Wow, there are a lot of thoughtful comments on this video! I urge you to share this with those around you, as it's a great example of how civil a conversation can be even when the topic is hotly debated.
You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Peter, these discussions are amazing! It's so pleasant to see normal, thoughtful discourse online that isn't screechy and fanatical! It's like when I m hosting a dinner party, but online! (My friends are of staggeringly diverse opinions, but very thoughtful, and lenient about other people's opinion). Such a joy to watch, thank you so much for putting these up!!
I would have to slightly disagree with you about this being a civil conversation. It is most certainly MORE civil than woke lunatics screaming and having no capacity to listen. BUT the "biologist" lady showed definite signs of NOT discussing with others in good faith. When you DON'T answer questions posed to you, particularly those questions which are exposing your positions in true light - you are not being civil. You are DERAILING the logical flow of arguments in order to avoid EXPOSED consequences of your positions. She "answered" a question posed to her with asking a different question. And she did it twice: at 2:27 and 7:25. Both times it was just a deflection. She didn't add a nuance to the question posed to her. She was asked about a (I'll call it the way she would call it) collection of cells that without outside destructive interference would result in a born unique human being - as that human being is uniquely genetically defined as soon as crossing over is finished and their genome is SET. Both times she deflected to a question about sperm which she, as a supposed biologist, should know is not a living being, because if a sperm was left without outside interference it would NOT grow into a new born being. Also looking just at the genes that a sperm contains NO ONE can tell you what will the genome be of a possible baby EVEN if they knew the genome of the mother. Crossing over is the reason for that and it's the wild card for sexual reproduction (as opposed to let's say vegetative reproduction). Refusing to concede the points made by the opposing side IS NOT part of a genuine discussion.
@@milakuzmanic3313, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies. 🤡 To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
My mom was raped, but decided not judge me for it. She gave birth to me and im so glad and so thankful she allowed me to live. She did not hold me accountable for the brutal attitude of my biological father. Miriam
That was your mother's choice. Other women would have the right to make a different choice. What was right for your mother might not be right for all other women!!
If you chill by a lake and soak jn the beauty of nature, the bliss, the sunset...the frongs and the birds singing, is life less astonishing because of lack of parenting? Thats always my feeling...
Did she have the option to have abortion? Does your existence reminds her daily of the awful experience she went through, I no mean to be rude but it's something I'm interested in knowing how she and women who goes through such experience go through?
@@nadpay2409 yes she did have the option many times. Her whole family and friends turned the back to her bc they thought it was her fault, only yrs later they found out it was rape. But she allowed God to heal her heart. I have never felt rejection from my mom bc of what happened to her and nor thru my relatives. She wanted to be free from her pain, and she was. She said she felt God carrying her thru this pain. She decided to forgive and to love on me bc she understood my life was more important than carrying on unforgiveness. Her pain didn't stopped her to love and respect this little human being. She understood that she was the only one who could give me a voice. She exposed her pain to Jesus and he healed her. She got reunited with her whole family again right after my birth. Forgiveness is powerful, it really healed us. Im forever thankful to my mom for keeping me alive. Of course what happened to her was not from God, but He transformed the pain into something very beautiful: our mom and daughter relationship. I don't know Jesus bc i heard about Him, but I know Him bc we have been walking together. He healed our hearts and we have peace. Unforgiveness is like drinking something poisoning and expecting somebody else to die from it. What my biological father did to my mom, is something that he will have to answer to God and justice.
Cultural norms reflect exposure to other viewpoints... a good university provides, or used to, that exposure beyond a local culture which is why the percentage of alternative views is typically much higher on campuses
The older woman who claimed to be a biologist stated that the male sperm "contains the full set" in her argument of the equivalency of a sperm to a full human. I understand her to be saying that it contains the full chromosomal load - or all the genetics - which makes the sperm the potential "full" human. This is in error. Both gametes (the egg and the sperm) contain half of the chromosomes that spark the beginning of life. As such, they are a cell (like a blood or a skin cell (yes, they are more specialized but this is true)). There is only one egg while there may be 300 million sperm involved in a human fertilization. Fertilization does not end in a genocide of 299,999,999 dead humans but rather in the beginning of one human. My rant: These purported "scientists" (such as her claim of authority in being a biologist) who routinely skew the truth in order to score a point is why Americans no longer trust science. Not because the science is wrong but the analysis and claims being made are not supported by the science but only the human frailty of the mind of the scientist.
