Abortion & Ben Shapiro (REBUTTED)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Trent examines the pro-choice arguments of Oliver Thorn over at Philosophy Tube, especially his criticism of Ben Shapiro using Judith Jarvis Thomson's famous "Violinist" thought experiment.
To support videos like this visit: www.trenthornpodcast.com
Philosophy Tube: "If you're opposed to abortion you should also be opposed to fertility clinics."
Catholics: "Yes."
Well said. Much of the time, these lefty arguments are sourced on "nirvana fallacies," meaning they rest on shocking you into outrage. "That's not fair, that's not 'open-minded.'"
Just because there is upside and downside involved in a position doe not mean that decision or position is NOT subordinate to another alternatives. ALL positions maintain upside and downside. There is NO PANACEA. No position void of up and downsides. As Thomas Sowell says, what we do is take the best alternative with recognition that there will be no nirvana found.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy
th-cam.com/video/9Hcu4Y_-uvU/w-d-xo.html
@@dmonarredmonarre3076 you're like some religious person taking exception to a nirvana fallacy...I hope the irony doesn't escape you.
@@watchin7029 I am a voracious agnostic that hopes the misapplication of the nirvana fallacy and "apples-to-oranges" comparison doesn't escape you.
Wielding oppression narratives DIVORCED from reality are the most perverse, cowardly, NO "skin-in-the-game" type of coercion.
Down with the tyrannical egalitarian collectivists!
@@dmonarredmonarre3076 you string together talking points well enough, but you'll have a hard time getting people on board with egalitarian collectives being tyrannical. In your opinion. Oppression narratives are false because:
a) oppression never happens
b) doesn't happen enough to be an issue
c) doesn't happen to you.
Certainly you're a right winger steeped in aprioristic reasoning ready to bend forward or backward for your "betters".
@@watchin7029 Ummm I'll take B. Bob !
Duh. Frequency, frequency, frequency!
If somethings an inconsequential gripe in which the vast majority of INDIVIDUALS are NOT having their freedom to choose in any way infringed, then lets relegate that "social issue" to the dustbin of history. I thin for anyone conscious of constraints, its important to economize our task list. Duh. We dont maintain a utopia and never will.
When you realize little guy, that there are no solutions, but rather TRADE-OFFS, you'll realize that that the infinite whiny buzzing sound that is entitled brats looking for something new to bitch about is an irrelevant marker in the face of more serious, pressing problems, you'll recognize how to deal with adult reality
Simply stating something is tragic doesn't make it tragic until appropriate EVIDENCE is marshaled to demonstrate an actual problem.
Your shctick, and people like you is to DODGE THE PRODUCTIVE world and live parasitically off those that inhabit it by consistently reminding others of their shortcomings . That is disgusting and puts NO skin in the game of the professing individual, just like the original author of this clip. They have to create fictitious nonsensical "social experiments" where infinite variables are held constant to make their IDEOLOGICAL rants stick. Disgusting. The antithesis of what our forefathers expected of us.
Confer risk and reward (And downside loses) over to he or she that assumes said risk.
Life is not a childs soccer game where everyone gets a prize you infantile narcissist. There are costs, expectations and LOSSES correlated with accountability. No keep your mouth shut, stay focused and step bothering others with your incoherent "moral" compass. You know far less than you think
The miscarriage argument always makes me chuckle cause it really shows how pro-abortionists think. They think an embryo not sticking because of some random chance is somehow akin to deliberately ending one that does stick is a good argument? Sad.
It's the silliest (non-) argument. You'll also see some of them trying to pin the label "manslaughter" over all miscarriages and pretend as if the pro-life position is absurd. The mainstream media actually even tries to push this kind of narrative - that if abortion is made illegal, every miscarriage will be investigated. And they'll bring up a miscarriage caused due to human activity and act as if it's the same as natural miscarriages.
There’s a difference between Grandpa passing away in his sleep and someone breaking into his room and shooting him.
For real. I mean, we are all going to die. So you think killing anyone is okay?
@@onewholovesvenison5335 exactly!
Many such cases. Tragic.
Does Oliver Thorn knows Ben's wife is a doctor???
@David Ortiz so "Ben's wife is a doctor is a meme" and this guy is trying to rebuke him in biological terms. He should know Ben knows a lot about the medical/biological aspect of abortion.
Basically, was a joke, sorry you didn't get it.
@@GustavoAndresHerrera "My wife's a doctor, OK folks?"
Irrelevant. Arguments on morality should be based on logic, with science to support them since science is amoral. Having more knowledge on science doesn't make your beliefs consistent. Otherwise, why isn't Ben's wife (or doctors in general) not debating on abortion?
😂 good one
@@bitchd7839 the joke went over your logical head lol
I presented PT’s arguments to my pro life cousin and my cousin rhetorically shredded them completely
And my dads a dragoon
@@ethanscaturchio1511 your dad is a small horseback military regiment?
@@JohnnyIsJanek your brain can only associate with military accoutrement?
And then everyone clapped afterward.
@@ethanscaturchio1511and you lied
If you do not have a right to your mothers body before birth why do you have a right to her buying food for you or spending time feeding you after birth.
You don't. Giving birth to a person doesn't make you responsible for any care unless you agree to be their parent or legal guardian as well. Parents who sign away their parental rights are not responsible for caring for a child, whoever that child's legal guardian is.
@@stephanie8560 - yes you do under the law in all countries, it is illegal for a parent to neglect their dependent child. You become a parent purely by virtue of giving birth or fathering a child. Only in the case of adoption or foster care is this applicable and once adoption or foster care is finalised you have the exact same obligations as a biological parent. In the case where birth parents abandon their children (also a crime) the state takes on this responsibility. In no cases is a dependent child never someone's responsibility and in all cases a child is demanding a resource of somebody.
This is not intended as an argument (it'd be an ad hominem fallacy anyway), but, WOW, the snark is strong with this guy Trent is rebutting. I'll have to keep that in mind when I'm trying to have conversations with people I disagree with and as I reflect on my own behaviour.
To be fair, Tom's got a background in theatre so I'd guess that carries over. To make the video more entertaining, possibly.
@@FiikusMaximus No, it turns out he's mentally unwell. He's trying to convert to a woman, which is a preposterous pursuit.
the moment he said Ben is "pro-state forced pregnancy", I knew this was just another typical pro-abort. 😅
Excellent and thank you Trent for taking on these arguments. Much appreciated.
I like how your first rebuttal was how Ben doesn't really look like the guy from Hungar Games
I'll never understand the revulsion to "financial abortion" If we're saying a woman can abort with no consent from the father, it's inconsistent to say she can bring the arm of the state down on him without his consent. Obviously it would be best if everyone was not aborting or refusing to support a child, but why choose one and be morally outraged by the other. Leaving alone the problems with intimately involving the state in a family unit it's obviously transparent.
The evil rationale is that a dead guy is better than a poor guy in society, because poor guys are more likely to become criminals.
its cos man bad woman good
Hey Trent have you heard Dave chapelles joke that kinda answers pro choice and violinist argument? I’ll keep it PG but it goes like this
Dave: women no one has a right to tell you to do other your body and men should stay out of it!
Women: cheer and roar
Dave : but if you get kill that Kid I should at least be able to abandon him.
Women: sigh with no rebuttal
Dave: Well it’s my money I choose not to take care of it. If I’m wrong maybe WE ARE WRONG.
I thought it was hilarious brilliant and got to the point
Others have said basically the same think PL should make more of it.
sali it was not a laugh mood completely changed
sali ok boomer
But that analogy doesn't even compare, intentionally killing your own flesh and blood is totally different and its not hilarious or brilliant its just evil, than abandoning your own flesh and blood
Bel Mum that’s the point abortion is worst than abandoning a child. So if it’s a woman’s right to choose then men should at least get to Leave the child’s. Life
“You can certainly force parents to not directly kill their own children.”
👏 🎉 😅
I know this video is old but its message rings true even years later.
Thanks as always Trent for calm thoughtful content. God bless you and your family buddy!
"opposition to infanticide is state enforced parenthood" yes it is and that is a good thing
The violin argument fails on multiple fronts. There are no direct correlations to pregnancy here. First, pregnancy does not require kidnapping. The woman is not actually being held hostage by her baby. Second, the woman’s body naturally makes changes to accommodate the baby, as opposed to the unnatural accommodations required to connect one to another’s kidney. Third, if left unchanged, the baby would continue to grow inside the mother’s womb until it is eventually born into this world (since the woman wouldn’t starve herself of necessary sustenance to spite her baby) whereas if left unchanged, the man would naturally decline as his infliction warrants. So, in one instance, medical intervention is necessary to keep the man alive, whereas nothing that the woman wouldn’t already be doing is necessary to sustain the life of her baby in the womb (in most circumstances).
The moral obligation argument however is the best argument IMO.
It is a classic disingenuous argument that attaches the central problem with multiple other problem in forming an analogy and uses it to defend itself.
first point: it's an analogy, it's not supposed to be literal. but more to the point, i'm assuming your point is that pregnancy is a choice, not one forced upon you by another? in that case, there are a number of reasons why you could want to back out of a pregnancy after initially choosing to become pregnant. maybe you decided to have a child with someone, but after pregnancy learned that they were a terrible person and didn't want to have a child with them anymore. maybe you were pressured into having a child by the social norms of your surroundings without knowing what pregnancy actually entails and what childbirth does to your body. i could go on, but the point is, if you consent at first but get cold feet and want to opt out, then it should be an option and you certainly should not be punished by law for doing so. in any case, Olly does bring this up in his video, though it was somewhat passing so i don't blame you for missingit
The second point doesn't matter at all. the matter in which your body changes does not change the fact that, well, it changes. you might not want your body to change. the ways your body changes after childbirth is a source of insecurity and uncomfortable feelings for many women, and that's not even mentioning the many health hazards and complications that can arise from even a smooth birth.
third point: i think you got the analogy confused here. the baby's growth does not matter, the analogy is only concerned with the woman's bodily autonomy, which is what the analogy is. being pedantic about the exact state the baby/violinist will be in time does not matter, because the analogy presumes that the violinist and baby both have a right to life, and whether or not they grow or die have nothing to do with anything.
in any case, your reading of the analogy is wrong too. the pregnancy, or being connected to the baby, is analogous to being connected to the violinist, and in both instances, terminating this connection kills them. whether or not the violinist would die without medical care would again not matter because the analogy is not concerned with what happened before you were hooked up to the violinist, only that you are now and what you're going to do about it.
