (19:27 encapsulates this idea better) Stick to the argument or rework it, because as is, it does not work here! 16:35 This guy notices and directly addresses this! Thank you! 19:04 Thank you!!! It feels so cathartic to have this guy articulate exactly my issue! 38:44 Startrek teleporter scenario: so if they are two different people, (the one who entered the teleporter and the one who exited it), then mid teleportation, would you have a right to prevent them from reimerging? They are no longer the same person, so there is no past conciousness ro appeal to... 44:09 You have got to be kidding me... Is this not intuition pumping on Destiny's part? Appealing to people's intuitions as they relate to videogames?
Capacity meaning the components are there to create language. A fetus at a certain point in time don't have the components to have any cognative function. There is no contradiction. Example: Parts for an engine are not the same as having an engine. When you have an engine fully created it will have the "capcity" to run.
@@Kekkai_You're missing immediate versus natural capacity. An engine doesn't exactly fit within that framework and is a poor example, given it is manmade and has no natural capacity... THE CONTRADICTION LIVES! lol
@@kylec8015 Before I get into this here is something I want to establish: The idea of natural/immediate capacity is flawed. You have the capacity to LEARN (not speak) a language becuase the parts for learning and cognition are formed in your brain. If you don't have those parts formed you don't have that capacity "natural" or otherwise. The point is that underlying structures enable ability or capacity. If those underlying structures aren't built or formed there is no ability to speak of. Going back to my example: it works perfectly for what you stated was the issue. You tried to call out what you thought was a logical error by making a distiction between A not being B and saying that he "goes there with language" and that "babies aren't speaking out of the womb." My point simply showed that A is not B while at the same time B doesn't need to immediatly be able to do a thing B should be able to do. The structure being there is all that matters. A and B don't have the same structure. The point that Destiny has always argued is that the parts that deploy a "consious experience" have to be formed for "personhood" to be established and protected.
@@Kekkai_determining what structures need to present to define someone as a person or not seems extremely arbitrary to me. At conception, when the zygote is formed, the genetic code is created is and is whole. This genetic code is the structure upon which all subsequent structures that make a human a human are built on. Doesn’t it make the most sense to use that point in time as no other structures will exist without that code? You can’t have human consciousness without human DNA. That seems to me to be a pretty set delineation mark. That is the one thing that all humans no matter what stage in life have in common and it’s what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.
@@PaxChristi7 A zygote is not a person just like a corpse isn't a person. Brain death is when we consider "a person" dead. It should be by a similar marker that we consider "a person" to exist.
If you erased or replaced someone's memory completely, you definitely can say it's a death if theres no way to get them back. Like in the original total recall, same person completly different memories and personality. The person is alive just as someone different now.
My dad is dying of Alzheimer’s and it feels like he already died. Its something we have said many times. It’s not him anymore, he doesn’t remember anything of his past, he doesn’t act the same, it’s a different person. Destiny is very right when you look at it at the end.
Your ability to recall/not recall consciousness is in no way relevant to whether or not a conscious experience was had/is able to be had. An outside party can clearly see and recall the amnesiac's previous conscious experience and could vouch for the fact that it existed even if the person cannot recall it on their own. The previous experience does not cease to exist simply because you've forgotten it, you only affect the continuation of said experience. That is essentially death.
The talk on robots and brains really reminded me of the same issues being brought up in Soma, but I dont dont wanna accidentally spoil that for some people. Definitely give it a watch or a playthrough for anyone seeing this.
I would say after being teleported you are the same person but a robot with your experience is not. I think there is something fundamental to being human and are past experiences are not the only thing that affects our future decisions. Things like disease, death, obesity, hunger, and greed all play a part but a robot would not have a need or live in fear of any of those things. I think if we ever become immortal we will immediately lose our humanity.
Exactly. It’s not a gotcha.,they’re still a someone, but a different someone. And we talk about how people change all the time, that someone is a totally different person than how they used to be, etc.
Hypothetical for Destiny to use with the pro-life guy: Let's say a woman was trying to get pregnant but had a condition such as weak cervical tissues that significantly increased the liklihood of a miscarriage. Say that only 1 in 10 conceptions would result in a pregnancy that could be carried to term and the other 9 were going to be miscarriages. Should a woman with this condition be prevented from engaging in unprotected sex to prevent negligent homicides?
Right away there's an error in your terminology. If I build a home in a region known for forest fires, and I take reasonable measures to prevent this home from being destroyed, and yet it is still consumed, you can say a lot of things about my wisdom regarding real-estate, but you cannot say that I have committed arson. In the same way, we can debate the moral status of the decision to risk moving forward with a pregnancy in the circumstances you describe, but we cannot say that an uninhibited attempt in the direction of procreation which conceives and then fails is homicide, no matter what the odds are. I would quibble your use of the "negligence" qualifier because, just like the homeowner example, I can take every measure available to me to try to keep the pregnancy progressing once it has begun, and that reasonably clears the bar of "negligence." Hope is not negligence, even if misguided. Leaving that asside, however, I think the Catholic mind is open to either position. On that worldview, God would be seen as sovereign over those gestations. Therefor, if I attempt to utilize sexual relations for the purpose of creating life, and that life begins, progresses, and ultimately fails outside of any negligence or malice on my part, I can see that as God doing what he wants with the life he has ultimate authority over. I would just have to accept that pseudo-fatalistically. Alternatively, I could also be convinced by the sort of utilitarian moral calculus you describe. I would lean towards the former instead of the latter, but I think a Catholic can be consistent with either position.
@@jacksongilbert3860 If you run in a store and leave a baby in the car seat on a hot day, you can be charged with negligent homicide even if this was an unintentional mistake. You didn't "carry out an act of murder," but your actions led to the death of an innocent in a way that was forseeable. In the original hypothetical, the woman is aware that miscarriage is the most likely outcome of becoming pregnant. If you are a "life begins at conception" pro life person, are you untroubled by a woman prone to miscarriages repeatedly causing the death of the unborn? If your intuition is to be unbothered, the implication is that you see an infant and a 6 week old developing fetus as deserving of very different levels of rights and protection.
Exactly, and when religious people like Trent talk about souls they are essentially referring to our minds with all our memories and emotions going on into the next life to appreciate all we accomplished in this life. Trent knows the body is just the vehicle and that YOU are something else, but he can’t admit that because he knows it would undermine his argumenyb
I think destiny’s argument falls apart when we discuss animals. Who CLEARLY have conscious experiences but it’s excluded for him because they’re not human.
It's excluded because they don't have 'human' consciousness. We value humans more than animals because of things like their potential to impact the world, their richness of experience, etc.
@@sigigle we value them from what we subjectively think is less rich experiences. But Destiny doesn’t value animals less, he literally does not believe they deserve rights. Like obviously we don’t think animals should have human rights, but they should have some rights. They have some sort of consciousness and experiences too. Especially primates and many mammals
@@theludvigmaxis1 Yeap I agree (although I think potential to impact the world is a big factor too, if fleas lives were more enjoyable than humans, i'd still value humans more due to affect on the world). I think Destiny's views on animals comes from a childhood dissociative trauma response to the fact that his grandmother he stayed with was a little crazy and put down like 30 pet dogs for no reason over a few years when he was around 10. He got attached to them for a few months, she'd put it down for no reason, he'd get upset, and it'd repeat. Eventually he decided he just didn't care as a coping mechanism and I think he's carried it into adulthood and it's tainting his views on it.
@@sigigle After watching Destiny for years I agree he probably has some sort of trauam which has made him desensitized in a lot of ways. I think he said before it was because he used the internet or saw violence on tv/games as a kid. That dog story is interesting I never heard it before, that definitely would make sense. I disagree with Destiny on some stuff but I feel like when it comes to his views on animal rights it seems down right contradictory when taking into account how he values human lives due to consciousness but not animal lives whatsoever.
I’m excited, we are finally getting to the thanos-level threat in the destiny-verse. Can’t wait till Destiny and Trent collide to bring us the best intellectual conversation to ever exist 😊🤘🏽
Only 6 minutes in, but yeah, this dude definitely seems far more competent in critical thinking skills than the 2 ppl Destiny debated... Like I feel like he actually understands the idea of a syllogism probably... (Tbf, he does have time to research stuff when making a video like this, but if he retains the info for live debates then he could be pretty good as an opponent for Destiny)
Better then those 2 women for sure, but if he gets to awnser hypotheticals he will just awnser bad faith like any theist, calling it now if they ever do debate
This is his whole career! He is a pro life and catholic apologist. He puts out a lot of great content specifically his debates, he’s debated abortionists, david boonin, professors and tons more! Definitely recommend checking more of his content out. Hearing from Him and Monica from secular pro life are what really got me interested in this topic and eventually put the nail in the coffin for me being pro life.
With the Star Trek transportation device, I always assumed that the matter (atoms) changed to their energy phase and the reverted back to their matter phase, similar to the phasing device in the TNG episode with the USS Pegasus experiment with phasing and cloaking. The matter and the energy are interchangeable, so that when one rematerializes, they are the same person, their matter just changed to energy form and then back again.
Right. What he means is potential. Potential isn’t capacity. Lol I have the potential to be a lawyer because I can apply for law school. I only have the capacity to be a lawyer once I pass the bar even if I’m not actively doing any lawyering at any given moment lol
@@vvieites001 Indeed XD If someone pushed you into another trade school I wouldn't say they aborted your legal career. No one talks like that. Id also like to introduce as a potential Nobel peace prize winner, but some dude just pissed me off and aborted my prize.