This also suck out to me and I was going to comment on very similar lines. I have heard this argument before of people trying to say an egg and sperm separate are also human.
Yes! The "biologist" asked a couple of questions that suggested what she thought her opposition's views were: the condom and the sperm questions both were "gotcha" questions to discredit her opposition, so it was genuinely surprising when she (at minimum) half-adopted the incorrect claim (that was not made by her present opposition) regarding the consideration of sperm as "life."
14 years ago the doctor told my wife she was stupid to be pregnant because there is a small statistical risk the baby would be a dwarf. As if life should be 100% without risk. That is not how it works doc. The "dwarf" is 13 years old now 6 foot tall, best student in class, plays basketball. Has a fine sister and a bigger brother.
well, sure, a small risk shouldn't keep you from having sex and kids. a high risk for severe disability would be worth considering being more careful, but no sex? (would even consider birth control, before not having sex and i'm really against it but also woulnd't wish a disability or having to raise a kid with disability on someone)
That guy in orange is incredibly sharp. You can tell how intelligent someone truly is by how well they can articulate their thoughts. Impressive guy. I’d love to listen to a podcast with him on it.
Guy in the orange is narrow. A blastocyst is a potential human life. Yet it is undifferentiated and we not know which cells will become a placenta and which a fetus. If we biopsy to check for ailments, the cell removed could potentially become an identical twin. Following the reductionist argument of the non-biologists, there would be no ethical to perform biopsies on embryos, nor any ethical way to engage in in-vitro fertilization methods. This is why the biologist is correct. "Consciousness" may be the wrong idea, legally, but personhood is the key concept. Moreover, the people wouldn't even grant 3rd trimester in the case of the life of the mother being at stake shows that they are absolutists. At least the one guys admits it. Personhood is an emergent property. Until the actual circumstances exist for the emergence of that, why would the rights of a potential person overrule the rights of an existing person?
They are not native english speaker, so you cannot judge them this way. One may be far more intelligent yet lack the knowledge to articulate himself in a language he hasn't fully learned yet. If they were speaking in their native language, then it would make more sense. At the extreme, someone who knows 100 words of English but is a genious will articulate his thought far worse than me who isn't a genious but has learned English to a more advanced degree.
@@kuhaku9587 I see you took this personally, and I don’t care lol It wasn’t the words that he used, it was the form of them. He presented his arguments in a way that required deeper thought and in a philosophical format.
@@SavageElites His points were as superficial as you can make them. His moral decisions are manipulated by the language that he uses, just because we use the same world "human" for embryo, and and a developed human it doesn't make them the same thing or equal. And the argument about no new DNA makes no sense either, why would that give moral considerations, should it be a lesser crime to kill a twin? After all the human with this unique DNA is still alive so what is wrong with that? Also what if somebody would clone himself, that isn't a new human life because it doesn't have new unique DNA?
My daughter has trisomy 18. She is 22 years old. Despite the medical issues that are present in her condition, under my care, her quality of life is pretty darn good. She is loved by her family and free from the follies of an otherwise “normal” human intellect.
I have a child with spina bifida. The pressure we got to let her die was shocking. She is happy and mostly healthy and is not suffering. People can be so cruel.
My wife is in the OB field and she recently saw a patient who had a botched ultrasound and then found out at 22 weeks that the baby had Down Syndrome. She wants to terminate but 20 weeks is the cutoff in my state. I know parenting a child with special needs is a huge undertaking, but it just feels wrong to even think about abortion if you have the means to take care of this innocent person. I thank God there are parents like you out there.
@@vagabond197979 In my time with my child in the NICU I saw many babies be abandoned at birth because they were born with problems. They always got adopted quickly. There is a waiting list to adopt babies, even disabled ones.
Oh my! My sister had trisomy 18 as well, she too would've been 22 this year. She passed away at 5 months though. So glad to hear you still have your daughter with you
I was an early bird, born the second trimester at 25 weeks. 6 months or so. Here I am, functioning like everyone else who was born on time. A human life starts at conception and is the same human life all the way up until birth and beyond. It is just a difference in growth. Both a baby and a 90 year old are humans, and both are equally valuable.
Nobody cares when a human life starts. People care when a human life starts to possess value. You aren't making any logical engagement with the other sides viewpoint at all.