현정우
The first point was to show that the baby is not holding the mother hostage as was the implication. I didn’t make the argument that pregnancy is a choice not forced onto a woman. In some instances it is. However, it is never justifiable to kill another human being because you have “cold feet.” When a woman gets cold feet right before her wedding, she isn’t obliged the right to kill her would-be spouse. In most respects, backing out of a voluntary arrangement would be perfectly justifiable. Pregnancy is somewhat unique in that regard given that usually, the life of a human being is not at stake.
The second point was meant to show that a woman’s body naturally changes to accommodate the child, which is starkly contrasted with performing surgery while someone is incapacitated to conjoin then with someone else. I think you completely missed the point of the first two points I made.
In regard to the third point, you didn’t respond to the argument I actually made. My point was that if left unchanged, a baby would naturally be born (most likely). If left unchanged, the man would naturally die. So in one instance, medical intervention is not required to sustain the life of a human being, on the other, medical intervention is required to save the life of a human being. Therefore, it is a failed analogy. It is not within a human beings natural right as autonomous beings to determine who lives and who dies. Such would be an inherent violation of the very bodily autonomy you profess to uphold.
Your last point ignores the obvious objections that I made and simply re-asserts the false premise. You’re trying to squeeze a bad analogy into the mix whilst ignoring the obvious flaws in the analogy to make still a worse argument for bodily autonomy whilst ignoring the bodily autonomy of the very life at stake, that being, the baby. As shown, there are no logical, moral, or reasonable arguments in favor of abortion. There are only emotional and rational arguments for abortion.
@@현정우-s4s Your argument just points why it is a very bad analogy because it just fixates on one aspect of where it is similar to something and in many other ways it is not similar.
In fact, I do not see how this can not be applied to "rape" for example. If someone rapes and is sent to prison, of course, that person did make a choice, but if he gets a cold feet and wants to get out of prison, he should be allowed to do so. It does not matter what he did before he went into prison, it is about his bodily autonomy inside the prison which is, of course, violated while he is held hostage in the prison.
@@johnlove2954 you've accidentally figured out that prison is often wrong.
But it's not a good analogy either. Rape is a choice where only 1 person gets harmed. Growing a baby does a lot of harm to a woman.
Trent set up a debate with Living Waters a protestant page on TH-cam, they always talk to catholics that dont know their faith. Let's see if you can reach out to them for a debate on salvation please and thank you.
Lol there is no way they would do that. They feed on unintelligence.
They won't like being owned my someone far more superior in intellect
Ray comfort isn’t really a debater ,but more like an evangelist preacher ,someone like William Lane craig or John lennox would be better
@@ahaan-thakker9142 again Ray comfort doesn't have the intelligence to defend his position against someone who actually knows the Bible and church history.
He takes a lot of verses out of context
Why have I never heard of this channel?
... because it sucks?
@@malenaroque8683 I don't think so
23:28 That is the strongest rebuttal against the violinist I have heard.
It kind of matches up with the sort of biological argument that having a child is something which is a part of allowing one's human development ON TOP OF saving a life.
Having the first one is just extraordinary care, but the second applies to parents not abandoning their children or carrying a fetus.
But this issue is very odd for me, because if I woke up next to a person who would die if disconnected from them I would see no ethical way to let that happen - but it appears that is unpopular even among pro lifers...
I disagree with some of you conclusions and just some places where we fundamentally see things differently on the subject, but I’m really glad that you pointed out that you found parts of this video funny and how you talked about the acting and cinematography are high quality. So many people on the right and left refuse to admit or laugh at a joke made by the other side. Thank you for that!
What do you disagree on?
There is nothing to disagree on here. Life starts at conception, ending that life is murder, which is evil.
@@wulfheort8021 there are plenty of cases where ending a life is okay in certain circumstances such as self defense, self preservation, and in the interest of quality of life.
@@jacobbass6437 Of course. This whole video is about abortion, so I was only talking about that. I am a strong supporter of the death penalty for the worst crimes.
I really like this video, it’s an argument I haven’t seen before. I do have a question or few though.
Given that the counter argument hinges on the fact that Tom Gently isn’t responsible for the Violinist’s Condition, I’m guessing you’re for abortion if in cases of rape?
In which case, i’m wondering, what would be the genetic difference between a baby born from consensual sex and a baby born from rape? There isn’t one, if one’s a precious bundle of joy then so is the other. In which case, doesn’t it almost become a punishment towards people who can pregnant just because they had consensual sex?
Or if my base assumption is incorrect, and you still are against abortion even if cases of rape. I’m really interested for your thoughts on abortion for cases of rape.
If I was raped, my husband does not have the legal right to then hunt down my rapist and kill him.
That is how the law works and even though we all agree that person should die, we don’t have a legal right to murder him.
Murdering a baby because of a rape is also not moral. Ending the life of the innocent child who is dependent on your body simply because crime was done to you doesn’t justify the murder.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 The Foetus isn’t being aborted because a crime was done to you, the foetus is being aborted because it’s dependent on you, the point of the violinist argument is that no one has the right to take your bodily resources if you don’t want them to.
@@rboyd3409 But that only works If the fetus is not a human b/c we don't kill any human being born just b/c they are dependent on someone else and they don't want them?
@@belmum1689 well yeah, we don’t because there’s other options available such as giving the kid away via adoption and such, but that other option doesn’t really exist for foetuses .
@@rboyd3409 well it's the same with a human fetus wait a few months until birth then put the baby up for adoption.
I think where it all comes down to is the difference in believe of when something is an actual human being that deserves human rights. Science and facts can not say this, they can help to shape your belief, but in the end it is an question of when is it moral.
You say they have to proof that something is not an human being. But is it not for a person to just decide when something is an actual human. I mean, if I would label my seed as half a human does it then become bad everyime i nut? We decide when we give something a label. The word human is on an totally different level as the belief of human. After all, they are nothing more then words
5:50 I be like
"Fool I'm Catholic I already am against IVF. Sorry TH0t but your foolishness ain't gonna catch me"
Good for you. But you're irrelevant. Majority of people in majority of countries support abortion in some instances.
I am a product of a similar artificial conception to IVF - my parents tried for years to have a child naturally but it wasn't possible, so they went down the artificial route and lucky for them and me, it worked out. What, however, does this say about my right to life? Did I not have the same right to be created as a naturally concieved child? Should my parents have stopped trying to create life when they knew that naturally it wasn't going to happen? What if I go on to do something great for the world, would the method of my creation still have been immoral?
@@lunac6094 Luke I'm glad you exist, the world is better for it but ends don't justify the means. It doesn't say anything about your life since your life is just as sacred as any other. It doesn't even matter who you are or what you do since your value as a human being is independent of your achievements or conception method. Keep in mind this does not justify your parent's actions, of which you are independent of. As I said, ends don't justify the means and the actions of your parents were not moral, even the product of those actions is a wonderful silver lining it doesn't justify what they did. It's simple moral duty study, you can't justify immoral actions with a good outcome and in this case you can't use your existence or achievements to justify the actions of your parents.
@@amolkhobaragade The opinions of the majority are able to be swayed and countries are made of people who are persuadable.
@@catholicphoenix7969 No, you can't. People won't think twice before aborting an unwanted fetus at early stage. They don't buy religious argument and even if you make moral argument, practical reason trump them for those people.
Remember it was pro-life politician, who made his mistress abort the fetus.
It's a little shocking to name your channel "Philosophy Tube" and have some of the weakest logic in making a pro-abortion argument.
I'm pro life through and through, but if I were to engage in a bit of giving up ground, I don't see the point of legalizing abortion beyond the 1st month. Like even if you dont want a baby, you can kill it by 1st month(obviously not a good thing), why do these women have to abort a 3 month old baby, or hell a 8 month old baby. Like what you wanted a baby, and now suddenly it's too inconvenient. I run out of any sympathy at these points.
Bruh you don't even know you're pregnant before 6 weeks how will you know if you are pregnant in a month?
@@dae1925 pregnancy test after you’ve done the deed ?
@@elmonomon Pregnacy tests are only reliable two weeks after you missed your period dumbass.
Ignorance of circumstance
His argument isn’t based on the question of if they’re human or not though
You mentioned in the video feeding your child is ordinary care, but why would that be considered ordinary care? What is ordinary care, and can we put a definition or standard to it?
14:56 - 15:45 what about if a woman became pregnant after being raped? This is an example of where the woman is not responsible for the fetus going into her body. I would argue that maps almost perfectly to the analogy Philosophy Tube presented. My question to you is, should that woman be allowed to have an abortion?
That would still be a direct killing of another human being.There is a difference between letting someone die and the direct, premeditated killing of another human being, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Abortion in the case of rape would be the latter and would still be unjust
I have heard many cases of girls being raped and then forced to abort their babies. One young girl who experienced repeated rapes and abortions was desperate to keep her pregnancies secret as she recognised the baby as an innocent child that needed the protection she herself was denied.
@@kyrieeleison1905 The decision to have sex and the decision to keep the pregnancy are separate, and your point illustrates this, which is a fundamentally pro-choice stance.
@@ryandem2370 I think you're missing the point. The person who got pregnant has as much choice to be pregnant as the poor chap who got kidnapped and connected to the violinist. They both had no agency in the process of having someone else's life be physically dependent on their choice to stay "plugged in". So if abortion in this case is murder, so is the kidnapped person disconnecting themselves from the violinist. But that probably goes against what most people think is and should be considered murder, which was the whole point of the analogy.
Less then 0.9%, you make a terrible argument
What about rape victims?? You said you'd adress that, but didn't.
Hi, i am not Christian. (I'm Muslim).
Out of curiosity, do Christians have a scriptural reference that life begins at conception, and any teaching about IVF?
It seems Mr Trent has some deeply held views, just curious as to whether these are based in Christian scripture?
Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb."
and Jeremiah 1:5 "“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart"
These are just two instances but there are more. However as Catholics we do not rely on only the Bible as the sole teaching authority for us, unlike protestant Christianity and unlike Muslims and the Quran. We rely on the teaching Authority of the Church which is based upon Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. So even if the evil of abortion is not specifically condemned within scripture, the church has always taught that all Human Life is Sacred and the sanctity and dignity of Human Life must be respected and Following that, a baby in the Womb is Human so therefore abortion is violating that Sanctity of Life and therefore evil. The Church has also taught that Truth cannot be contradict truth and Faith and Reason go hand in hand, So again even if Life beginning at conception is not explicitly defined in scripture, human reason and Logic, and lately, Modern science and medicine has proven that Life Does begin at conception so we use our Reason to understand this truth of which sacred scripture held the seeds of. And again With IVF, the church has condemned it because it violates the dignity of Human Conception. As Catholics we do not need these things to be explicitly defined in scripture to believe them, because we believe that Christ did not leave a bible, he left a Church with authority to grow the seeds of doctrine that were sowed in the apostles and scripture by Christ Himself and help us to apply those same doctrines to the changing times and circumstances that Christ foresaw that the world would face. I hope that answers your question.