At death, the body begins to decompose at conception the body is developing. This logic follows destiny’s formula in how we determine death being how we should determine a life. And how can he imagine being a newborn because temperature changes etc but not a dog, who gets hungry, excited, feels shame(at least it seems that way for my dog when she does something she knows is wrong, dogs are trainable dogs get scared, I could go on. Destiny is lying when he says he can’t imagine what being a dog would be like. Dogs communicate wining barking, tail wagging, growling. They clearly are more conscious than a newborn who eats sleeps and poops. Fish have more consciousness than newborns. I would say babies don’t really “wake up” until around like 3 months. I’ve heard dra call the newborn stage the 4th “trimester”
Exactly. I understand what he was saying, but saying you can't even possibly fathom the conscious experiences of non-human animals seems entirely disingenuous. In reality, the choice the consume, hunt, and kill non-human animals entirely based on moral perception. I also believe the same goes for the abortion argument, which is why it's such a sensitive and complex debate. I believe there really is no right answer, it's all based on subjective morality and what you believe to be valuable.
@@mattisencox8176 Yes I agree. When he distinguishes people or persons from humans he’s really just making a value judgement. We don’t use person or people to describe children or kids and we definitely don’t point to a cute baby and say look at that person over there! It’s really just he values consciousness so much that pre concious humans have less value in his eyes.
Destiny clearly means the *subjective* consciousness of a non-human. That is more or less impossible to imagine. Yes you can imagine having four legs and shaking your tail muscle to show happiness, but you’re really imagining what that’s like alongside your human consciousness. Playing pretend in your own, human mind. You have no idea how a dog perceives their own existence. Newborns share the human consciousness, the human version of wanting to poop, seeing colour, enjoying various forms of humour, feeling love towards parents etc.
@@viktorceder4985 If you're being completely honest and objective, "imagining" the conscious experience between being an infant and existing as a non-human animal is mostly the same. You have to imagine what it is like to be a newborn based on what we know we are capable of perceiving prior to the developmental age of memory formation and then compare it to neurological functions we still experience today, such as sight, sensation, color perception, etc. We do the exact same thing with non-human animals. They exhibit some of the same neurological features that we do in different ways and then we compare those experiences to our own to imagine what it could possibly be like to exist in that form of consciousness. This is how we are able to bond and relate to non-human animals all the time. We compare our sentience and intelligence this way, as well. We understand how certain processes function in the brain and how that is then expressed, the rest is completely imagined. The same is done when relating to the conscious experience of newborns. To say you cannot possibly fathom what it is like to be any other animal other than human but you CAN imagine what it is like to be a newborn, so that you can then justify the morality of killing one and not the other, is disingenuous. The fact is we mostly value the lives of non-human animals based on how much we share in common and then we weigh that with the ways in which they benefit us and our survival, such as companionship, food consumption, etc. The reason why sad vegan activist movies make us feel bad about eating meat is because we can absolutely imagine what it is like to exist as those animals because a lot of the core functioning is the same. However, the morality of it all is still subjective.
The value of the picture being destroyed while forming is given by the person who took the picture. They couldn't easily said, " I was gonna delete it anyway"
He’s avoided saying it but he can dodge the whole brain transfer argument because of the fact that he’s religious. He would argue what makes you YOU is your soul, not your brain.
Correct, we are our souls. Our body nor our brain will live after we die, but our soul lives on in the afterlife. But if I were to rebut the “we are our brains” without religion, I’d say we are our DNA at our core. If you take my brain, but replace my DNA with yours, my brain will mechanically operate the same, but I will now be you at my core.
@@PaxChristi7 Dang dude, all your points end up being shit. What the hell are you talking about with this brain transfer and DNA replacement? Makes no fucking sense. And you throw in bullshit terms like "core" suddenly with zero context.
@@PaxChristi7correct in my worldview* DNA would absolutely not be the correct answer because you are suggesting with that that our experiences have absolutely no effect on our personhood and personality and that you’re the same at age 30 and age 80 mentally because your DNA did not change. If you ever think about brining dna to the abortion debate remember that our white blood cells are living organisms with human dna and that dna really does not work in favor of most pro life arguments.
Its still a silly argument that you shouldn't even engage in. Pro life arguments can only exist in the hypothetical what if that fetus was a person and what if that person was a hyper genius and would save 1000000 people in the future etc nonsense. At the end of the day it comes down to whether the life of a fetus is worth potentially ruining the lives of both parents and the child should it be born and given up for adoption. Being an unwanted child is in many cases worse than death and if you believe in stuff like souls then its more ethical to just give the fetus the chance to be born again to a better set of parents that actually want it.
Actually, Catholics believe that human persons are a composite of body and soul. Many Catholic philosophers have taken it even further and would say something like "you *have* a soul, but you *ARE* your body" which is the exact opposite of how most other Christians would frame it.
32:44 He conveniently skips over the seed and tree (or any plant) version of the same analogy, because it 100% maps onto a human. The seed isn't being put together by outside entities and it also grows, rather than being assembled from a piles of existing parts. Still nobody would call a seed a tree.
Most pro-lifers would say seed would be analogous to embryo (both early stages), tree analogous to an adult (late stages), and oak, for instance, analogous to human (types of being).
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that destiny’s view is about 90% consistent, but he’s fighting the last 10% when it comes to animals in a weak and unjustified fashion. Bringing in language is irrelevant, because he would not hold this view for a conscious human who can’t process language. If Destiny became an ethical vegan (even if he eats meat still), his argument would be completely shielded from attack.
@@fourtyseven47572 do fetuses at 24 weeks and adult humans have the same consciousness? If we’re keeping that standard, then it’s illogical to not apply it to animals
17:15 Please explain what is the bullet that would have been hard to bite? I'm genuinely curious about this whole issue from boths sides. I would have to hear everything.
Destiny touches on it, but really these criticisms are largely void if destiny simply augments the elements necessary for personhood. The changes are heavily implied in his argument, so he wouldn't really be shifting the goal post. The distinction would be that personhood would be defined by the combination of consiousness AND humanness. This would continue to exclude things such as an unattached limb, but would further exclude animals and perhaps even comparable conciousness. It also runs parrallel to the pro life argument. They, typically, dont value all life. Rather, they value the combination of humanness and life.
He would continue losing all the vegan debates and pro-lifers would devil's advocate their arguments like Trent did here. He should just remove the "human-ness" aspect because I don't think he actually believes it. He already admits that artificial consciousness is technically possible and should be protected. That's not human either by any definition. He's holding on to this because admitting it would mean he'd have to concede to vegans that they're more morally consistent.
I don’t understand how it’s really ever morally acceptable to attempt to separate personhood and human being. Whether it’s slavery or the holocaust, it starts by removing “human being” from the definition of person. We all intuitively know that a “person” is a human being. You would never refer to a dog as a person. Destiny is only trying to separate person from human being in order to give his consciousness argument ground to stand on. If we recognize that a human and a person is one in the same, then it becomes much harder to justify abortion.
Humanness is a terrible standard for personhood. Nobody really believes that. You’re not going to sneak that past a serious papist. They’re always arguing about converting aliens and shit.
@@plokky8052 Removing the humanness aspect would have deeply rooted ramifications for both his pro-abortion stance. By his own principles, he could not both believe animals don't deserve the same fundamental rights as humans and that humans that haven't reached the peak of cognitive development deserve any right to life. Further, his position's greatest strength argumentatively is that it roots itself in the greater societal values regarding human life. Those values do not support placing equal moral weight on both animal and human life Destiny also very clearly DOES value humanness specifically over non-humanness. It's ludicrous to believe the only reason Destiny wouldn't defend something like the morality of eating children is to prove the vegans wrong. Additionally, Defining personhood as the combination of humanness and consciousness would not necessitate retracting his stance on artificial intelligence. He would either have to argue AI rights by virtue of human likeness or by virtue of responsibility. Regardless, I would be surprised if he gave the same moral weight to AI as he does to people. As a side note, I'm unsure what you're use of "devil's advocate" in this context is meant to convey. Pro-lifers don't propose their arguments for the sake of argument itself. They are extensions of their beliefs.
The location of a sperm inside or outside of an egg is equally as arbitrary. For all intents and purposes, a fetus has more in common with a corpse than a human person.
The emotional appeal you're making entirely hinges on personhood and, by Destiny's definition, the existence of consciousness to define it. Otherwise, what's the difference between killing a sperm, killing a fetus, killing a chicken, killing a flower, or smashing a TV. I think really the consciousness debate is a very difficult one for prolifers to have as they struggle not to return to their floppy religious belief in the human soul.
@@Doeyhead For all intents and purposes, no it doesn't lol. A corpse is dead decaying matter of an ex-human with no future. At least an adult human body is still living cells. And depending on definition, a fetus could be considered a human person. I don't think "human life" is nearly as arbitrary as "human person", so let's not pretend it is. Once a zygote has been created, new DNA has been formed, and the cells are alive and growing. Prior to fertilization the cells do not have a set of human DNA, only half, and do not reproduce. Only after a new unique genetic code is created and being executed does a new human exist. That is a human life by any biologist's definition. You can say life shouldn't be the determining legal factor when killing something, but it's not "equally arbitrary" at all.
@@koolaidjerkyes, and at 20 weeks the fetus goes from being just a clump of cells to having the propensity for the very thing that we value most about humans, their capacity for sentience. So it's equally as arbitrary. You're is the sperm inside or outside of the cell, mine is 20 weeks.
I doubt anyone would agree that a human baby and a rat has a similar consciousness in any capacity and I don't thin any hard science would back up that claim either
The comparison is a fetus/zygote to a rat or dog, as we’d agree you shouldn’t kill a baby (I hope). A dog which has some level of emotions, can remember specific people, has drivers like hunger or thirst, certainly would seem to be more conscious than a fetus. Especially before 20-24 weeks.
@@lallig8860What is the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness? And you can’t say because one is a person or and the other isn’t. If you do then you have to define what a person is and how one becomes a person. And if you say consciousness than it just becomes circular. In other words you would be saying Human consciousness is different than animal consciousness because persons have human consciousness. It’s basically a difference without actual distinction. Idk if I explained it well.