@@Elrog3 "People care when a human life starts to possess value." If the value of a human life is entirely subjective, then you can't ever make an objective moral argument against murder.
@@dafunkmonster Well you could argue it, it would just be a faulty argument. Why do you think it is necessary to make an objective moral argument against murder? Do you think one person believing that their morals are objective makes their argument any more convincing to another person with different morals? You are stuck in the same boat trying to convince other people regardless.
@@JC3335 Depends on who you ask I would guess. That's a good question which highlights how much grey area there is on the subject. Fortunately for me, I don't value things based on intrinsic traits so I can sidestep the entire dilemma.
Ok, different options but everyone was so civil!! No shouting, snarky comments, or demanding validation! This can’t be Ameri…oh no, wait!!…. It isn’t. Lol
The "biologist" should know that sperm are gametes and only contain HALF...HALF (23) of the chromosomes necessary to make a human. The other half come from the egg. This was an epic fail and a prime example of why 'Appeal to Authority' exists in the list of logical fallacies. I applaud her for still giving it an effort though.
sex: the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other. gender: the status of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender. Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”). So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”. The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema. If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies. Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even then, predominantly in those locations where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the general population. Cf. “leftism”.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas but DNA can be altered - most of our junk DNA was added intermittently over time through viral and fungal infections and led to morphological changes away from our ancestors... there are even some people with extra and missing genes... further you discount the entire field of epigenetics overlaying direct genes - RNA and amino proteins and hormones as well as bacteria shape and possibly direct our preferences etc etc which is shown to increasingly play a part in gender orientation.... what you say is not fixed my hombre! Your views need to adapt to new knowledge and the increasing isolation of historical perceptions.... With technology we can advance further - to completely remove gender and share the womb: men like yourself can then partake in the experience of birth if you so choose to save lives if your moral inclinations are that way inclined... with chatgpt we can remove the physical altogether and rather than be replaced by chatgpt we can transfer towards it by uploading and reproducing our consciousness... creating a future of zero prejudice by having nothing to be prejudiced about... ahhhh the wonder of virtual gods! What mind beauty awaits us!
All of these people were thoughtful, on point and articulate. The guy in the mustard/rust (?) colored sweater with glasses was quite eloquent and clearly a critical thinker.
While I very much like the format and the provocative questions. I also like that Peter travels around the world getting diverse opinions from other cultures. The one critique would be that almost all of the participants seem to be urban, it would be interesting to see Peter traveling to more rural communities. Thanks,
These experiments of yours work wonderfully when you have sincere participants. By that I mean people that are willing to change their mind and have their own positions challenged. Thank you.
This is wonderful! Personal feelings aside, we should be having these real discussions around this topic. This is a very difficult moral and philosophical question. Anyone that claims otherwise either hadn't thought much about it or isn't being honest.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious. Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life. Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring! Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. As a strict vegan, I sometimes feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family. See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general. In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk. To read “F.I.S.H”, which is, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, by FAR the most important work of literature ever composed, Email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟
I was incorrectly detected for downsyndrome, despite being encouraged to abort me my mother continued further into the pregnancy, and I was actually completely normal and healthy.
My god the moral fortitude of the young lady with the red hair band is stunning and stand up. And the guy in the back of those on the right side, you can tell he is every smart and educated; yet doesn't talk down to the others.
moral fortitude pretty much just means being stubborn. How did she show moral fortitude? she was on the side with most people. The real question to ask was brought up by the lady on slightly agree, when does conciousness begin? are you really ending a life when aborting a fetus? do they have any memories? are they losing anything if they get aborted/die?
@@chadwellington2524 Besides its life ? Not much, I would say. Consciousness is irrelevant. Just a random checkpoint in the development of a human being. Saying you can kill somebody before they reach that checkpoint makes no sense to any rational thinking person.
@@chadwellington2524 It is not about that specific human. It is about us as a so-called moral society. You are positing that it is okay to kill somebody because they do not YET have consciousness. The fact that you know they will and still think it is okay to kill them is to me a bit disturbing.
That is the number one problem with society. They don’t see that their actions having consequences. Humans are so damn narcissistic and sociopathic. they literally do not care they throw the logic out the window that their actions are their responsibility. they truly believe they can do whatever they want whenever they want including blatant murder of their own child.