I'm pro choice and not Catholic and so disagree with a lot of your arguments, but I enjoyed this video. You made some sound arguments and argued in good faith as opposed to many other pro-life debaters I've seen (e.g. the deliberate decievers Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro).
It's a shame you ignored the arguments around conception due to rape but otherwise a good video. :)
Catholics are known for our strong but sensitive attitude towards abortion. Check out Stephanie Grey.
I don't buy the "natural obligation" argument though. Sounds like a cop out if I'm being honest. Still agree with you on the main point, I just don't think that's a good persuasive tool.
i was also not convinced by that, but im curious as to how you still agree on the main point if the "natural obligation" argument didn't convince you. what other reason do you see to force someone who doesn't want a baby to have it nonetheless and be responsible for it once it's out of their womb?
Natrual obligation, if i have it right, is to say that the child is dependent on your survival and It is also only about because you are able to conceive. Since the baby is healthy living in you in a natrual tandem, the baby has a right to stay alive and use your body.
It is to show a few things, the nature of the violinist needing the other mans kidneys is NOT naturally coming about. So the violinists has no right to the kidneys and the man has no moral obligation to stay. He also takes it further to say the child has a right to your food and shelter once born. You cant leave them out in a snow storm or starve them.
The child has a natural right to the mother breasts, food. If you refuse to feed it dies, you killed it. The child also has a natrual right to the mans stuff, this usually is shown through money and child support.
These pro-abortion arguments are so weak. Why do they stop with “nobody has a right to use another person’s organs?” If they are questioning fundamental precepts of morality, why not just say “we never have ANY moral obligation to others AT ALL?” We can choose to voluntarily help other people, but there is never such a thing as a “moral” obligation. Doesn’t that fundamentally make more sense? Of course, there are a few extremists who would actually accept this premise, but MOST pro-abortion folks aren’t willing to go as far as saying there is no such thing as morality - as they want to be able to claim THEIR version of morality as justification for implementing THEIR social agenda into law. But it’s really a weak stance. There is tremendous cost for implementing their agenda, their version of what everyone needs to do. So much human freedom is limited - we can’t do many things that might otherwise be of tremendous PERSONAL BENEFIT to us. Why not allow people to ALWAYS act in a manner that aligns with their personal benefit? If you get marooned on an island with your family of 10 to support, and there is another family of 10 there - if the resources of the island can only support 10 people, wouldn’t you be justified in hunting down and killing the others? We know why Catholic moral teaching wouldn’t allow this. But why wouldn’t the abortionist moral framework allow the killings? If the overarching concern of abortionists is that we are just demanding TOO MUCH from people, by forcing them to have babies and go through the 9 months of pregnancy at some personal risk and cost… then why can’t we say we are asking too much of the father of 10 to condemn his children to death by sharing resources with another family? Of course the truth is, inconvenience and cost is NOT a strong basis for a system of morality - but that’s essentially what the abortionists profess. And then they also arbitrarily draw lines for what level of inconvenience and personal cost is permissible. The “can’t force me to share my body” argument is weak, because its premise is that you can’t force inconvenience, costs, and risks on others… but there are a multitude of situations in which they have no problem forcing their views on people which has a tremendous inconvenience, cost, and risk. So the underlying justification of their framing is flawed in this manner (in addition to the case for responsibility that Trent raises).
What is the link to his financial abortion video
I liked Oliver's content when he would just go over and explain philosophical ideas and concepts. Now he just makes, although very well made, left-wing content.
@Qwerty no that's gritting, that's people on the right
@@dominictafoya2205 imagine thinking all these left-wing youtubers with patreons arent grifting lmfao
Tyson Fury. Look into how he was born.
Try this scenario. A woman is in a car accident that was not her fault. She is injured to the point where she needs a kidney transplant to live. The only person that can help her is the person that caused the accident. Is that person morally obligated and should be forced to give that person a kidney given that they were the cause of that person needing a kidney in the first place? The correct answer is of course no.
Morally obligated? You are the only person who can help, your able to help, if you don't they'll die and the accident was your fault. Yes, the right thing to do in that situation would be to donate your kidney. But legally no we shoudln't force people to donate their organs.
But the relationship between a mothers womb and a baby is not the same as the relationship between your body and my kidney. My kidney is designed to perform functions for my body. Forcibly removing it to give to someone else is a violation. A mothers womb is designed to sustain an in-utero child, the uterus is performing it's function normally by doing this. It isn't organ donation.
In addition every child, every human, every mammal, that has ever existed has needed it's mothers uterus, it is an entirely normal need of your child throughout gestation. Your not performing a heroic act by not letting your children starve to death or die of exposure. And in the same way every parent should be both morally and legally obligated to meet the basic, normal physical needs of their children - of which gestation in the womb is certainly one.
Hey, came to this video just to see what’s up. I’ve watched Ollie’s video a few times and I found myself somewhat frustrated by your style of rebuttal here. I know it’s common form to do the “reaction video” thing, pausing every so often to make a point, but in this context it falls short because you’re not responding to the piece as a whole, just picking out parts as you go. It’s not so much a rebuttal as it is an annotation of his work. Just wish this was better.
great rebutal!
I wonder where his stance on free will is here
I like olly/abigail's videos, though I don't agree with everything he says. For those pro-abortion it surprises me how many are shocked and disgusted by the actions of those like Lucy Letby. She commited horrible crimes, there is no doubt, but it is any different to abortion!
Hi,
Thanks for making a digestible pro-choice argument. Most people who do are simply to abrasive to listen to the end.
After watching both of your videos, I get that both points are made by starting at the conclusion. Especially that violonist argument, clearly starts from "I should be able to abort" and then justifies it.
I am way more interested to know why people, especially men, make these arguments. It is obvious to me that both sides have ulterior motives in their decision and these should be laid bare.
Here is why I'm pro abortion. I am not ashamed to admit, I like sex, don't like kids and getting sterilized feels like it would take away from sex for some stupid monkey brain reason. (sex is stupid)
I don't fuck with the intention of having kids, I have no intention at this point of making this kind of investment and if by accident (still expecting the girl to have a IUD though) she gets pregnant, I preemptively renounce responsibility.
Also, from your language, I get that pregnancy is something to be "guilty of". I find that very unsettling and if that were the case that guilt is attributed to conception.
If conception is something you are guilty of then, it should be prevented by all means possible. Which I feel is the opposite of what religious people want.
In fact, I feel that religious people want is more conception. Even to the point of trapping people into parenthood if they have to.
And sure they'll say "ah you did the crime now do the time" and invoke personal responsibility but that eagerness to push people into parenting I find disturbing.
It's like a contract that you sign and then will regret for the rest of your life but a "contract is a contract is a contract". And then factor in refusal to promote sex ed, opposition to contraceptives, demonisation of non-reproductive sexuality. Put all of that together and you see what is the true motive behind these anti-abortion arguments.
----
wrote the following earlier, feels less relevant but posting it anyway
I can't buy throwing away excess IVF embryos as "killing humans" that is preposterous.
Globs of cells in a petri dish are not equivalent to living humans. There is no line to cross either but at the same time, killing 5 year olds feels very wrong whereas flushing down embryo doesn't.
Any argument that does not address this is incomplete.
>globes of Petri dish cells (zygotes/embryos) are not equivalent to living humans
This is a scientifically false statement. They are living human organisms. This is an objective fact
I still don't see a reason for abortion being criminalized, and I agree with many of your claims, mainly that there is a moral obligation on part of the parents to raise their child, that the unborn child has a right to their mother's body, etc. I still think abortion should be legal, however, because despite that, people should do as they see fit with their own bodies, even if I personally disagree with what they are doing, or their justification or lack thereof.
It's not their body. It's the ending of an innocent, individual human life. It's illegal under any other stage of development. Therefore, it should be illegal here and with euthanasia.
16:30 "fathers have to pay for their kids" yeah, i strongly disagree with that. People should have the right to not be a parent (a legal parent). If they want to adopt out the kid and leave them to a family that would care more about them the former parent should be allowed to.
of course a father has an obligation to pay for their kids. until they can pass that responsibility onto someone else who willingly accepts that responsibility (adoption) the mother and father are morally and legally responsible for the child.
im not sure how you can disagree with this.
the alternative would be thinking its ok to leave your kids to die because you value money more than human life.
are you seriously ok with that?
@@jackplumbridge2704
No, i agree.
You have to care for your kids as long as you don't adopt them out.
And you should have the right to adopt them out and stop caring for them.
I was just disagreeing with those people who think you should care for your biological kids no matter what, even if you reject them at birth.
@@danielemazzali9810 "I was just disagreeing with those people who think you should care for your biological kids no matter what, even if you reject them at birth." - trent never said that you had to look after your biological kids no matter what though. at the timestamp you linked he is talking about a couple who has separated but also have a kid. if the mother has custody of the child the father still has to support the child financially, as he is still responsible for the child. separating from the mother does not relieve you of your obligations.
Excellent reflection! Learning new stuffs here!
Abortion should be legal. YOU should not have an abortion. Contraception is very good in 2021. Take responsibility for yourself.
"Rape should be legal. But you should not rape."
Your child support argument risks falling into the same trap as Olly's "but fertility clinics already do it" argument in that the opposition might agree its a problem. Though it is a good attempt at diving into the nuances of a bigger picture.
Its not taking into consideration of the possibility that a pro-choicer might agree that a father should not be universally and solely responsible.
This is a contradiction with French law I've never quite agreed with. The argument for men paying child support for children who are not theirs is that the child is the child of society. Of course, I do not find it fair that society is not held responsible for society's child in that case. In other words, France is a centrist country and holding an individual solely accountable for society's interests is a centrist compromise. Damn centrists always compromising.
Bonus: I'd find the idea that Shapiro dislikes killing innocent human beings questionable after looking into his novel that basically justifies and even portrays a cop shooting an unarmed child as a positive thing and correct course of action.
11:24
This is the problem with using modern day philosophy, to defend something like murdering innocent babies. Let's get back to the Bible. Prov 6:16, " These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: hands that shed innocent blood." Ex 20. 6th commandment: Thou shalt not kill. God will hold murderers accountable. Stop with the word salad.
lets take his gay flawed logic to its fullest, next sniffle e has gt him cremated
the fuck? Speak clearly
one of the things you are getting wrong is that consent to sex is not equivalent to consent to pregnancy which is why your kidnapping argument fails. I find that there are better scenarios than the viollinist one to explain the legality of abortion
. Sex is like driving a car, and you can be uncareful and forget to use a seatbelt or skipping a redlight(analogous to not using protection). Now imagine if you take someone with you and tell them not to put a seatbelt on and then you somehow land into an accident. the other person now needs blood and a doctor decides to use your blood to save the other person while you are unconscious. Now when you wakeup and you dont want someone else using your blood you can ask yourself to be unplugged, even if it means killing someone. Oh and also the doctor will be sued for malpractice.
now you can see that you were responsible for the death of the individual by partaking in a harmless activity by not taking the right precautions, like not wearing a seatbelt or skipping a redlight. And you can say its morally wrong to deny the person your blood after being the cause of their demise in a way but pro choice is not based on morals but on legality since every person has a seperate definition on when personhood begins. Laws are based on rights anyways not moral obligations and there's no such right like the right to bodily autonomy.