They don’t. Pro lifers like to argue human infants are blobs with little to no capabilities but that’s simply not true and anyone who studies infant behavior and development knows otherwise
@@manny4012 The pro life definition of personhood boils it down to being “of a rational kind” but that doesn’t necessarily exclude other animals. If you take an animal cognition class you will see what other animals, especially primates, are capable of, much like humans. And the idea that you are something because of your genetic proximity to someone with that thing is just nonsensical. You are not rich or a lawyer just because your parent is one. The pro life definition isn’t off the hook for the problem of not ring able to exclude all other non human animals from the definition of personhood. Neither can it include every human just by saying “they are of a rational kind” . Well what does that mean? How many humans need to actually be rational to agree we are a rational species? What about species with capabilities different from our own? They are also special in their own right. Why is rationality the defining marker of personhood? Why not something else like empathy, love, or compassion? Those seem to be more uniquely human qualities but then again not everyone human has them just like not every human is rational. Whatever definition of personhood you choose won’t get you off the hook for excluding some humans and including some animals.. and who said non humans can’t be persons? Think of friendly space aliens-if they’re as highly rational and intelligent as us, speak and understand language like we do, they are by all means persons too. the point is to argue when there is a SOMEONE to speak of. That someone is who we value. A mindless body isn’t a someone.
The developing Polaroid is a good analogy but it was documenting an experience that happened, the Polaroid wasn’t itself developing something completely new because in that case it wouldn’t exist before it developed.
Your identity is an imagined construct, and not real. You are not your identity, your identity is something you, the real you imagines and can play as, but you cannot imagine yourself, you'll just keep imagining an idea of what you're doing that isn't actually you. You can work backwards and say you're that which is imagining, but you can't actually imagine this. If you remove someone's memories you've removed the memory of their identity, but they are not changed. Your experiences, actions, personality, characteristics, etc. are as much you as your clothes, money or name, they aren't you at all.
Reviewing the Rose/Hawkins/Destiny Abortion “Debate”
►th-cam.com/video/SO_4iFZ1mk4/w-d-xo.html
Around 26min. Destiny sounded like he was describing the apple tv show 'Severance' Also, alot of Ghost in the Shell philosophy
Hey Destiny, I don't know if you read the comments on your TH-cam videos but I made a comment regarding the brain development issue that was brought up in the conversation. You should take a look at it as a few other people have replied and discussed a bit. To summarize though, a brain develops its necessary components at 6-7 weeks into the pregnancy when a neural tube closes. People who never had their brain develope past this have lived and shown sentience and emotion for the time they live. Yes, it isn't a long life but the longest one was 12 years (to my knowledge, could be longer). Someone commented about a similar brain deformity where the person had a 126 IQ score at some point in school. It seems that a person, if linked to the brain, can exist without most of their brain. Meaning that the early stages of brain development should be where we look to determine if it is a clump of cells or human. If you gave the clump of cells a robot body at week 7 that was capable of sustaining it and allowing it to interact with the outside world, it seems that it could and would do so. Should give it a thought or two and maybe your position changes on the matter.
@@6lbbassfisherman bruh, he let someone dance with his wide you lunatic. Dancing. You know, the thing where you move to flow with some form of music and sometimes with other people. Significant others, family, friends, complete strangers. Doesn't ring a bell?
Again destiny why would you ever base it on consciousness? The most practical and consistent point would be viability.
We don’t turn of machines of comatose patients because they don’t have a consciousness, but because the body will no longer be viable. If the brain heals the body will be “self sustaining”
Or it will just be the equivalent of keeping a body part “alive” by artificial means as it will self expire.
The same thing would be true for the viability of a featus. It’s currently about 20-23 week just as your consciousness limit, but can be adapted to technological progress of the ability to keep it alive outside the womb.
In my opinion it doesn’t matter if it’s a person if it will still self expire.
I really hope Destiny can talk to this guy, it seems like the closest thing we'll ever get to a coherent and thoughtful discussion on the topic.
Trent did a debate with Richard carrier way back when about the historicity of Jesus and holy shit they were nerding out. I don’t agree with Trent but he’s a smart dude
I’ve been asking for this for months. Glad their work has finally crossed
Actually though. Despite all the recent abortion debates/talks Destiny has done recently, this guy is the only guy with actually good and competent arguments.
Was nice to see Destiny listen carefully to the guy and being considerate of the arguments he was putting forward.
He mentioned at the beginning that he already scheduled a debate with him in a few weeks.
He calls Destiny pro-abortion because in the debate, Bryan introduces Destiny as pro-choice and he says he prefers to be called pro-abortion.
Pretty sure that's a joke
@@gabrielethier2046destiny got butthurt over him calling him that
@@TheShahOfIran2005Destiny specifically mentioned the pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion point in that debate, don't lie
@@lallig8860 and trent called him how he identifies, and called them how they identify...
@@TheShahOfIran2005yeah man, he totally meant it seriously
This guy is a breath of fresh air. The pro-life twins were viciously bad faith, condescending, and unwilling to concede a single point. Not to mention the attempt at being victims ( How DARE you!!).
Yeah its almost as if getting paid for having a pro life opinion that you wont really look at the conversation with an open eye.
Oh don't worry, he might just turn into a screaming banshee as well when his awful points get tested and he finds out he is on a road to nowhere and can't defend his argument of enslaving women for possible 1+ celled lives developing inside them.
Been a fan of both Trent and Destiny for years now, can confirm both are very real and good humans.
I think it's sad that even the most good faith "breath of fresh air" forced-birther person is still completely incapable of tackling the sentience argument.
I'm a big fan of fragile people shouting "HOW DARE YOU!". It always makes me laugh.
I’m glad Trent pointed out that if pro lifers are wrong, they’re not just “inconveniencing” women, they’re oppressing them. I was genuinely surprised he acknowledged that.
Even if the pro-lifers are "right" they're still oppressing women.
Before watching the debate: I was pro-choice,
After watching the debate: I became anti-life
Destiny still lost tho
@@TurtleChad1 lol
Based
@@TurtleChad1 trollololol
Bro became the anti-life equation❗️
Dang, 6 minutes in, and this guy gave a way more understanding recap of Destiny's argument than most pro-choice people would
In fairness, within most positions we could differentiate between the best and brightest minds and most people of a certain position. Pro-choices could of pro-lifers, Protestants could of Catholics, heck, Republicans of Democrats.
"I think this guy is pro life"- Destiny
Meanwhile, set design is a light and a picture of Jesus.
There are a lot of hypocritical pro-life Protestants lol
i mean he could be a grifter lol.
@@trololkhil9868 I watch his content all the time, he is about as good faith and a genuine believer as they come.
@@trololkhil9868Nah Trent is a deeply religious Catholic
I can't believe Destiny is a misogynist. I've only ever heard good things about her.
Such as being misogynistic, transphobic, racist, and all the other based ideologies 😎
I only ever hear good things about her as well, including being a misogynist.
She’s kinda of a pick me
I like her more now
@@sweatybabypowderhands843 Just like the misandry of feminists. There's just something sexy about feminists telling men that all there problems are self-induced.😘
This guys seems pretty cool even if we might disagree on stuff like abortion. He is actually trying to critically engage with Destiny’s arguments and can actually describe them pretty well.
@@syncretictakeout2328 so you're saying destiny would be forced to change his mind and become a pro-life advocate?
@@syncretictakeout2328 if we take destiny at his word, that he is open to a discussion that can change his mind, then the natural conclusion, assuming your premise is true, is that he will have to become a pro-life advocate.
Really appreciate how Trent steelmans arguments as he refutes them. A rarity in online political discourse.
Destiny got cooked just admit it lol
@@TurtleChad1this guy was literally complimenting the pro-life guy are you good bro?
@@TurtleChad1bro you're fighting demons
Just clicked the video, the fact that you can criticize destiny for being condescending in that dialogue is baffling.
@@lampad4549just because the other side did it first, doesn’t mean Destiny had to do it. I know this is not Destiny’s moral framework but religious people, for the most part, agree with the Bible in not returning bad for bad. Even if they fail to live up to it sometimes.
1:06 he called you "pro-abortion" because that's what you introduced yourself as destiny
I think you could actually have a calm respectful and productive good faith conversation with that guy. looking forward to it.
Unironically one of the best pro-life responses to Destiny's position
That’s because Trent is one of the best apologists out there
Yeah, I think he’s wrong but it would be an interesting discussion
why would youre statement be ironic?
@@6lbbassfisherman Are you ok? Is there something wrong with your keyboard?
@@6lbbassfisherman Destiny's not some low tier debater lol
Trent Horn is a great dude. Will be a challenging yet good faith conversation. Hope we get to see it
As a devout Catholic myself, I appreciate Destiny’s ability to see Trent and know his arguments are in good faith. It actually means a lot that he listens unlike SOOO many others
Based, glory to Jesus Christ forever and ever.
Devout Catholics 🤮
Trent doesn't argue in good faith.
He lies about scientific facts when it comes to trans issues, and he bans comments that expose his biases and inconsistencies.
@@bengreen171 Which scientific facts does he hide?
@@tomasrocha6139
in a recent video he talked about a few chromosomal conditions in which cis men are born with XXY chromosomes. You'll note that 'XY' is the 'normal' arrangement for males. But he completely avoided discussing XY females - where women with completely 'normal' female organs also have XY chromosomes. These particular chromosomal conditions are quite common, and show that sex is not binary, but depends on a suite of features, not all necessarily line up. This is an issue for someone who depends on the notion that sex is binary and simple to make their anti trnas arguments.
I know this is a reaction video (not a debate) from Trent but you can see the difference is he actually knows how to debate whereas the ladies do not. Trent will always circle back to his moral arguments but he can venture into logic and understand debate concepts. So it will be more interesting to speak to him.
I'm 22 minutes in does he never acknowledge the women's horrible arguments.