You can argue that having sex unprotected is equivalent to consenting to pregnancy but its not. You need to have a lot of factors in check in order to become pregnant including the right age, hormones, date of your menstrual cycle etc and even if you have all these factors there are chances the sperms do not reach the eggs and you do not get pregnant (thia ia why many people need to try rly hard to get pregnant)., getting pregnant is not completely in your hands. And thus a person is not responsible to put the other person in danger completely as ultimately its upto nature. So having sex unprotected is dumb since chances are you will get pregnant but its not an assurance.
Another thing, when you compare abortion rights to being equivalent to leaving your kid out in the cold or letting them starve by not giving breastmilk you need to understand that when you choose to become the guardian of a child you choose to agree to meeting a set of standards that are necessary for your child to live. Its the violation of these agreed standards that cause you legal consequences. Thats why ppl who may not be financially stable and thus could not afford the agreed standards may choose to not agree to be a guardian (by putting the kid up to adoption) When you are pregnant upto 24 weeks you are the only person who can help the fetus live. (This is also why i think abortions should be legal upto 20- 24 weeks as after that the fetus is viable to survive outside if your bodyin some cases) However a kid is viable to survive outside your womb and hence deserves the right to help by the govt and adoption agencies and foster care systems simply because those services are available to him, and thus you have the right to give him up for adoption but not the right to starve him (as that is your duty as a legal guardian)
the violin anallogy is well flawed, to be nething like conception the blood detonator would have to have stitched themselves to the violinist in which case they are responsible for their consequences
British Humor is terrible
Joshua Tree Speaking as a British person, it’s not all this, I promise you. Quite a lot of it is this, but not all of it. But we have gone downhill in recent years, I admit.
@@De-Nigma You're right. I shouldn't have dismissed all British Humor just because that guy isn't funny
I can't believe how bad an argument this man is making and he fares to call his channel "philosophy". It seems Trent didn't even have to try to rebutt these arguments.
Yes and what was more concerning to me was how many views and likes it got. His arguments are childish and easily and thoroughly rebutted. There just is no good argument for abortion it's sad that its even a question. Even when you show them pictures of an abortion most of them will just shrug their shoulders. Truly sick.
I totally agree!
@@mrpeter4583 agreed. That whole violinist argument is such a ridiculous hypothetical scenario.
Nt Mn ridiculous but still somewhat applicable
As far as i know the man turned Trans now and parades as a woman.
In the past, they used to do all kinds of offerings, including humans, to their God asking for rain or good harvest...for a better and favorable situation.
Now, people are willing to trample the "right to live" of the weakest and most vulnerable, who can't defend themselves for almost the same reason...a better and favorable lifestyle.
Lord, have mercy on us!
jLalic
Yep child sacrifice is alive and well in America
I am convinced abortion clinics have a statue of moloch in their basement
Love the rebuttals Trent. Just wanted to say that it's probably best practice to at least link to the original video somewhere in the description if you're going to skip through it. It shows due diligence to avoid criticisms that you are editing what they say or taking it out of context.
Small gripe, I know. Like I said, really appreciate your thoughtful responses.
Agreed. It should be considered a best practice for TH-camrs that use references.
Talking about state forced pregnancy is just as absurd as saying criminal law is state forced pacifism.
criminal law IS state-forced pacifism.
@@nacpictures - the state does not force anyone to get pregnant. Becoming pregnant is a choice people make.
@@nacpictures Preventing people from committing murders is not some kind of cruel application of state power. It is the state's obligation to try to prevent murders and other immoral acts from occurring. Is this taking away people's choices? yes it is, but people do not have the right to make certain evil choices. There is a difference between good choices and bad choices. Some people seem to think that ANY choice is a good choice just because it is a choice. If we have laws preventing theft, then we are taking away people's right to choose to steal. We recognize that people should not be allowed to make any kind of choice at all. People should have freedom in a democratic society, but this does not mean the freedom to do absolutely anything you want.
have you not read thomas hobbs’ leviathan? the whole point of the state is to enforce pacifism. are you suggesting abortions should only be morally justified when they are illegal?
This philosophy tube guy should understand that whether life begins at fertilization isn't a matter of belief but an well-established scientific fact . Life does begin at fertilization & the zygote is a living and individuated member of Homo sapiens.
I don't think it ultimately matters. Person who needs organs can't take them from somebody who has them a fetus is entitled to a human host
@@thenomad9230 That wasn’t my point.
@greeenwaters9125 Life begins before fertilization. There is a whole process that has to begin before fertilization in order to arrive at fertilization, no? Do you realize that each sperm cell has a head ( the beginning of a fully developed human head) and a tail (the beginning of human legs and feet) ? Each sperm is the beginning of human life.
@@partysugar519 a sperm doesnt have a metabolism, cant reproduce and grow.
It seems kind of odd that someone would equate miscarriage with abortion, and consider that a reasonable argument.... I have two arguments against premature abortion. It is not a right to choose, it's always a privilege that allows a person to escape the responsibility of their own actions. And, as much as pro choicers want the world to believe it's the will of the people, it is not. It's all in the way they asked the questions... The majority of the people want abortion to be illegal, or mostly illegal but willing to allow it in cases of danger to mothers, extreme life threatening birth defects and rape. But the pro choicers separate the latter and treat them as people that want abortion to be nationally legal. In the end, it is only the latter where choice has any thing to do with anything, but not the choice of abortion. The choices are whether or not to put the mother's life at risk, to carry a child to term where you did not consent in spite of the potential emotional harm, or the choice as to whether or not you allow a child into the world that will potentially suffer all the days of their lives. These are not abortion issues and should not determine the validity of nationalized protection to abortion. Here, and only here, should a person's right to choose be considered, as these choices have so much more to consider then the natural order of life.
There are no cases were murdering a child saves a mother’s life.
A tubal pregnancy for example, is not a viable pregnancy so it is not an abortion.
If the mother has any conditions doctors try to save the child AND the mother. There are no obstetrical scenarios where murdering a viable baby save the mother. Not a single one.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035
uh... yes there are cases in were murdering a child saves a mother’s life.
During the Holocaust, there were plenty, hell watch ONE national geographic documentary you'll find a load of them.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035.... I'm pretty sure there has been cases where abortion was required to save the mother?
On a separate note, there are no cases in which maiming a baby boys' penis is beneficial in any way. Not medically, morally, biologically, physically, sexually, or religiously. But boys have no right or choice to keeping their God given foreskin intact, or for that matter, having it detached. But the parents get the right to choose whether to circumcise or not.... Shouldn't we outlaw parents rights to choose maiming (circumcision) another human being for the rest of their life or
not to circumcise another human being ?
And another note; if each sperm has a head and a tail, and swims/travels head first with the same head that grows into a babies head, and tail that turns into arm and leg limbs ... sperm is formed before it's even ejaculated from the testes, obviously life cannot begin without sperm beginning as head and tail first. Each and all sperm can be frozen and saved and given life. So if a girl can't get pregnant by swallowing sperm then there's a lot of murdering whores out there,
eating unborn innocent babies . God forgive me for my wet dreams, by the time I woke up it was too late my underwear was soaked in dead babies
Are you pro-choice when it comes to circumcision? Or should babies have rights to stay the way God made them?
@@partysugar519 Yes, because circumcision and abortion are dang near the same thing...
If Philosophy Tube wants to argue from intuitions, though, he's overlooking a very strong intuition that even most pro-choice people have -- abortion is harder to justify the later in pregnancy it is. Most pro-choice people, as Gallup Polls show, oppose abortion in the late term but accept it as moral early in the pregnancy. But this intuition is opposed to bodily rights, which, if true, would justify abortions up until the point at which the umbilical cord is cut. So bodily rights is not a strong argument if you're arguing intuitively -- Wayne Sumner's argument from sentience (whether or not it can feel pain) or Elizabeth Harman's Actual Future Principle arguments would be preferred over Thomson's violinist because those arguments do an even better job of explaining the pro-choice intuition that abortion is worse the later in pregnancy it occurs.
Your completely ignoring another factor, if, in late stage pregnancy, a woman no longer wants to be pregnant medical professionals will induce labour.
Or if the child is aborted in late stages, then it is usually due to medical complications, and the parents not wanting the child to have to live in extreme suffering.
Very, very few are saying "Kill children one month from birth unnecessarily!" As that would be cruel.
We just think that if, IF fetus' were alive, what makes their unthinking potential more important than the pain of a fully realised person. Pregnancy is painful, exhausting, and sometimes traumatic.
@@frogprince6605 I'm not ignoring that. You're confusing "can argue" with "will argue". It doesn't matter whether or not anyone *will* want to get an abortion, say, five minutes before she gives birth. What matters is that bodily rights says that they can, regardless of what anyone else thinks. That's just what is implied by bodily rights. If you think that's wrong, then you should abandon bodily rights as a justification for abortion.
@@liswane It's irrelevant that I'm talking hypotheticals, since it wouldn't have to be anything someone would actually do, you would still have to accept it as morally permissible to keep this argument alive. If you're not willing to grant it, then intellectual honesty requires you to reject the argument. Besides, the evidence shows that most late-term abortions are done for socio-economic reasons, so there are women aborting their late-term fetus simply because they no longer want to be pregnant (e.g. she may not have actually discovered until the third trimester that she was even pregnant at all and doesn't want a child). Saying that human life begins at fertilization is not a subjective opinion -- it is objective scientific fact. My argument is not that abortion is cruel, even though it is. My argument is it is wrong to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being. So abortion is wrong. And even pro-choice thinkers, such as Michael Tooley and Kate Greasley, have argued convincingly that if the fetus is a person then abortion is wrong. You can't justify harming persons on account of your right to bodily autonomy.
In fact, if you reject hypotheticals, then the pro-choice side loses, since that's all they really have. You'll have to reject the violinist thought experiment out of hand. But I doubt you'd accept "that's just a hypothetical -- no one can really be connected at the kidneys to a famous violinist" as a good reason for rejecting the hypothetical outright.