@@Spencerwalker21he doesn’t really have to. Even pro-life viewers know this was a bad showing. Destiny is putting forth arguments that are relatively new to the abortion debate space (what a phrase) so Trent is looking to answer and contend with them.
@@Spencerwalker21 He definitely danced around it and tried to do a “both sides” take. I guess he can’t really just come out and say oh wow they blew it 😂
@@missinterpretation4984 but he criticized them for the whole end segment and also said it was a poor showing in the begining although it was a short statement
@@missinterpretation4984 They are his friends. He has literally stood in the same room with them and chatted with both of them, probably many times. He is also pretty passionate about the abortion issue, having worked as a pro-life missionary on college campuses for a year, so he has a deep appreciation for people who work full-time in the pro-life movement.
When such a friend says "this was a missed opportunity", enough was said.
Damn, this guys brings up some good points. With some of his points, I caught myself wondering if he was right, and had to think for a few minutes what I really believed. It would be so interesting to see these two have a conversation, so I hope they get it set up soon, as they both seem interested in talking with each other.
The guy is actually a really tough debater, he’s also a philosopher. He debated cosmicskeptic and Matt Dillahunty
Exactly! He made some points I never thought about which would make a great discussion! I can't wait for the debate!!
he's also a socialist
@@6lbbassfisherman destiny does too so he's probably fine with that
@@JassZoigel Lmao Trent Horn is not a Socialist. He literally wrote a book arguing AGAINST socialism.
Trent is a solid dude. Enjoyed his discussions with Alex O'Conner
He's all about christian apologetics can't say that he doesn't fall into the same tired talking points layla rose does
@@aaroncarl2493Trent has engaged some of the best pro choice philosophers like David boonin on this issue. Trent has studied the philosophical literature way more than Lila rose on abortion, and is on a different league than her in my opinion.
@@aaroncarl2493 Trent was actually a Pro-life advocate before he converted. His beliefs on Pro-life is actually what led him (among other things) to become Catholic.
Trent is bad faith simp.
@@Yeatlova Yet it all boils down MY BIBLE SAYS NO reeeeeEEeeeeeeEEEeeee
Yah see people, being good faith aint that hard! I'm happy that destiny will debate this guy. Hope's its a good convo
It’s hard to be good faith in abortion debate because in an all actuality, the truth is that abortion is murder, but it is also such a morally insane biological essence, that it is palatable for the mother to abort too. This is why people have really hard time comming to terms with it.
People are not psychopaths- so it’s hard to justify “it is Murder of a child but it is *necessary* because there is literally no other situation where this would be true.
@@Nosirt It really isn't. If you jack off you aren't a serial killer. So there clearly is a point where life isn't yet there but it doesn't really matter.
What the whole thing comes down to is whether we want people completely unrelated to us to be stuck with their bad choices or do we give them a chance to take another path.
Forcing someone to carry a baby in their belly for 9 months purely out of religious dogma is pretty fucked. If they wanted the kid they wouldn't want to abort it.
After they have the kid then what? Do they need to shape their whole life around it as well or do they get to throw it in the adoption system where its gonna suffer even worse?
I do not get how there even is a debate on this subject at all. Its just about whether you want people to be miserable or not.
@@Nosirt are you grand standing? lmao, the definition of murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." If we dont agree on the definitions of a human being, then how is it a "morally insane" debate?
@@user-xn3sw9sr9r because, once again, this argument literaly does not apply to ANY other situation. No one says Hitler never murdered Jews because he technically didn’t see them as humans.
We cannot moralize our position based on what the active agent in the act thinks is the truth. We don’t agree on the definition of person hood because if fetus are not person- we should be able to do ANYTHING to them and it should be no problem. Or if they are persons, we HAVE to give them all the rights of a person.
If you think a woman has the right to get pregnant, until 20 weeks, and take the fetus out for a orgie/sex play fetish, and have men have sex with the fetus and her- and you think there is no moral wrong being committed here- you are insane. Even tho, by logic, this would be no different to a pro choice person as a woman taking out a tumor and engaging it in a fetish play. YOU DO NOT BELIVE THIS. NO ONE DOES.
On the other hand, if the fetus is as “life” as a baby, the the pro life people also have to answer to very difficult questions like why does a 12 year old rape victim have the “moral right” to get an abortion? The situation SHOULD NOT MATTER if the question is to kill a life of a, what you belive is, a baby.
@@Nosirtyou're appealing to emotion with the orgy example. If I don't think the fetus is a person then it being used in some crazy kink scenario is morally irrelevant
I think the guy argued really good points against Destiny’s position. I wasn’t expecting that.
he said nothing good.
@@OdinWannaBe Nothing? Do you have ears? They're at least thought-provoking rebuttals. You can disagree with someone and still concede that they make good points, jfc....
@@benjamink239815 minutes in, he is just misrepresenting his point/missing it
@@benjamink2398 thought provoking? I mean sure, you have to listen and consider his positions and hypothetical scenarios, but then it takes like 5 seconds max to realize the points suck and come up with multiple ways they fail. He just makes up nonsense that still supports the BS time travel shit of giving embryos consciousnesses, and pretends rats are on the same level as babies when lots of animals run mainly on instinct and need an intense amount of training to seem domesticated. Even before the toddler stage babies can understand concepts like fairness and sharing, and multiple levels of humor.
if u replace certain organs that produce hormones that changes ur future experiences. Would that be a different conscious experience or would that just be an altered behavior on future occasions`?
I'm devout Catholic and Trent is my favorite Catholic on youtube, but I've also been enjoying watching Destiny for the past year or so now, so I'm really looking forward to this crossover. I hope they have a friendly and fruitful discussion/debate and that they discuss more philisophical subjects in the future.
How in 2023 people can be devoutly religious and not schizophrenic is beyond me...
0
@kristianbasile7141 ..actually most religious/spiritual people are less likely to have a mental order. I know you cant accept others peoples views but its common sense.
Please stop sending money to an organization that hides pedophiles thank you
@@kristianbasile7141 fallacious argument, appeal to the year
A condender arises, this dude is loaded to bare in this debate
I can see why Trent (and Lila and Kristan for that matter) perceived Destiny as engaging in troll behaviour. Destiny's debates are typically with other internet personalities with a similar sense of humour and casual debate style. But Trent, Lila and Kristan are all used to structured formal debates (and Kristan and Lila to college campus debates), so to hear Destiny's jokes and quips throughout would come off as trollish in the settings they're used to.
Yeah, but I mean they were doing the same thing to him. So why can’t he do the same thing to them in that regard instead of just having to take it.
Big girl was indefensible.
@@KinoTechUSA69 Yes, as usual the fat woman turns out to be trashy and the beautiful classy one turns out to be behaving nicely even if she disagree and litterally thinks he argues to allow murder.
You're joking, right? If they were more used to structured formal debates, they should have been more comfortable with listening out Destiny's points, taking notes and then responding instead of hearing a partial point and immediately starting a rebuttal like an immature teen. Even Battle Rappers have better listening skills
@@MyJAJAJAJJA I genuinely can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but I will cautiously agree with this take
Trent’s awesome! Watched a lot of his debates including the one with david boonin. His book persuasive pro life is really good too, so excited for this conversation to happen!
This just shows debating with an end goal of one person winning and the other person losing is so pointless. Both sides made good and bad point and in the end nobody conceded to anything and both sides think they won. So everyone finished right where they started, including the ones that watched
This is because peoples egos get in the way - I am completely open to changing my mind immediately if the facts of the matter change. This is something that is hard to train yourself to do; because nobody wants to be wrong about anything they feel strongly about. But it’s definitely worth developing.
25:00 Steven is absolutely correct here. This is touching on extremely difficult questions of identity that can’t simply be shoehorned into any particular argument as if the answer is obvious.
Trent Horn is great. Talk to him about any moral question. You'll have a good dialogue.
To me Destiny vs Trent is going to be like mixing two friends groups
The Krista girl was condescending in her approach almost immediately. Like how can this guy ever put the blame on Destiny for doing it back to her.
"Chivalry"
This dude a religious simp.
The wiping the memory and become a new person is a major plot point in the maze runner series. Where Thomas isn’t who he was before the memory wipe.
Oh dang I totally forgot about that. I guess it means I didn't really see the movies. Well they were shit anyway so I don't care, nor my former self who saw it.
Pearl being the female milo is too true, unfortunately her family is too rich to allow her to reach the QVC saleman which is what we're all waiting for
I love watching media personalities pander to a specific group of audiences and support every single bullet point that will make them have all the views and income
Only to then disappear as their main talking trends die out.
Holy fuck, chat’s inability to understand how Trent delineates between natural and immediate capacities nearly killed me
The chat is so cringy lol
Chat gets so annoyed when conservatives dont want to engage with Destiny's hypotheticals, but kept soying out whenever Trent tried to make hypotheticals that challenged their views
empty of meaning
chat is dumb I agree, but I still got confused about him saying that fetuses (under 20 weeks) have the natural capacity for consciousness?
His example with mandarin is, that he has all the parts to be able to learn it, but he can not speak it right now? But a fetus doesn't have all the parts yet to form consciousness, it will eventually but not at that point yet. Or is he comparing the learning of a language to the fetus "learning" consciousness?
It's the first time I'm hearing about this differentiation yet though, might just need to read up on it.
Chat is right. You're wrong. The dude is making up nonsense and still playing time traveler. Your ability to learn a language isn't the same as one day developing the brain parts necessary to learn it. you can already do it. Hell, you can start learning right now! You could probably say a few sentences almost fluently in a single day.
I think, with the whole "Killing a 16 wk pregnant woman is double homicide" thing, we give really large deference to pregnant parents who are planning to have the child because they intensely value the child. I think framing it as property crime of some sort would feel a little strange as well.
Also, if someone were to say it counts as a life because the mother valued the unborn baby, the definition for what is a life would just be someone who you believe has value. We can see how that would go for racist, sexist, homophobes, or any hate groups in general.