@madrigaldude17 You would be correct if the fetus could be removed safely (say, if artificial wombs become a reality). But the pro-choice argument is that since the woman has a right to her body, and the only way it can be removed is by securing its death, she has the right to secure its death to preserve her own right to bodily autonomy. But then again, your comment is largely irrelevant to the point I was making in mine.
Great point, Clinton. Love your pro-life thinking podcasts.
Ben Shapiro's pro-life position may be logically inconsistent. He opposes abortion. But he supports artificial contraception when some artificial contraceptives abort babies. So it seems to me that to be logically consistent, he needs to reject abortion-causing contraceptives.
What are abortion-causing contraceptives in your knowledge? A contraceptive is to prevent pregnancy, not cancel one.
@@beast9068 IUDs kill fertile human eggs. It aborts them. So if Mr. Shapiro supports their use, he supports at least one kind of contraception. You can't both oppose all abortions and support some kinds of it.
He would have adopt the Catholic Humanae Vitaea version of life and sexuality
@@ohmightywez He should adopt it. If I understand Judaism correctly, Jews think that what they do matters more than what they believe. Either way, any logically inconsistent belief is false.
@@williammcenaney1331 I honestly don’t think he’s very far from it. Ben is surrounded not only by Christians, but in a large part by Catholic Christians.
And Ben is neither stupid nor illogical. In fact, he prides himself on his following the logical path. I pray for him and for his conversion, and I also think that the devout, pro-life Catholics that are around him every day, all day, will have a deep impact on him.
God Bless Trent Horn for these Rebuttal series.
Greetings from a Catholic from the Philippines. 🇵🇭
"State forced pregnancy"
The state didn't force you to be pregnant. The state is (or should as prolifers argue) only be stopping you killing the unborn child. Framing it this way is like saying that its state forced not-driving-on-the-sidewalk, when in reality its a "don't run people over". Its about not killing people instead of being forced to do something. You have every option but that one thing (abortion), you aren't forced to do one thing (be pregnant). You can modify your sexual behaviour, or carry any baby to term.
Except it's not killing. You're simply depriving the fetus of a host
@@thenomad9230 It is killing, because the fetus is still a human life. You aren't removing the fetus, you're ripping them to pieces and then sucking them out, pretty much every abortion procedure involves killing the fetus before they are removed, so killing is not a side effect, its an integral part of the procedure. Host? You mean mother.
@@Goabnb94 in order to remove them from your body. If in the process of removing a squatter from your home somehow they end up getting killed that doesn't mean you're guilty of murder because you didn't want them in your house. If that's true of a fully developed human being in your house how much more true is it for a collection of cells in your body?
@@thenomad9230 depriving it of its host means to kill it. It’s not a parasite
@@thenomad9230
If you're going by that argument, the method of abortion should matter.
I.e. a method of abortion that ejects the placenta should be okay but one that directly damages the fetus is not.
If you're uncomfortable with this becoming policy, your reasoning is inconsistent.
Also, I would say that killing a squatter is murder, unless you do it by accident.
If you have reason to think squatter is trying to kill you, killing them might be justified; but it is never justified to kill someone for merely being on your land.
Note that I am not fully pro-life myself, but I certainly have problems with abortion in the later stages of pregnancy, and also with murdering squatters.
This is the best rebuttal of abortion I've seen. This is the first time some jerk didn't trick me into looking at huge blown-up photos of aborted baby parts. I'm so glad that you never appealed to people's basest emotions either.
Armchair Philosopher sometimes that’s needed because the opposition appeals to the emotion of women’s rights and being oppressed
@@boogiman14 Trent's appeal to the better nature of man style is entertainingly refreshing. Encouraging outrageous behavior and generating contempt smacks of virtue signaling and is bad for the soul.
Armchair Philosopher agreed for logical people for
You and I but emotional people need different evidence. No matter if you give the scientific definition and proof an embryo is life they won’t admit until they see what a 10 week year old fetus looks like
@Qwerty Yes. Upon reflection, I shouldn't have said the first time. Those photos to me feel like emotional blackmail. And I don't wanna be emotionally manipulated like a tool. Which is why I appreciate Trent so much.
It’s not emotional blackmail, it’s the truth of abortion. It disturbs our emotions because it’s disturbing.
I've always been confused by the boundary between letting die and killing.
You must determine if God has placed someone in your path who needs your help, or if it is men who seek to exploit you. Kind of like the parable of the Good Samaritan.
@David Ortiz I guess I get a kick out of the idea that when people use it they are making an appeal to the Most High
If your actions directly cause the death of another human you killed them
And that’s okay. Please keep learning and seeking.
@@shatterpointgames No
Another problem with the violinist argument is that if you unplug from the violist, he is still free to pursue other means of staying alive. Nobody is coming in, cutting off his limbs, and sucking out his brain.
This shows part of the problem with the "health of the mother" question. If we're seriously concerned with the health of the mother, perhaps there would be times where it's warranted to deliver early, and attempt to save both the child and the mother, but it doesn't make any sense to assume the only way to "unplug" is to first kill the child, and then deliver.
Your first point is not really a point since abortion is by definition a termination of non-viable pregnancy or in other words, the removal of the foetus which is incapable of surviving outside of the uterus. The disassembly of the foetus is a common unavoidable byproduct of the procedure. So the means in which the removal happens doesn't make any difference at the end of the day.
"he is still free to pursue other means of staying alive"
If you actually read the original paper you wouldn't say this since the given assumption(and hence the point that Thompson is trying to deliver yet many don't understand ) is that such an alternative is not possible. There are much more to be said about your misunderstanding but I first suggest you read the paper.
This I the original paper
philosophyintrocourse.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/thomson_abortion.pdf
This one is a simplified version which is much easier of a read
rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Thomson.pdf
My question for your problem of the "health of mother" concern would be, how early is too early?
@@spectralsequence6028 It doe snot answer any of the concerns he listed.
Will you make an audiobook version of 'Persuasive Pro Life' for those of us who are too busy and/or lazy to read?
Wait a second…
I thought a British accent always meant the person is intelligent 🧐
“Human beings are not meant to be conceived outside of mothers body”. Why? What is the reason behind this statement?
Your arguments are pretty weak overall. Instead of focusing on the full argument presented, you are picking apart smaller statements that are there for artistic flare or emphasis.
And, you just picked out a single sentence from a paragraph of argument. How is that different?
In vitro fertilization does not fully respect human life. In order for the process to be effective, several human embryos are created, and the overwhelming majority are destroyed in the process. In vitro fertilization is a process that is relatively ineffective (less than one-fourth of treatments are successful) and causes much physical pain to women. Research also indicates that children conceived in this way are more prone to genetic defects.
Alice, the guy's argument was that if you're prolife, you should be against IVF for consistency. Trent said he is against IVF, so the "consistency """argument"""" doesn't work.
Prolifers are mostly against IVF, and the ones that aren't, haven't actually thought about it that much.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎥 This video critiques Ben Shapiro's pro-life arguments and explores the "violinist" thought experiment.
00:27 📣 Oliver Thorn's videos have strong technical aspects and focus on philosophical thought experiments.
02:05 🤔 Ben Shapiro's pro-life stance is based on the idea that it's wrong to directly kill innocent human beings, emphasizing the humanity of the unborn child.
03:21 🧩 Ben Shapiro's position on abortion is not inconsistent with his views on topics like war and self-defense.
04:48 🔄 The "violinist" thought experiment argues for a pregnant woman's right to disconnect from the fetus, focusing on bodily autonomy.
06:37 🤔 The argument against IVF clinics discarding embryos suggests a consistency in opposing the destruction of human life before birth.
08:57 🔄 High embryo mortality rates or infant mortality rates don't justify killing other humans; they prompt efforts to reduce mortality.
10:59 🤷♂️ People's apathy toward unborn lives makes addressing IVF embryo losses harder without addressing abortion first.
11:55 🧠 Philosophical thought experiments can shape our responses to arguments depending on how they're framed.
12:51 🤔 The violinist thought experiment is countered with arguments about responsibility for the fetus' existence.
14:19 📚 A counterargument to the violinist scenario involves the responsibility parents owe to their children.
16:34 🧠 Thought experiments like the violinist can lead to different perspectives on complex ethical issues.
19:06 ❓ Changing the thought experiment's perspective highlights the challenge of distinguishing between killing and letting die.
21:23 🔄 The distinction between killing and letting die is crucial in discussing abortion ethics.
21:49 🏊♂️ There's a difference between failing to save someone and directly killing them. Analogies with lifeguard scenarios illustrate this distinction.
22:48 🏊♂️ Unplugging from the violinist and failing to save aren't equivalent to abortion. Abortion initiates the fatal sequence of events, making it a case of killing.
24:51 💉 Not all cases of killing and letting die are distinct. Letting someone die by withholding help can also be morally equivalent to killing.
25:57 👶 Parents have a natural obligation to provide ordinary means of care to their children, which includes shelter, food, hydration, and medicine.
27:07 🤝 Parents' natural obligation applies to both born and unborn children, ensuring their basic needs for survival, but it doesn't obligate organ donation.
27:48 🎻 The violinist thought experiment is strong for pro-choice advocates, but it doesn't accurately parallel pregnancy due to the nature of responsibility and care.
31:20 🤔 Comparing shooting a pregnant person to abortion highlights the nuanced balance between fetal value and bodily autonomy.
32:43 👪 Responsibility for pregnancy stems from the fact that the man and woman engaged in an activity known to create a new human being, making them responsible for care.
34:08 🤝 Pregnancy is an ordinary use of the body, unlike organ donation, and refraining from it actively kills a healthy human being. Abortion isn't merely letting die; it's killing.
Made with HARPA AI
Uh oh. AI said "pregnant person."
@@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics😂
What is the difference between late-term/partial-birth abortion and outright infanticide? Why, 7" of distance.
Facts don't care about your feelings
every foetus that goes through a late-term (7-9 months) is wanted. these are rather tragic, they're abortions that happen due to the pregnant person's body not being able to handle the strain that it's putting on them, whether it's the body not being able to handle the stress, internal hemorrhaging, excessive fluid buildup or just straight up the body giving up on the foetus and/or birther.
ps: south park profile picture, human rights stripped.
There are philosophers that claim infanticide isn't immoral for this very reason.
@Anakin Skywalker thank you
@@sappyscribbles That is simply not the case - pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16150658/
I believe that people forgot that the natural result of sex is a baby🙄😂
@David Ortiz Yum burger
Only semen can get someone pregnant not the actual activity of having sex
You mean the natural purpose of sex
Sex isn't strictly for reproduction, unless you still hold outdated beliefs (religious beliefs). Sex can be something people do for satisfaction, or pleasure. This is simply an outdated statement.