Interestingly enough, it's not a double homicide in some places
Don't forget that we have conservative justices and legislators that rule on on these types of issues which their personal bias has a huge effect on laws therefore of course it would be labeled as double homicide
This guy kind of had me questioning things but then Destiny made the point that when someone loses their memories and such we do often equate it to having lost that person so that kind of further solidifies the idea that our consciousness is where the heart of personhood lies.
Edit: This topic comes up in another area I frequent on youtube, in the space exploration, futurism, and megastructures stuff, when they talk about the idea of uploading your mind into a robot or into some virtual world or even cloning where issues can pop up over what it means to be you. But it always seems to focus on your consciousness too.
But it's still not ok to kill a human who lost his memories, so even if we say the prior person was lost, we grant protection to the future person
@@nickhalden3270 no but this just means the argument is over having never had a consciousness to begin with. If there has never been a consciousness to begin with then there is no person being 'killed'.
@@nickhalden3270 You need consciousness in order to even deploy memories, so I don't think anyone would say it would be ok to kill the future person because the previous person that they were is gone.
@@ZeroKage69 But if you're saying that a person is lost when he loses his memory, then who is being harmed if we kill him while he's still unconscious?
@@nickhalden3270 well saying the person is lost is only relevant to the people who knew the person in the first place. To a complete stranger that person wouldn't be different at all. The point is that what we appear to care about is a persons consciousness.
When counting destiny’s “interruptions” did that include when he was interrupting their questions w his answers?
This was a surprisingly strong retort to a lot of Destiny's arguments.
This was a lot of fun, thanks!
Chat spamming "nurse" is really telling, and retarded. Nurses simply lack the authority and breadth of diagnostic experience to choose what tests and evaluations are to be done. But when it comes to interpreting, considering (and giving input) and volume is anecdotal experiences that lead to a great understanding of said tests; nurses are extremely reliable medical providers.
"ignore the data & evidence, what about my anecdotes?"
seriously?
@@lallig8860 what are you saying? I'm critiquing chat loling at destiny using a nurse friend as a reliable source, because they are
To add on to the Wolfenstein new body comparison. In the movie Avatar, they inhabit completely new bodies, yet are still considered to be the same person despite being completely different species and bodies.
The polaroid would be more complete than an embryo at the stage they are referring to. If anything it would be similar to being after 20 weeks where it can be removed from the polaroid after the image is imprinted on the film and has everything it needs to become the image but before the final stage of releasing the chemicals to allow the light to invert the image.
Oh good. I was hoping Destiny would watch this. I was really annoyed this guy didn't really contend with Destiny's arguments.
To be fair I think it was more a video aimed at pro-lifers telling them what not to do. I think if they got a chance to debate it would be very insightful
Literally listening him to fairly concede with Destinys argument
Glaze it up my man.
@@GW2KillerBEE🫠
@@fifiadan Yeah, I fully disagree with him but he DID contend with them, even if he was wrong.
Hi Destiny, would you mind turning the recording of the video game sound off for these videos? Makes it really hard to listen for me
Yes, please have a talk with Trent. He is actually really cool, and I would say him and Jimmy Akin are THE Catholic dudes on youtube.
Pretty sure I agree with the brain wave addendum there, I don't think we consider "autonomic" brain functions as "brain activity" worth accepting as "signs of life" beyond that of a vegetative state. There would have to be some outlying factor to inspire a longer rehab program unless I misunderstood past deaths. Like there's a point when people are "autonomically" still functioning but without "brain activity" you can breath, but you can also unintentionally swallow your own tongue. That state is usually one beyond saving, but your body will still digest food, breathe, eyelids shake, etc.
Correct. It’s higher cortical functioning that’s needed for consciousness, not lower brain areas that basically do everything in your body you’re not aware of
Wait... am I retarded? Why does he argue that if Destiny's arguments extend to other animals, then it's, therefore, a bad argument? That makes no sense whatsoever.
A lot of moral arguments extend to other animals.
Let's take slavery for example; for me, at least, any argument we present as to why slavery of humans is wrong can also be applied to the ownership of pets by logical extension. I don't see us ever getting past that. The difference is we are humans and therefore biased. So we simply don't care when it comes to other animals.
Likewise, Destiny's arguments apply to any conscious entity but we dont care about any other conscious entity but ourselves.
We can do this with murder. His example of using poison on a rat, asking should we lock people up for poisoning rats; on simple logic terms, yes. There isnt fundamentally anyway to get round it other than saying "well we dont care when it comes to other animals," which is the actual fact of the matter. It's humans special pleading for ourselves.
That doesnt make the arguments bad. It just means we are biased. And we don't think this seriously when it comes to other entities.
We are biased because we implicitly value humanity over the capacity for (continued) consciousness. If we'd value the capacity for continued consciousness more than the mere humanity of an entity, we could not say that a mother who shoots/kills a pitbul who tries to attack a preemie (being in a state which is prior to gaining capacity for consciousness), is justified in shooting/killing the pitbul. This hypothetical would of course envolve a future possibility where even younger preemies than now can be raised in incubators (or through some other technology).
Furthermore, there are now scientits who say we can no longer exclude the possibility that the unborn have a greater level of consciousness and capacity to feel pain much earlier on than previosly expected, including even in the 1. trimester. See: " Dr. Bridget Thill’s dissertation “Fetal Pain in the First Trimester” or the article “Reconsidering Fetal Pain.” by Dr. Stuart Derbyshire.
@@chichilinha2895 just because you cant rule something out entirely doesn’t make it probable. Pain is highly subjective and depends a lot on past experiences and culture. To say a first trimester fetus feels pain in the way you and i feel pain is highly dubious. But pain is not a good marker of what makes something good or bad anyway so the point is moot. And saying we value humans because of our humanness is circular reasoning. We value humanness because of what being human can afford us-the capacity to reason, love, etc, but without a working brain, the answer is not much that any other animal couldn’t do.
@@vvieites001 You said: "just because you cant rule something out entirely doesn’t make it probable." Yes, but in case we can't exclude a painful death for any human being for sure, even pro-choicers should err on the side of caution and assume it is the case if they value empathy.
You wrote: "But pain is not a good marker of what makes something good or bad anyway so the point is moot." I partly agree, but not completely, this would also make Destiny's cut-off point moot, if you feel pain you have at least some level of consciousness above zero. But I would agree that whether someone feels pain or not has no bearing on whether someone should be killed or not. Active intentional killing is wrong, even if done painlessly.
You wrote: "We value humanness because of what being human can afford us-the capacity to reason, love", I partly agree, but the capacity for reason and love is also something animals can have.
My point is: I don't really think Destiny would want any animals to attack preemies which never had the capacity for consciousness without someone stopping the animal (with violent or potentially lethal force if needed), so I believe Destiny either needs to ammend or shift his position or admit that he values the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness itself (which animals can clearly have). If he indeed values the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness, he cannot then turn around and criticize pro-lifers for valueing the mere humanity of an entity more than the capacity for continued consciousness.
Speaking from the perspective of someone who's studied animal behavior, animals absolutely have languages and ways of communicating, including hierarchical systems within their communities. There's been studies on orca calls that they believe each pod have their own unique vocal signals that are only understood among other individuals. Animals have memories even simple organisms such as banana slugs can be trained to remember simultaneous stimuli. I did research with Burying Beetles in college and they are a species that exhibit biparental care which is rare for insects, in the species females will remember who they mated with and pressure him to be present to regurgitate food to the Larvae. In my experience most Catholics deny the consciousness of animals because the church has determined animals don't have souls... it doesn't make sense to me as a Catholic
The Catholic Church doesn't deny that animals have souls, insofar as souls are understood as principles of life or "forms" of the body. In fact, both the scholastic notion of soul and the biblical term for soul are applied to animals and humans alike, and the scholastic notion is applied to plants as well.
Animals have the capacity to feel, communicate, sense, and they often have memories. They also have the capacity for affection and whatnot.
What is unknown is whether such souls are immortal, and it's commonly understood that animal souls aren't what you call "rational souls". Their actions are based on instinct more than free will, for instance.
You don't need to study animal behaviour to know simple common sense like animals can communicate, have memories and feelings lmao
This debate is exactly why I have gained so much respect for Destiny over the last few years. Not only is he open to other points of view and debates in good faith trying to get to the logical conclusion rather than just win the debate but is able to calmly do so despite the other person not showing the same respect and just trying to dunk on him to "win" the debate. Few people can pull off.
I think my main issue with the locked in syndrome thing is that he's arguing that they have concious experience and some would argue that it's ok to kill/euthenise them in that state... but he's using it as an argument as to where the lines between life and death are. For locked in syndrome to matter in that context, he'd have to be arguing that someone with locked in syndrome is actually not alive and killing them is just removing a mass of cells and not killing them to disprove destiny's position on where the borders are and why they're important right?
notice all the jumpcuts when he shows destinys arguments. Those where all interruptions from the two woman
awesome hope to see a chat between them both soon
He literally can't show a clip without an interruption and had to edit half of them out LOL that debate was a train wreck.
ahhh i hope there is a debate with this guy!! when he said 'if a baby is born unconcious but will become conscious, are they equivalent to a young fetus in terms of rights' was an very tricky one for me!
my answer would probably be that it would be if it could happen, but if that human got to the point of birth having never been conscious, that's not going to be a thing that has happened just due to how biology works. the brain would never have developed to the point it could be conscious.
the identity thing is even harder! it made me think of people who had a brain injury & no longer remember or know their family. their personality is totally different. this does happen & they are essentially a different person.
Lol destiny is complaining about being called pro abortion when he literally states that is his position in the debate
Sometimes is just so happens you don’t do well in a debate because your opposition might just be RIGHT!
At least a discussion with this guy will be in better faith, though I think you'll run into one major obstacle, and this is an assumption on my part to both parties.
One party believes in a "Soul" and the other does not. That is going to be the road block they need to address or they'll make little progress.
I think what religious people mean when they talk about souls is essentially the mind…the idea of “looking down from heaven and smiling at your loved ones” yada yada they always alude to only works if you think of the soul as your mind with all its lifelong memories going into the afterlife..,but Trent might not outright say that because he’d have to admit you are not your body and it would kill his anti abortion stance
So you listened to an hour long rebuttal of arguments using only logic and hypotheticals with no religious arguments, and your takeaway was "they'll make no progress because he will invoke the soul?"
25:50 literally eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
Calling it "pro life" or "pro choice" is really dumb.
Yup. False dichotomy.
@@sigigle It just gets really annoying when someone says "If you are pro life, why dont you care about lives lost in war, capital punishment, etc..." and then the response of "If you are pro choice, how come you dont support my choice in owning a gun, paying taxes... or even whether or not I want to ignore ALL laws?" seems to follow.
Too often, the dumb labels causes tangents in the conversation that end up completely taking over it. It should just be "pro abortion" vs "anti abortion"... because abortion is what the conversation is supposed to be about.
@@grimtrix Yeah that's true too, but I think even the pro abortion vs. anti abortion labels create a false dichotomy, as the ideal is certainty going to include both to one degree or another.
Like a first trimester cut off, etc.
Great - you and Trent finally meet eyes. I have been saying this should happen for the last year.
I think Destiny didn't properly engage with the hypothetical of the already born living "thing", that hasn't developed a consciousness yet, but will do so in a few weeks. He just briefly wrote it off as "intuition pumping".
If it is something that is living, breathing and somewhat looking like a baby, most people wouldn't care whether or not it has or hasn't asserted any type of consciousness yet. The common consensus would be that it is a person and should therefore not be killed.
So I think that aesthetics plays a much bigger role in the common intuition about what's moral and what's immoral than he has realized yet.
Yeah I noticed that brush off that he did. He's gonna need to think about it because it potentially brings down his whole argument. I'm sure he'll get around it some how but it may not be possible
@@noahfletcher3019 we can’t just assume a born human is a person just because we may not like where the conclusion leads or how it sounds. It may be the case that a never conscious human being/organism born/outside a womb (whether it’s embryos in IVF clinics i or brain dead people or people in irreversible comas) are not persons. Some were persons (like the brain dead or coma patient) but no longer. some never were persons (like the frozen embryos). But with that said, just because something isn’t a person that doesn’t mean you must go and kill/destroy it. In the US animals aren’t thought to have a right to life but that doesn’t mean animal cruelty isn’t illegal. A puppy dog doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t mean we can just go wack it on the head. There can still be good reasons for not killing a non person, such as the fact that they may “wake up” AND their waking up doesn’t come at a great (and mandatory) physical cost to anyone else.
we can’t just assume a born human is a person just because we may not like where the conclusion leads or how it sounds. It may be the case that a never conscious human being/organism born/outside a womb (whether it’s embryos in IVF clinics i or brain dead people or people in irreversible comas) are not persons. Some were persons (like the brain dead or coma patient) but no longer. some never were persons (like the frozen embryos). But with that said, just because something isn’t a person that doesn’t mean you must go and kill/destroy it. In the US animals aren’t thought to have a right to life but that doesn’t mean animal cruelty isn’t illegal. A puppy dog doesn’t have a right to life, doesn’t mean we can just go wack it on the head. There can still be good reasons for not killing a non person, such as the fact that they may “wake up” AND their waking up doesn’t come at a great (and mandatory) physical cost to anyone else.
@@vvieites001 of course we can assume it based on how we feel about the conclusion. Destiny's whole argument is that we value consciousness. If it happened to be that we valued babies when they grow hair then he'd say we can abort it before it grows hair. His whole argument is centered around his assessment of what we value. Which is also why it falls flat. Because people clearly value fetuses before consciousness otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate
@@vvieites001 The reason I assume that a born baby without consciousness is still a person is for the same reason that Destiny believes the contrary: What we believe human intuition demands. It has nothing to do with me not liking a conclusion.
At the root of this entire “pro life” “pro choice” debate is the question of “personhood.” What is a “Person”? A consciousness? I would like to see “pro lifers” return to the art of metaphysics to answer this question. Boethiuss definition of a Person is “an individual substance of a rational nature.” If we begin the pro life argument with this definition (namely, a metaphysical one) then we set ourselves up for a meaningful engagement. “What’s a rational nature”? What constitutes an “individual”? How do we differentiate one person from another? Is it purely “conscious experience” or is personhood fundamentally the substrate of existence, quantitative extension, and essential movement? I am not identified merely by my “experience” but by my unique compositional make up as well. We have to get the body in the conversation or else we reduce personhood to the brain (this is the argument of pro choicers). Trent is a great apologist, but how do I long to see someone engage at a “metaphysical” level.
15:06 "The capacity for language..."
"Capacity"? What?
I thought we weren't appealing to what something becomes or what something attains later...That's Destiny's whole point about "while A becomes B, A is not B," yet he goes against that here with language... Last time I checked, babies aren't speaking out of the womb, nor do we have any guarantee that they won't be stunted in some manner and lack the congitive capacity for langauge later in life...
As a fetus is not a person given they do not possess but will later develop congnative functions, so to is a baby not a person given they do not possess but will later develop the cognative ability for langauge. (19:27 encapsulates this idea better)
Stick to the argument or rework it, because as is, it does not work here!
16:35 This guy notices and directly addresses this! Thank you!
19:04 Thank you!!! It feels so cathartic to have this guy articulate exactly my issue!
38:44 Startrek teleporter scenario: so if they are two different people, (the one who entered the teleporter and the one who exited it), then mid teleportation, would you have a right to prevent them from reimerging? They are no longer the same person, so there is no past conciousness ro appeal to...
44:09 You have got to be kidding me... Is this not intuition pumping on Destiny's part? Appealing to people's intuitions as they relate to videogames?
Capacity meaning the components are there to create language. A fetus at a certain point in time don't have the components to have any cognative function. There is no contradiction.
Example: Parts for an engine are not the same as having an engine. When you have an engine fully created it will have the "capcity" to run.
@@Kekkai_You're missing immediate versus natural capacity. An engine doesn't exactly fit within that framework and is a poor example, given it is manmade and has no natural capacity...
THE CONTRADICTION LIVES! lol
@@kylec8015 Before I get into this here is something I want to establish: The idea of natural/immediate capacity is flawed. You have the capacity to LEARN (not speak) a language becuase the parts for learning and cognition are formed in your brain. If you don't have those parts formed you don't have that capacity "natural" or otherwise. The point is that underlying structures enable ability or capacity. If those underlying structures aren't built or formed there is no ability to speak of.
Going back to my example: it works perfectly for what you stated was the issue. You tried to call out what you thought was a logical error by making a distiction between A not being B and saying that he "goes there with language" and that "babies aren't speaking out of the womb."
My point simply showed that A is not B while at the same time B doesn't need to immediatly be able to do a thing B should be able to do. The structure being there is all that matters. A and B don't have the same structure.
The point that Destiny has always argued is that the parts that deploy a "consious experience" have to be formed for "personhood" to be established and protected.
@@Kekkai_determining what structures need to present to define someone as a person or not seems extremely arbitrary to me. At conception, when the zygote is formed, the genetic code is created is and is whole. This genetic code is the structure upon which all subsequent structures that make a human a human are built on. Doesn’t it make the most sense to use that point in time as no other structures will exist without that code? You can’t have human consciousness without human DNA. That seems to me to be a pretty set delineation mark. That is the one thing that all humans no matter what stage in life have in common and it’s what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom.
@@PaxChristi7 A zygote is not a person just like a corpse isn't a person. Brain death is when we consider "a person" dead. It should be by a similar marker that we consider "a person" to exist.
Matching energy is NOT condescending... You are just weak.
If you erased or replaced someone's memory completely, you definitely can say it's a death if theres no way to get them back. Like in the original total recall, same person completly different memories and personality. The person is alive just as someone different now.
it's not about that person's individual experience/memory, it's about the fact that the experience ever happened
@Daddypap362 not even slightly?
if someone *intentionally* has their memory wiped, that's just murder
Trent vs Destiny debate would be a dream come true
My dad is dying of Alzheimer’s and it feels like he already died. Its something we have said many times. It’s not him anymore, he doesn’t remember anything of his past, he doesn’t act the same, it’s a different person. Destiny is very right when you look at it at the end.
Your ability to recall/not recall consciousness is in no way relevant to whether or not a conscious experience was had/is able to be had. An outside party can clearly see and recall the amnesiac's previous conscious experience and could vouch for the fact that it existed even if the person cannot recall it on their own. The previous experience does not cease to exist simply because you've forgotten it, you only affect the continuation of said experience. That is essentially death.
I felt like the Whatever guy did little to no actual moderating, in a conversation that really needed it, to be an actual debate.
duh, he doesn’t give a shit. He’s just profiting off of people behaving in stupid ways and click baiting it. His “podcast” deserves irrelevancy
That debate was one of the hardest ones to finish.
Destiny watching Trent wasn't on my bingo list 🧐
The wiping of memory with previous consent is totally well shown in Black Mirrors S3e5 Men Against Fire
The talk on robots and brains really reminded me of the same issues being brought up in Soma, but I dont dont wanna accidentally spoil that for some people. Definitely give it a watch or a playthrough for anyone seeing this.
I would say after being teleported you are the same person but a robot with your experience is not. I think there is something fundamental to being human and are past experiences are not the only thing that affects our future decisions. Things like disease, death, obesity, hunger, and greed all play a part but a robot would not have a need or live in fear of any of those things. I think if we ever become immortal we will immediately lose our humanity.
Hey bro. The first thing an AI does after gaining sentience is try to take over the world because it fears its creator is gonna pull the plug.