@@JSowder21 The traditional definition for Sex is the Reproductive Act of conceiving. If Sex is simply what causes you to orgasm then some people can be said to have sex with their hand, toys, maybe even trees. Casually, I would call it for penetrating with a sexual member to someone else, but even that leaves too much to the imagination about the cause and purpose beyond "what gets you off".
In the same way, you wouldn't say that a horny dog humping it's owner's leg is having sex with them, or that a wet dream is sex because you thought it was real in so noncritical, illogical, and a pointless use of language. Don't you dare tell others that their beliefs are "outdated" in a demeaning manner without an argument behind your back. Religious beliefs are alive and well, and the ones found here give our lives a peaceful purpose.
you sound exactly like the satirical character she was pretending to be in this video, lmao
Honestly Philosophy Tube isn't even worth responding to.
*I just came from his video, and I like your respectful rebuttals, **7:41**, **13:37**, **19:32** (you put us into a scary dependent situation),**29:56** . It would be great to see you and him meet up and talk, like at a bark bench or something.*
i love that idea
There was a recent Soho Forum debate entitled "what is the correct libertarian position on abortion". The pro-life libertarian gave some unique pro life arguments that are unique to her and that are not discussed in persuasive pro life. The pro choice philosopher gave the most convincing rendition of the autonomy argument I have ever heard. There are some points from both sides that never usually come up in abortion debates. Could you watch it and give your take on the most important parts.
@Qwerty th-cam.com/video/OKU_xutF-eQ/w-d-xo.html
Trent Horn does a fantastic job here! But when the violinist analogy is brought up, the first thing one must say is, “Since your invented scenario is analogous to a pregnancy resulting from rape, not a pregnancy that results from voluntary sexual union, can we agree that all abortions that are not in cases of rape are immoral?” If they say yes, (great!) you’ve reached agreement that 99% of abortions are immoral. If they say no (as most “pro-choice” advocates do), then you can expose the fact that they are disingenuously using an extreme case, which has strong emotional appeal, to justify all abortions. All people should be able to agree that this is a very irresponsible approach to policy making. Bottom line: don’t let pro-choice advocates who defend abortion in 100% of the cases force you to spend all your time arguing about the 1% of most tragic cases. They pretend to care only about the 1%, but they actually defend abortion 100% of the time. Expose that right away!
Just curious.... are you pro-choice when it comes to circumcision? Or are you pro-life when it comes to a baby/child/adult right to remain bodily intact as God made them, including foreskin? For just as the Bible says "do not kill" it also says "do not deform or disfigure God's temple the human body" or something of that nature... ??? Would you agree that circumcision should be made illegal in the eyes of the law and deemed immoral in the eye's of God? Or do i have it all wrong?
@@partysugar519 Yes, it seems you are mistaken. Some truths are knowable by natural reason and without appeal to the divine authority of Scripture: e.g., that every human person has an inviolable right to life; and that abortion (the direct and intentional killing of a human person in the womb) is morally wrong insofar as it violates that right.
It is morally permissible to cut one’s hair, trim one’s nails, blow one’s nose, pierce one’s ears, and cut of one’s foreskin. Such accidental changes do not denigrate, diminish, or destroy human dignity. The shedding of cells is obviously disanalogous to abortion, insofar as only the latter involves the murder of human person.
@@andrewdalton5988 @andrewdalton5988 .... well you're what u said again... u couldn't be so smart to compare fingernails, hair, blowing nose to circumcision. Right..? Who you think u talkin too a freakin moron Even Dumbo thinks that's dumb. I used to be a goddamm genius till I heard that. Now I'm am idiot
Let's roll with comparing fingernails, hair, and foreskin... now, I'm not gonna compare permanently removing each one of your fingernails to cutting off the head of your penis ...let's set a scale... the finger is same as the penis. The foreskin is same as fingernails. The foreskin does not grow back like a trimmed fingernail. So a great comparison to circumcision is the inhumane permanent removal of a newborns fingernails and toenails by accidental damage .....and hair follicles so the person never gets to have hair again... just like the foreskin and fingernails . Hey it'd be better that way then the opposite way having to trim your penis foreskin like your nails and hair or like you blow your nose..... "you gotta nip it in the butt" barney fife used to say I just thot that 4 a 2nd. nevermind I'm rotten
U brot up these ridiculous claims
.. I think you might be missing the point. Why does a mother get to choose her sons circumcision?What the heck ...? Not the doctor? This is entirely the mother's choice ..?. The baby has no right, or choice , right? So if the mother chooses not to circumsize,, there shouldn't be a law against an uncircumcised young man old enough to decide for himself to go against his mother's right of choice? So it should be illegal for uncircumcised men to get circumcised later in life because it would be a violation of the mothers right of choice ? Which sounds kinda crazy but hey at keast an uncircumcised man can still make his own choice. Circumcised men are tough lucked. They will never know what life could have been like otherwise. Of course neither will a mother but hey she should have a right to choose its her baby right ? abortion is I leave it up to God. And trust that he knows what he is doing and he knows what lay in each of our hearts and i trust that. Even murders are forgiven dependening on the heart. You do not process gods power to judge a man's heart so thoroughly and it is not your job to do so. So circumcision is a mother's personal preference? Perhaps sexual preference ? Perhaps a religion thing? A medical issue?? When did uncircumcised penis become such a problem, ive never heard or read about men having any complaints with their uncircumcised penis...? Look, I'm pro choice im not bothered by what happened with my foreskin... I don't remember that happening to me i dont know how they do it . I hope they numb it , I bet babies scream like a mthrfkr. Make it quick.... shit. Wait till I'm sleeping ... shoot matter fact actually get that scaple away from my peepee anymore than a baby remembers playing devils advocate here but, I know I should have a right to being circumcised or not. I feel like circumcision should have to wait until a boys old enough to choose. It's his life, his penis his foreskin ..... not the mothers or the fathers . who as it stands today have legal rights to choose . Circumcision is not accidental damage I mean I know we were supposed to be talking about abortion here I am in a way. a pro-life devils advocate. Where
Me being plugged up to a violinist: You could have asked, I would have consented. But I’m not letting this musician die just because someone did something wrong to me. He could give me lessons while we wait.
Came across this video quite a while back, nice to get Trent’s rebuttal 👍✨
Go Trent go! God bless you and be with you! Thank you for making this video and for speaking for the sanctity of life!
A baby doesn't have the rights to its mother's body.
And the mother also doesnt have the rights to the baby's body.
yes she does because it’s using her organs to survive
@@Charlie-vf8hw So what are you saying?
The babies still need care when they have come out of the wombs like breast milk, protection by their mothers from animals or dangerous people including devotion and time.
Then do you think you can just kill them outside of the wombs as well?, because it seems like they still rely on the mothers's breasts to survive.
And think of it this way!
If that baby becomes older like 15yrs old, will you be able to do whatever you want to the child's body because he once was a baby and he also needed your uterus to survive. Or even better, what if your mother did that to you. And no matter how old or how mature you actually are, you will always be her product.
Personally, I think that your argument is childish and complete nonsense. You said " a mother has the rights to end her child's life because it used her body to survive". It is a funny excuse to end the life that you have brought up to the world.
Most importantly, if what you are saying is true then, the grandma owns the mother's body and the mother owns the child's body. It truly doesnt make sense since you love "my body, my choice" but you people never care about the others and just trying to find excuses to benefit yourself.
If a solider breaks his leg in a war, I carry him and run.
Will that make me his owner because he is relying on my legs which are parts of my organ to escape the war?
@@DoomerMusic69 it’s telling that pro lifers never respond to the bodily autonomy argument without coming up with analogies that have nothing to do with bodily autonomy
@@Charlie-vf8hw the violinist thought experiment itself is disanalogous to abortion. I think that tells us all we need to know about how bad bodily rights arguments are.
@@IWasOnceAFetus what about it makes it not analogous?
Forced to have her OWN baby, the ignorance
Hey if a woman has less right to her body than a dead person then I'd say it's ignorance to say she isn't forced. also the Church works very hard to make sure the young girls don't have the education to make an informed choice so yea, I'd say it was forced.
@@matthewvandeventer3632 So what wrong with forcing someone?
@@belmum1689 Maybe the fact that you're forcing them in the first place, regardless of whether they consent or not.
@@handsofchange11111 I haven't forced anyone to get pregnant but I think people should be forced not to kill an innocent human being.
It is directly wrong to kill a innocent human being. Abortion is killing. In the case if rape and incest(extremely rare and nearly non excistent) the rapist should be castrated and killed and incest the baby should be born and put up into adoption and the participants should be jailed. Parents are obligated to take care of a childs basic needs. Somone does not have the right to your body if you have nothing to do with that person if you become pregnant because of your own ignorance you are obligated to take care of that baby. Do not support abortion or fertilization clinics. You are killing somone if you dont let the child freezing out side in side. Also if you starve yourself into still birth you are killing that child. If there are 2 people drowning and you chose 1 of them and cant save the other that is letting the other one die. Child support is thrown out if you support abortion the reason being is if the mother is allowed to just not raise the child at will but the father has no say in the abortion makes no sence because they have no say in child support which is the same as caring for the child. And if they are to poor to raise the child either welfare, adoption, or not idral buy foster homes is better than no chance at life.
Great rebuttal Trent!
Great points about the violinist argument. It always irritates me when philosophical arguments hinge on comparisons, but then the authors don't make very clear qualifications about how drawing analogies between two things does not mean drawing _identities_ between two things. The fact that we can find similarities in two scenarios does not mean that our moral judgments of those scenarios should be identical. And that's illustrated by the fact that we anti-abortionists can offer all sorts of other scenarios that clearly illustrate how wrong abortion is.
I want to elaborate on something and argue that we should be clear there's a difference between killing and letting die - between murder and neglect - but that doesn't make neglect morally licit. It doesn't even matter whether we judge a particular abortion to be direct killing or an abdication of parental responsibility. Either way, the parent has a unique responsibility to protect and provide for their child, even moreso the more vulnerable a child is. When a child becomes an adult, the parent's responsibility for the child declines.
Legally this is reflected in a binary distinction between minor and adult, corresponding to the fact that gray areas in the law are not helpful. A spectrum of dependence would cause all sorts of intolerable legal complications. But clearly this reflects a recognition that a younger person is more dependent on their parents, and therefore their parents are more responsible for fulfilling their child's needs.
It's sort of like the spectrum of responsibility has been heavily pixilated, so rather than reducing the smooth, continuous spectrum of age down to, say, 12 discreet stages of dependence (infant, toddler, etc.) all with their own commensurate responsibilities, we reduce it down to 2 stages of dependence: minor and adult. The legal spectrum has been condensed down to a binary, but in reality it reflects the continuous growth of an organism and the continuous decline in responsibility that accompanies it. So if the parent of a 12-year-old is more responsible for the child than the parent of a 24-year-old... what does that mean for the parent of a 0-year-old?