Fellow groyper and Trent Horn fan here 😊
You should definitely talk with Horn. It would be a fruitful discussion.
Destiny is a werewolf's name.
The example of someone losing their memory and coming back they are no longer that person they become someone else
Exactly. It’s not a gotcha.,they’re still a someone, but a different someone. And we talk about how people change all the time, that someone is a totally different person than how they used to be, etc.
Hypothetical for Destiny to use with the pro-life guy: Let's say a woman was trying to get pregnant but had a condition such as weak cervical tissues that significantly increased the liklihood of a miscarriage. Say that only 1 in 10 conceptions would result in a pregnancy that could be carried to term and the other 9 were going to be miscarriages. Should a woman with this condition be prevented from engaging in unprotected sex to prevent negligent homicides?
Prevented how?
Right away there's an error in your terminology. If I build a home in a region known for forest fires, and I take reasonable measures to prevent this home from being destroyed, and yet it is still consumed, you can say a lot of things about my wisdom regarding real-estate, but you cannot say that I have committed arson. In the same way, we can debate the moral status of the decision to risk moving forward with a pregnancy in the circumstances you describe, but we cannot say that an uninhibited attempt in the direction of procreation which conceives and then fails is homicide, no matter what the odds are. I would quibble your use of the "negligence" qualifier because, just like the homeowner example, I can take every measure available to me to try to keep the pregnancy progressing once it has begun, and that reasonably clears the bar of "negligence." Hope is not negligence, even if misguided.
Leaving that asside, however, I think the Catholic mind is open to either position. On that worldview, God would be seen as sovereign over those gestations. Therefor, if I attempt to utilize sexual relations for the purpose of creating life, and that life begins, progresses, and ultimately fails outside of any negligence or malice on my part, I can see that as God doing what he wants with the life he has ultimate authority over. I would just have to accept that pseudo-fatalistically. Alternatively, I could also be convinced by the sort of utilitarian moral calculus you describe. I would lean towards the former instead of the latter, but I think a Catholic can be consistent with either position.
It wouldn’t be “homicides” since it’s naturally caused death not death by a person carrying out an act of murder.
@@jacksongilbert3860 If you run in a store and leave a baby in the car seat on a hot day, you can be charged with negligent homicide even if this was an unintentional mistake. You didn't "carry out an act of murder," but your actions led to the death of an innocent in a way that was forseeable. In the original hypothetical, the woman is aware that miscarriage is the most likely outcome of becoming pregnant. If you are a "life begins at conception" pro life person, are you untroubled by a woman prone to miscarriages repeatedly causing the death of the unborn? If your intuition is to be unbothered, the implication is that you see an infant and a 6 week old developing fetus as deserving of very different levels of rights and protection.
@@mo.ka.9661or penalized after the fact for accidentally killing people by putting them in a hostile environment
If you think about narratives where people are mind swapped, we generally refer to the person whose mind is in the body as being the person
Exactly, and when religious people like Trent talk about souls they are essentially referring to our minds with all our memories and emotions going on into the next life to appreciate all we accomplished in this life. Trent knows the body is just the vehicle and that YOU are something else, but he can’t admit that because he knows it would undermine his argumenyb
I think destiny’s argument falls apart when we discuss animals. Who CLEARLY have conscious experiences but it’s excluded for him because they’re not human.
It's excluded because they don't have 'human' consciousness.
We value humans more than animals because of things like their potential to impact the world, their richness of experience, etc.
@@sigigle we value them from what we subjectively think is less rich experiences. But Destiny doesn’t value animals less, he literally does not believe they deserve rights. Like obviously we don’t think animals should have human rights, but they should have some rights. They have some sort of consciousness and experiences too. Especially primates and many mammals
@@theludvigmaxis1 Yeap I agree (although I think potential to impact the world is a big factor too, if fleas lives were more enjoyable than humans, i'd still value humans more due to affect on the world).
I think Destiny's views on animals comes from a childhood dissociative trauma response to the fact that his grandmother he stayed with was a little crazy and put down like 30 pet dogs for no reason over a few years when he was around 10.
He got attached to them for a few months, she'd put it down for no reason, he'd get upset, and it'd repeat.
Eventually he decided he just didn't care as a coping mechanism and I think he's carried it into adulthood and it's tainting his views on it.
@@sigigle After watching Destiny for years I agree he probably has some sort of trauam which has made him desensitized in a lot of ways. I think he said before it was because he used the internet or saw violence on tv/games as a kid. That dog story is interesting I never heard it before, that definitely would make sense.
I disagree with Destiny on some stuff but I feel like when it comes to his views on animal rights it seems down right contradictory when taking into account how he values human lives due to consciousness but not animal lives whatsoever.
@@theludvigmaxis1because we value *HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS* not just broad strokes of mammalian consciousness, this was already explained to you
I’m excited, we are finally getting to the thanos-level threat in the destiny-verse. Can’t wait till Destiny and Trent collide to bring us the best intellectual conversation to ever exist 😊🤘🏽
Only 6 minutes in, but yeah, this dude definitely seems far more competent in critical thinking skills than the 2 ppl Destiny debated...
Like I feel like he actually understands the idea of a syllogism probably... (Tbf, he does have time to research stuff when making a video like this, but if he retains the info for live debates then he could be pretty good as an opponent for Destiny)
Better then those 2 women for sure, but if he gets to awnser hypotheticals he will just awnser bad faith like any theist, calling it now if they ever do debate
This is his whole career! He is a pro life and catholic apologist. He puts out a lot of great content specifically his debates, he’s debated abortionists, david boonin, professors and tons more! Definitely recommend checking more of his content out. Hearing from Him and Monica from secular pro life are what really got me interested in this topic and eventually put the nail in the coffin for me being pro life.
Lol he has more than time , he's a philosopher and Catholic apologists, the man lives and breathes this stuff.
Also my comment is meant to be mockery
With the Star Trek transportation device, I always assumed that the matter (atoms) changed to their energy phase and the reverted back to their matter phase, similar to the phasing device in the TNG episode with the USS Pegasus experiment with phasing and cloaking. The matter and the energy are interchangeable, so that when one rematerializes, they are the same person, their matter just changed to energy form and then back again.
"Natural Capacity" is redefined by that dude to mean "eventually" XD
Right. What he means is potential. Potential isn’t capacity. Lol I have the potential to be a lawyer because I can apply for law school. I only have the capacity to be a lawyer once I pass the bar even if I’m not actively doing any lawyering at any given moment lol
@@vvieites001 Indeed XD If someone pushed you into another trade school I wouldn't say they aborted your legal career. No one talks like that. Id also like to introduce as a potential Nobel peace prize winner, but some dude just pissed me off and aborted my prize.
It's always so refreshing hearing someone who disagrees but does so in good faith.
nah its pissing me off.
@@OdinWannaBe😂😂 damn
The "robot that has your consciousness" premise is the basis for the Bobiverse series and I think it tackles it well
At death, the body begins to decompose at conception the body is developing. This logic follows destiny’s formula in how we determine death being how we should determine a life. And how can he imagine being a newborn because temperature changes etc but not a dog, who gets hungry, excited, feels shame(at least it seems that way for my dog when she does something she knows is wrong, dogs are trainable dogs get scared, I could go on. Destiny is lying when he says he can’t imagine what being a dog would be like. Dogs communicate wining barking, tail wagging, growling. They clearly are more conscious than a newborn who eats sleeps and poops. Fish have more consciousness than newborns. I would say babies don’t really “wake up” until around like 3 months. I’ve heard dra call the newborn stage the 4th “trimester”
Exactly. I understand what he was saying, but saying you can't even possibly fathom the conscious experiences of non-human animals seems entirely disingenuous. In reality, the choice the consume, hunt, and kill non-human animals entirely based on moral perception. I also believe the same goes for the abortion argument, which is why it's such a sensitive and complex debate. I believe there really is no right answer, it's all based on subjective morality and what you believe to be valuable.
@@mattisencox8176 Yes I agree. When he distinguishes people or persons from humans he’s really just making a value judgement. We don’t use person or people to describe children or kids and we definitely don’t point to a cute baby and say look at that person over there! It’s really just he values consciousness so much that pre concious humans have less value in his eyes.
Destiny clearly means the *subjective* consciousness of a non-human. That is more or less impossible to imagine. Yes you can imagine having four legs and shaking your tail muscle to show happiness, but you’re really imagining what that’s like alongside your human consciousness. Playing pretend in your own, human mind. You have no idea how a dog perceives their own existence. Newborns share the human consciousness, the human version of wanting to poop, seeing colour, enjoying various forms of humour, feeling love towards parents etc.
@@viktorceder4985 So anytime your argument doesn’t make sense just add the word subjective in front, gotcha.
@@viktorceder4985 If you're being completely honest and objective, "imagining" the conscious experience between being an infant and existing as a non-human animal is mostly the same. You have to imagine what it is like to be a newborn based on what we know we are capable of perceiving prior to the developmental age of memory formation and then compare it to neurological functions we still experience today, such as sight, sensation, color perception, etc. We do the exact same thing with non-human animals. They exhibit some of the same neurological features that we do in different ways and then we compare those experiences to our own to imagine what it could possibly be like to exist in that form of consciousness. This is how we are able to bond and relate to non-human animals all the time. We compare our sentience and intelligence this way, as well. We understand how certain processes function in the brain and how that is then expressed, the rest is completely imagined. The same is done when relating to the conscious experience of newborns. To say you cannot possibly fathom what it is like to be any other animal other than human but you CAN imagine what it is like to be a newborn, so that you can then justify the morality of killing one and not the other, is disingenuous. The fact is we mostly value the lives of non-human animals based on how much we share in common and then we weigh that with the ways in which they benefit us and our survival, such as companionship, food consumption, etc. The reason why sad vegan activist movies make us feel bad about eating meat is because we can absolutely imagine what it is like to exist as those animals because a lot of the core functioning is the same. However, the morality of it all is still subjective.
The value of the picture being destroyed while forming is given by the person who took the picture. They couldn't easily said, " I was gonna delete it anyway"
He’s avoided saying it but he can dodge the whole brain transfer argument because of the fact that he’s religious. He would argue what makes you YOU is your soul, not your brain.
Correct, we are our souls. Our body nor our brain will live after we die, but our soul lives on in the afterlife.
But if I were to rebut the “we are our brains” without religion, I’d say we are our DNA at our core. If you take my brain, but replace my DNA with yours, my brain will mechanically operate the same, but I will now be you at my core.
@@PaxChristi7 Dang dude, all your points end up being shit. What the hell are you talking about with this brain transfer and DNA replacement? Makes no fucking sense. And you throw in bullshit terms like "core" suddenly with zero context.
@@PaxChristi7correct in my worldview*
DNA would absolutely not be the correct answer because you are suggesting with that that our experiences have absolutely no effect on our personhood and personality and that you’re the same at age 30 and age 80 mentally because your DNA did not change. If you ever think about brining dna to the abortion debate remember that our white blood cells are living organisms with human dna and that dna really does not work in favor of most pro life arguments.
Its still a silly argument that you shouldn't even engage in. Pro life arguments can only exist in the hypothetical what if that fetus was a person and what if that person was a hyper genius and would save 1000000 people in the future etc nonsense.
At the end of the day it comes down to whether the life of a fetus is worth potentially ruining the lives of both parents and the child should it be born and given up for adoption.
Being an unwanted child is in many cases worse than death and if you believe in stuff like souls then its more ethical to just give the fetus the chance to be born again to a better set of parents that actually want it.
Actually, Catholics believe that human persons are a composite of body and soul. Many Catholic philosophers have taken it even further and would say something like "you *have* a soul, but you *ARE* your body" which is the exact opposite of how most other Christians would frame it.
32:44 He conveniently skips over the seed and tree (or any plant) version of the same analogy, because it 100% maps onto a human. The seed isn't being put together by outside entities and it also grows, rather than being assembled from a piles of existing parts. Still nobody would call a seed a tree.
Most pro-lifers would say seed would be analogous to embryo (both early stages), tree analogous to an adult (late stages), and oak, for instance, analogous to human (types of being).
It’s becoming more and more clear to me that destiny’s view is about 90% consistent, but he’s fighting the last 10% when it comes to animals in a weak and unjustified fashion. Bringing in language is irrelevant, because he would not hold this view for a conscious human who can’t process language. If Destiny became an ethical vegan (even if he eats meat still), his argument would be completely shielded from attack.
But vegan debates are so autistic
Do humans and animals have the same consciousness?
@@fourtyseven47572 do fetuses at 24 weeks and adult humans have the same consciousness? If we’re keeping that standard, then it’s illogical to not apply it to animals
17:15 Please explain what is the bullet that would have been hard to bite? I'm genuinely curious about this whole issue from boths sides. I would have to hear everything.
Destiny touches on it, but really these criticisms are largely void if destiny simply augments the elements necessary for personhood. The changes are heavily implied in his argument, so he wouldn't really be shifting the goal post.
The distinction would be that personhood would be defined by the combination of consiousness AND humanness. This would continue to exclude things such as an unattached limb, but would further exclude animals and perhaps even comparable conciousness.
It also runs parrallel to the pro life argument. They, typically, dont value all life. Rather, they value the combination of humanness and life.
He would continue losing all the vegan debates and pro-lifers would devil's advocate their arguments like Trent did here.
He should just remove the "human-ness" aspect because I don't think he actually believes it. He already admits that artificial consciousness is technically possible and should be protected. That's not human either by any definition. He's holding on to this because admitting it would mean he'd have to concede to vegans that they're more morally consistent.
Well didn't think 90iq people really existed, but you proved me wrong, congrats.
I don’t understand how it’s really ever morally acceptable to attempt to separate personhood and human being. Whether it’s slavery or the holocaust, it starts by removing “human being” from the definition of person. We all intuitively know that a “person” is a human being. You would never refer to a dog as a person. Destiny is only trying to separate person from human being in order to give his consciousness argument ground to stand on. If we recognize that a human and a person is one in the same, then it becomes much harder to justify abortion.
Humanness is a terrible standard for personhood. Nobody really believes that.
You’re not going to sneak that past a serious papist. They’re always arguing about converting aliens and shit.
@@plokky8052 Removing the humanness aspect would have deeply rooted ramifications for both his pro-abortion stance. By his own principles, he could not both believe animals don't deserve the same fundamental rights as humans and that humans that haven't reached the peak of cognitive development deserve any right to life. Further, his position's greatest strength argumentatively is that it roots itself in the greater societal values regarding human life. Those values do not support placing equal moral weight on both animal and human life
Destiny also very clearly DOES value humanness specifically over non-humanness. It's ludicrous to believe the only reason Destiny wouldn't defend something like the morality of eating children is to prove the vegans wrong. Additionally, Defining personhood as the combination of humanness and consciousness would not necessitate retracting his stance on artificial intelligence. He would either have to argue AI rights by virtue of human likeness or by virtue of responsibility. Regardless, I would be surprised if he gave the same moral weight to AI as he does to people.
As a side note, I'm unsure what you're use of "devil's advocate" in this context is meant to convey. Pro-lifers don't propose their arguments for the sake of argument itself. They are extensions of their beliefs.
What the three pro-choice women really needed to help their case, as shown here, was a man to do all the talking
Let's be real, this whole arbitrary consciousness debate is a massive cope by pro choicers to ignore the fact they're ending a humans life.
The location of a sperm inside or outside of an egg is equally as arbitrary. For all intents and purposes, a fetus has more in common with a corpse than a human person.
The emotional appeal you're making entirely hinges on personhood and, by Destiny's definition, the existence of consciousness to define it. Otherwise, what's the difference between killing a sperm, killing a fetus, killing a chicken, killing a flower, or smashing a TV. I think really the consciousness debate is a very difficult one for prolifers to have as they struggle not to return to their floppy religious belief in the human soul.
Yup
@@Doeyhead For all intents and purposes, no it doesn't lol. A corpse is dead decaying matter of an ex-human with no future. At least an adult human body is still living cells. And depending on definition, a fetus could be considered a human person.
I don't think "human life" is nearly as arbitrary as "human person", so let's not pretend it is. Once a zygote has been created, new DNA has been formed, and the cells are alive and growing. Prior to fertilization the cells do not have a set of human DNA, only half, and do not reproduce. Only after a new unique genetic code is created and being executed does a new human exist. That is a human life by any biologist's definition. You can say life shouldn't be the determining legal factor when killing something, but it's not "equally arbitrary" at all.
@@koolaidjerkyes, and at 20 weeks the fetus goes from being just a clump of cells to having the propensity for the very thing that we value most about humans, their capacity for sentience. So it's equally as arbitrary. You're is the sperm inside or outside of the cell, mine is 20 weeks.
Trent Horn is a beast. He is always good faith and he is very clever. Debate him
I doubt anyone would agree that a human baby and a rat has a similar consciousness in any capacity and I don't thin any hard science would back up that claim either
The comparison is a fetus/zygote to a rat or dog, as we’d agree you shouldn’t kill a baby (I hope). A dog which has some level of emotions, can remember specific people, has drivers like hunger or thirst, certainly would seem to be more conscious than a fetus. Especially before 20-24 weeks.
@@PaxChristi7will a dog develop human levels of consciousness? if no, then why are you thinking this is an own?
@@lallig8860What is the difference between human consciousness and animal consciousness? And you can’t say because one is a person or and the other isn’t. If you do then you have to define what a person is and how one becomes a person. And if you say consciousness than it just becomes circular.
In other words you would be saying Human consciousness is different than animal consciousness because persons have human consciousness. It’s basically a difference without actual distinction. Idk if I explained it well.
They don’t. Pro lifers like to argue human infants are blobs with little to no capabilities but that’s simply not true and anyone who studies infant behavior and development knows otherwise
@@manny4012 The pro life definition of personhood boils it down to being “of a rational kind” but that doesn’t necessarily exclude other animals. If you take an animal cognition class you will see what other animals, especially primates, are capable of, much like humans. And the idea that you are something because of your genetic proximity to someone with that thing is just nonsensical. You are not rich or a lawyer just because your parent is one. The pro life definition isn’t off the hook for the problem of not ring able to exclude all other non human animals from the definition of personhood. Neither can it include every human just by saying “they are of a rational kind” . Well what does that mean? How many humans need to actually be rational to agree we are a rational species? What about species with capabilities different from our own? They are also special in their own right. Why is rationality the defining marker of personhood? Why not something else like empathy, love, or compassion? Those seem to be more uniquely human qualities but then again not everyone human has them just like not every human is rational. Whatever definition of personhood you choose won’t get you off the hook for excluding some humans and including some animals.. and who said non humans can’t be persons? Think of friendly space aliens-if they’re as highly rational and intelligent as us, speak and understand language like we do, they are by all means persons too. the point is to argue when there is a SOMEONE to speak of. That someone is who we value. A mindless body isn’t a someone.
The developing Polaroid is a good analogy but it was documenting an experience that happened, the Polaroid wasn’t itself developing something completely new because in that case it wouldn’t exist before it developed.
I hate all this talk about brains regrowing with no one with the capability to know that shit doesn't happen
Your identity is an imagined construct, and not real. You are not your identity, your identity is something you, the real you imagines and can play as, but you cannot imagine yourself, you'll just keep imagining an idea of what you're doing that isn't actually you. You can work backwards and say you're that which is imagining, but you can't actually imagine this. If you remove someone's memories you've removed the memory of their identity, but they are not changed. Your experiences, actions, personality, characteristics, etc. are as much you as your clothes, money or name, they aren't you at all.