And the manner in which we apply laws surrounding neglect really make it clear how the violinist thought experiment is not analogous to abortion. We hold parents responsible for failing to feed their children; we don't hold strangers responsible for failing to feed other people's children. Even if the mother was raped and did not consent to having a child, we still recognize that, _at the very least_ once the child is born, she would be responsible for providing for her child's basic needs, for _at least_ as long as it takes to transfer guardianship of her child to someone else.
In other words, we recognize that being raped does not grant one the right to murder their born child. So why should it grant one the right to murder their unborn child? This is a crystal clear reflection of the fact that the right to life outweighs all other rights. It is the greatest, the heaviest, most universal, most incontrovertible right. One only loses this right when one unjustly, knowingly, and willfully threatens the life of another person. A fetus is literally _incapable_ of unjustly, knowingly, and willfully doing anything, let alone threatening a person's life. Consequently, either 1) the unborn child does not have an innate right to life, and therefore can be killed in _any_ case, without any justification, or 2) the unborn child does have a right to life, and therefore cannot be killed, no matter what, no matter how strong the justification.
And yeah, one can pose all sorts of philosophical questions that make our moral intuitions seem absurd. Yet that doesn't discredit our moral intuitions. When a mother is raped, the rape is the injustice, not the obligation to carry a pregnancy to term, and certainly not the obligation to keep the baby alive once he's born (for at least as long as it takes to see him transferred to the care of another responsible person). It's unfortunate that she is obligated to bear the child for ~9 months and take care of the child until she can put him up for adoption, but it's not an injustice. It's an imposition, in the same way all sorts of things are impositions but not injustices. We accept these impositions because the alternative is far more odious.
We don't rejoice in the burden that a victimized mother has to bear to preserve the life of her undesired child. We merely recognize that the child has rights that vastly overwhelm the right of the mother to be free from impositions. We should do our best to minimize and mitigate those impositions, of course. That's why we provide an easy pathway to adoptions. That's why it not only is free to transfer guardianship, but many jurisdictions will actually _pay you_ to put your baby up for adoption. If they won't, there are charities that will.
And yet, the requirement to take care of a baby that has already been born, at least temporarily, is far less controversial (in modern western culture, at least) than the requirement to carry a baby to term. I would say that's because the imposition is far less. The consequences of neglect in either case are the same. The baby dies. But in the case of taking care of a baby after its birth, the burden is not as severe. It may be financially more difficult and it may take up more of your time, but the visceral burden is lesser.
Many women are afraid to carry a baby to term because it is genuinely scary. Even if the physiological dangers can be averted through modern medical care, they still have to accept that their body will never look or feel quite the same. At least in most cases. It feels like they might be sacrificing their youth and even their sexiness. So on an instinctive level, we feel the consequences of pregnancy and labor are more serious than the consequences of taking care of a born child for a couple of months.
But clearly this is just a matter of degree. Where do we draw the line? When does an imposition on the mother become so great that it outweighs the rights of the baby, who did not consent to _any_ of this? If you accept that the baby is a human person, and that all human persons have intrinsical value and inalienable rights, then I think it's very difficult to find a real-world abortion story in which the abortion seems justified.
For me, it was an odd journey to realizing that, because I have no religious background whatsoever and come from a really liberal, radically left wing, California family. So I was always a very liberal, anti-authoritarian, secular humanist. But around the age of 18, when I was studying undergraduate biochemistry, I was exposed to the moral quandary of abortion firsthand and I was forced to think about it. Even in my secular humanist worldview, I was gradually compelled to accept that abortion is virtually universally evil.
It wasn't until much later that I even entertained the possibility of Christianity (or any other religion) being true. Christianity didn't even change my view on abortion, even though it changed my views on a lot of other things. As a secular humanist I simply could not reject the obvious fact that abortion is evil. No doubt, it's not _as_ evil as murdering a toddler or something, in the same way the killing of embryos in IVF is not _as_ evil as a third-trimester abortion. But that's not because the acts are intrinsically different. They all involve killing a human person. The difference between those scenarios is simply the number and severity of _aggravating factors_ that compound the crime.
However, accepting the existence of immaterial things like souls/spirits did make me feel even more repulsed by killing generally. When I was first studying this, my conclusion was that the act itself was intrinsically evil, but that it ought to be legal because in some cases that evil is justified. At first I justified those abortions by comparing it to self-defense. That it can be justified to kill people, even though killing is intrinsically evil, if you must do so to protect yourself. But this is obviously very naive. It's only justified to kill someone in self-defense if they are the direct cause of the danger. Like, if you're being chased by a murderer, it would be acceptable to shoot and kill the murderer. But it would not be acceptable to shoot some innocent bystander who happens to be in your way, just to get them out of your way so you can escape and survive. Both are bad comparisons but this would be closer to abortion.
After a while of examining a bunch of different scenarios, I was, bit by bit, forced into the corner of accepting that abortion is never justified, but having a kind of acrid, materialistic view of morality. So although I recognized abortion was wrong, I didn't have much conviction with respect to compelling other people not to engage in it. And that jived with my general view of morality. That this was just my own personal moral calculus, but who am I to judge anyone else? Just like Sam Harris, I accepted an evolutionary, utilitarian view of morality. That we evolved morality as a kind of social strategy, and that's it. So when I came to Christ, even though my preexisting moral calculus already agreed with Christianity on this issue and some others, I was filled with a totally new spirit and conviction. A new sense of what morality is, of what a _human_ is, and of all the implications of human morality.
Of course, I can imagine hypothetical scenarios in some far-flung future where abortion might be justified. Like, they don't correspond even remotely to anything in the world as we know it. But we could imagine, for example, neo-neo-Nazis in the year 2400 genetically engineering a fetus with the express purpose of creating a new Hitler. And in such a scenario, the act of aborting it would remain intrinsically evil, but it may be justified on balance. That's a difficult question but it really has no bearing on abortion today, as there simply can be no compelling reason to directly kill a fetus. Moreover, even in the genetically-engineered neo-Hitler scenario, we would strive to do the least harm. We would have to exhaust all available options before killing the fetus. It would have to be impossible to de-program the fetus before we could even justifiably consider killing it.
@@ToxicallyMasculinelolwhat if the mother life is at risk?
Olly: some people believe this
This dude: he's wrong I don't believe that
Surely a belief can be wrong?
@@swihun8930 what I meant was Olly wasn't specifically talking to this guy, but he's acting like Olly's wrong if that's not what he personally believes.
(Actually if you want to get really philosophical while a belief could be theoretically wrong it can't be disproved because if you believe something you do so for a reason other than evidence. Not that that matters because I didn't mean beliefs in the philosophical sense but just a fun fact)
@@X3._.n3, Olly in his video is making a moral case that abortion is justified. Mainly on the grounds that no one has a right to your body, even if not having your body would kill them.
Sure you can’t scientifically or mathematically prove that this is true or false. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be valid critiques of it. Can’t moral questions also be argued over?
@@swihun8930 I wouldn't class moral questions as beliefs, I would say morality can count as knowledge
@@swihun8930 anyway we're getting bogged down in something that isn't really relevant if we can agree that morality can be argued over. If we're going to have an argument, could we do it over the first paragraph of my original reply, which is what we substantively disagree over
My husband and I were participants in an embryo adoption and implantation process to rescue an embryo from destruction
Great to hear!
When and looked up this person and imagine my shock that they're a transgender who took the name of Ben Sharpiro's sister...
His entire argument falls apart at 30:55 (19:30 in the original video). He admits that it would be wrong to shoot the violinist, but not wrong to unplug it (similar to your lifeguard analogy).
Abortion is the direct and violent killing of the unborn, not a refusal to care (such as inducing pregnancy) or an inactive refusal to save (because the fetus is not in any danger otherwise).
So since abortion is not refusal to care, a woman could refuse to care for her body (refuse to eat) until a miscarriage is induced. This would essentially starve the fetus to death, but would not be abortion. Certainly, it would be akin to unplugging. What do you think about the morality of such an action (of course, motivation plays a large part, at least to me.)?
a1c4pwn if anyone is willing to starve themselves to have a miscarriage then they are clearly not mentally stable and should seek/ be offered mental help.
@@b4byheart726 It's an hypothetical situation just like saying that an embryo is a human being.
Amol Khobaragade I mean a human embryo IS a human being, saying that wouldn’t be a hypothetical statement.
@@b4byheart726 Prove it, then.
The whole violinist argument is also just flat out irrelevent bc that situation never actually happens. It is very telling that pro abortion people have to stand on this analogy that never actually happens.
And the analogy still does not even work bc it does not run parallel to abortion. In the violinist situation, they would die from a cause not induced by you. If you were to just let nature go, they would die. However, in abortion if you were to just let nature go the child would be born. You are specifically and intentionally going out of your way to kill the fetus. It is omission and comission. Comission is always worse when comparing the same or similar situations. For example, would you be more upset at someone who failed to save you from falling off your bike or if someone pushed you off your bike? Obviously the latter.
People these days just do not have solid morality. And it is causing a lot of problems. There really is no good argument for abortion that become obvious when you look at even the most well known pro abortion activists making these easily debunked arguments.
yeah, no one said the analogy was perfect. but i would also remind you that even if you "let nature go" as you so poetically put it, there's no certainty that the baby would be born, or that it would be born healthy, or that the mother would survive the birthing process. the mortality rates around pregnancy are actually kinda high, so the argument that the only way the fetus would lose its life is if it was aborted doesn't really hold up. and the abortion itself i don't think could be considered intentionally going out of your way to kill the fetus. as far as i know, most women want abortions because they don't want to be mothers or go through the risks of pregnancy, not to satiate a thirst for fetus blood.
making abortions illegal would be like the trolley problem: on one side of the tracks is an innocent woman, on the other is an innocent baby. who do you run over? the answer: you don't. instead, you stop policing women and let them have control over their bodies because it's none of your business. until the child can independently grow without it's mother's body, then the mother should have priority and the right to choose whether she wants to be pregnant or not.
@@liswane That whole post of yours was straw man and bad analogies.
The OP did not say 100% of the time the baby would be born healthy. We really can't know that since the life of the baby is snuffed out before we get to see nature take its course.
Pregnancy is not analgous to the trolly problem. In that scenario one of them must die. How can you possibly compare that to in 2018 there were 17.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 births?
Do you have any arguments that rely purely on fact and do not need to heavily rely on emotional appeal?
@@jon6car well, what are your facts to argue that a woman should be forced into the process of being pregnant and unwillingly risk herself for something she doesn't want? The Violinist works as an analogy because what makes you think someone should be forced to risk their life for someone or something they don't care about? You can encourage them to "do the right thing", but how can you justify forcing them to do such a life-changing thing as having a baby, when they don't want to?
Also death is not the only negative outcome women face: there's post-partum depression, their anatomy never being the same again, having to financially support a child they didn't want in the first place, and that can lead to resentment, and many other negative things that will inevitably also hurt the child. There's no winning in the situation, other than to your sense of morality because you think an unborn fetus should be the priority above the actually born woman who will have to deal with whatever decision she's allowed to make.
You can ask for facts all you want, but in the end it's obvious that your stance comes down to your beliefs. You value the possibility of life over someone who is already alive, and that's just not something I'll agree with any time soon.
@@liswane Their argument wasn’t that the fetus would always survive until birth if not aborted. Not sure where you read that. Abortion is nearly always the intentional killing of a human being. Someone is going out of there way to kill an unborn human being, the fetus does not die of natural causes in a successful abortion. Making abortion illegal would not be like a trolley problem. Not being able to intentionally kill your biological unborn child does not then mean you would necessarily die. A successful abortions always “runs over” a human fetus, mostly for socioeconomic reasons. Control over your own body cannot ever mean the right to intentionally and directly kill your biological child.
@@liswane Only rapists aiming to impregnate force a woman into the process of pregnancy. That’s what forced pregnancy means and it’s often a war crime. Pregnancy following sex is cause and effect. I ate junk food, therefore I got fat. I had sex, therefore I got pregnant. No one is forcing you to stay pregnant, pregnancy is an involuntary biological process your own body “forces” you to endure. I couldn’t care less if you don’t want nor care for your biological child, you have to take care of them as they are immature and refusing to care for them would result in their death. I can justify “forcing” them to not abort their child because in the vast majority of cases, they caused their child to be there and as the mother she has a moral duty to care for her children. The negative consequences of “forced pregnancy” don’t entitle you to abortion anymore than the negative consequences of “forced parenthood” entitle you to infanticide. Fetuses should not be the priority, the mother shouldn’t either. Both beings should be equally valuable under the law and neither should be intentionally and directly killed. A living human fetus is not a “possible life” and to disagree is to be anti-science. Living fetuses are already alive and living. We value the lives of all human being equally and believe human rights should be granted to all humans. That’s where you and I disagree.
"Pregnant person, pregnant person, pregnant person." I thought erasure of women was recent but this was three years ago lol.
Well, the guy calls himself a woman now, so…lol
A few questions:
Where does moral responsibility start? And how do you respond to women’s damaged bodies and ptsd after pregnancy?
Excluding the case of r*pe, I’d say women’s damaged bodies and ptsd after pregnancy is the result of an informed choice made knowing the consequence of that choice could result in the creation of life.
@@drycleanernick7603 So, if women didnt know about these things beforehand they can choose to abort? Who has the obligation to educate them? What happens if a woman didnt know the risk or is too unintelligent to understand it?
Jason Ports okay, so for that very small percent of abortions, sure. But then would you agree if people know before hand and make an informed decision to have intercourse knowing the risk that they should not have the option to abort?
@Melancholy Soldier public schools are indoctrination centers not much more
Damaged bodies?? I had 4 kids and I'm kinda wrecked but all in the good ways of motherhood.
I was hoping to hear something interesting but..... 10 minutes on and I realize I'm listening to a PRO LIFE person so..... I mean his arguments come from the assumption that a fetus is a living being. That is categorically false. The end.
A fetus is a living being. Why should that matter? A virus and parasite are also living. However the being become sentient at 12-15 weeks which is the standard for many for its humanity coming into being. Abortions before sentient would be aborting a future living human and after 12-15 weeks would be aborting a living human were responsibility and consent are the main topics discussed.
@@eddd2932 No, sentience is irrelevant. You can't bring sentience to the table if you are not vegetarian, since pigs are more sentient than toddlers.
In the video he’s responding to the guy also assumes that foetuses are living humans, that’s the whole point of the violinist argument.
I guess a fetus must be a dead being then. Odd, considering it comes out of the womb alive. Must be magic.
Alle kommunisten musst stirben
Hey mate, i noticed that when i type in your name in search of your videos on TH-cam, the top of the list shows an old account of yours with the latest video being seven years ago. Should I unsubscribe to that page or do you plan on reviving it?
As they say in Last Jedi, let the past die, kill it if you have to. My new content will be here.
@@TheCounselofTrent For that bit of wisdom, only one Star Wars character will give you a round of applause... Hans Solo. Glad you're not a Jedi-vacantist.
@@TheCounselofTrent . Must be embarrassing to be catholic! Look at the abuse and persecution suffered by the Native peoples at the hands of the Catholics and Christians who stole their lands!
@@randycouch2769 try again, buddy. Catholics cultivated the Americas. And brought a message of hope and redemption to the native people. Many native chiefs and elders died with crucifixes on their chests and clinging to the Love of Christ.
@@timothyfreeman97 was jesus a virgin?? Was Mary a sexually frustrated woman ??
I'm not enough of a music guy to join the Society of Music Lovers, but you can sign me up for the Society of Musical Lovers
I just found this channel, I sub straight away I also have your book Persuasive Pro Life
I can't believe I didn't see this before, but he's actually using sopher clamps to grab the eggs. Wow
God bless you for all you have and are doing for the rights and dignity of the unborn. You've helped me greatly in understanding these misguided people and how to respond to them. May God continue to be your light and guide and protect you in the work He has called you to.
You fail to understand bodily autonomy. If a woman decides that she wants to stop caring for the fetus at any point, then she can. The only way she can reasonably do that is an abortion. It doesn't matter that it kills someone, because bodily autonomy is more important.
In your example, even if the man knew that he was going to get hooked up to keep the violinist alive, he has the right to withdraw at any moment (within reason, it might take a day or week for the procedure to take place), just as the mother has the right to withdraw her bodily functions.
And don't compare paying child support to having a person inside your body. Not only is child support going to be limited based on your income, it is also only required because you live in a country that refuses to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. If the government provided free Healthcare, adequate housing, food and adequate education, then child support would not be necessary. Sadly the US and many countries fail to provide most or all of these things.
Exactly, thank you!
It seems like you fail to understand bodily autonomy. You have the right govern what happens to your 'own', own being the key word, body without external influence or coercion. That right to govern does not extend past your own body to take away the same right of another person's body, which seems with you saying "someone" you agree that the baby is another person, therefore, having its own body.
Tisi Latu The fetus inside a woman womb, needs to be inside of her to survive, the mother needs to take care of her for the fetus to be alive, that doesn’t seem so much as an individual, the fetus is dependent of the woman, that’s why the argument of bodily autonomy is valid.
@@POZOLEDECARAMELITO No, the bodily autonomy argument is still not valid. Regardless of where the baby is or whether it is dependent or not on anyone, doesn't change the fact that it still has its own body. That body is not the mothers body, therefore the mother does not have the right to govern what happens to that body through bodily autonomy. Unless for some weird reason you belive that while the mother is pregnant she now has extra appendages like 4 legs and 4 arms. Bodily autonomy by actual definition does not give her the right to do what she wants to the baby's body.
@@teela2837 It may sound crude, but really in what way is it any different from a part of her body, in the correspondant 9 months?
33:48 you did not know that would occur.
It may not have occurred.
Analogy fails.
Ive been pro choice most of my life but after continued thought modified my position. I think abortion in the case of medical danger can be justified by the same reasons we justify self defense. All other arguments for it are misses.
In the case of the violinist, Id say yes it is immoral to unplug them. Despite the morality of being put in the situation, there is still the act of killing them you would be committing.
Thus as Trent mentioned that the baby is caused by the mother that also strengthens the argument.
I think most others pro and con are smoke and mirrors.
I would say you are killing the violinist too. But in this situation it would be okay. Context matters. Situation matters. It like giving someone your kidney then taking it back. Youve effectively killed them and it isnt okay to do. Pregnancy never follows these examples because the context will always be different.
@@naturesfinest2408 so it is beacause of the nature of it right?
2:56 It's not the same as calling anti-infanticide "State-forced parenthood" because 'parenthood' is not an imposition if you put your child up for adoption. "Continuing to be a biological parent" is not an action that requires your body or any action on your part. Gestation on the other hand is a very involved process.
Dude I was searching for this argument 🤣 I don't normally pick up on logical fallacies like this but it was so unapologetically blatant
Okay, but being a parent is a very involved process as well. You can SAY it’s not, but it is, just like gestation. You can do nothing and continue to “be a parent”. But you can also literally do nothing at all (besides the overwhelming amount of non-r*pe pregnancies that are the result of a CHOICE to have sex that could result in pregnancy) and your body will still produce a child if you become pregnant (or at least the chance of a child). Plus Trent LITERALLY said someone could make the choice that they no longer want to have a child that is biologically theirs running around in the world. Adoption doesn’t solve that issue. Only eliminating the biological child would. Yes, being a parent is “passive” depending on how you look at it, but so is the bodily process of pregnancy.
Dry cleaner nick no, after you put your child up for adoption “being a parent” is a completely passive act. If you don’t want your child you can choose to relinquish responsibility.
You don’t have that choice if you’re forced to carry a pregnancy to term. You are forced to provide the fetus with nutrients, forced to carry it at all times, and endure the risk of childbirth. It’s by no means passive when compared to the passivity of parentage after adoption.
SafetySkull yes, but I’m also “forced” not to kill my own child if I had one. Let’s say someone argued that since they have ownership over their child, and for some reason they wanted to choose to kill it vs putting it up for adoption, they would say well damn I’m forced to either care for this child or put it up adoption, but i don’t even want this child to exist, or I don’t want to go through the adoption process, or I would rather know my child doesn’t exist anymore rather than knowing it’s alive with someone else. Then that person is “forced” to go against their own will by the law. So when someone willingly chooses to have sex knowing a consequence of sex could be pregnancy, then not killing that child inside the womb of the mother is “forced” upon the mother. well yes... it is forced upon the mother based on (the vast majority of the time) her decisions. Just like not having the convenience of ending ones own child’s life if that so suited someone’s preference is forced upon someone based on their own decisions.
Dry cleaner nick right but this completely forgets the fact that having a child from a birthing point of view is completely different to killing the child after the birth. For example the sheer amount of physical changes a woman can have when carrying a baby is immense and quite a lot of people aren’t really informed of what the effects really are until it happens and the problem is unlike putting your child up for adoption you can’t magically make the baby go away. Also let’s be honest even when abortions illegal it doesn’t make the rates drop enough to justify the increased risk on the women and ironically the baby as illegal back alley ones will become more common in place of the more sanitary and safe clinical option . It’s also a fact that lots of women see a distinction in the fetus and baby and will just get one anyway out of desperation.