@@SubconsciouslyConsciouscarrot And, that's why your side will never, ever take a foothold with the rational people who believe basic biological facts 🤷
That will only happen if abortions are banned. The automatic reaction to no more abortions would be more self responsibility which would lead to a lot less need for abortions.
My guy in the orange already shut this down at 6:06-7:23 with his line of questioning. Right before the other person committed the red herring fallacy and never answered his question. 👌🏾 He was courteous enough to answer, but she dodged that one like a viper(see what I did there!?..). The difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg, is that at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, a new human life is formed, complete with its own genetically unique DNA. Unique DNA means it is actually a new human person, not a genetic copycat of its parent. It has an unrepeatable blueprint which dictates features, hair, size, colors, personality, intelligence spectrum, unique fingerprint, gender (surprise suprise!). From that moment what this human will be and look like biologically is already fixed. It's just a matter of time... The appeal to authorithy fallacy didn't do her case much good...
Amazing that the eldest woman said that sperm is "a potential human being". She has to understand that the fertilized egg is. Shocking if she has such cognitive dissonance to insist on sperm alone being enough. My guess is she is completely avoiding the challenge altogether ( for whatever reasons ).
Yes a new human life begins at conception, but a new unique DNA doesn't give you the right to life. What if I die, but my kidneys are still alive and is transplanted to another body, that person would have two unique DNAs in their body. Am I still alive since my living kidney with my DNA is still alive and functioning? Does my kidney have a say if the host decides to run or drink alcohol? Conjoined twins are a single organism with the same body and DNA. Scientifically, they are the same. But metaphysically, are "they" a single person, or are "they" two people? When it comes to human life, biology does not discriminate between a single human cell and an entire human organism because an organism is basically a clump of cells. What gives us the right to life is our brain, as that is where our "soul" or "personhood" lies. Our kidneys don't have the right to life just because it is alive and human since kidneys can't possess personhood. Conjoined twins are two separate human "souls" despite having one body because they possess two minds. Our gamete cells don't have the right to life. So when a sperm and egg becomes an embryo, it does not have the right to life yet because its brain has not developed to the point of sentience. Once its brain has developed enough to the point of sentience (around the fetus stage), that's when it gets personhood and the right to life.
Yeah. The fact that she is a biologist is so horrifying… if that employer/university she works at sees this, they should re-evaluate if they want to employ her😮
@Bitch D No one said it did, thosenwould be live cell that originated from someone who is now deceased. No one has ever claimed that they were human, the same way you finger isnt a separate human if i cut it off. They are conjoined... Its in the name. How are twins sharing the same dna any less human?
@chadwellington2524 can you kill a 1 month old? If they're going to suffer, bc from a developmental standpoint, there isn't much difference between a 39 weeker and a 1 month old Define suffering. That's subjective. You might look at someone with no legs and think they're suffering, but they might lead a perfectly content and fulfilled life.
@Erika Oliver this guy thinks he's being noble. "I'm a good person, I kill things to end their perceived suffering that I imagine in my head" This whole "ending suffering" argument is a might makes right argument. I'm bigger and stronger and I can speak, and you can't, and I've determined you will suffer if you love. And since I'm such a good person, I don't let people suffer, GOODBYE NOW.
This is difficult stuff. Good to keep the discussion going. I use to be strong against in all cases. Now I really don’t know. But I do know we need to listen to each other.
@@bradspringer2372, do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments? "F.I.S.H", Ch. 12: There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets). When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women. Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent. To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field. 🐟
@@chadwellington2524 thats the age when the critical thinking limits set in (not all humans reach the same level of consciousness) - at a university these will probably be substantially more advanced than what your familiar with so its a great idea
@@JC3335 You clearly have not met any 19 year olds on a university campus in 2015-2023. They severely lack critical thinking skills. Also, there is a difference between "your" and "you're" and "its" and "it's". I would tell you what the difference, but looking it up on your own would be a better way of learning. Having university kids in the West discussing this topic would be a terrible waste of time. They would all be on strongly agree (unless you found the rare, non-tiktok watching intelligent kid) and be screaming all the tiresome slogans and hating religion.
Great content! I believe there was a little gaslighting going on there, however. Referring to the "set of human DNA that will become a human", the biologist says “the male contribution is the full set”. That's easily debunked.
@@f8888gkcfyfgjfjhgjfcju The man was arguing that a sperm is not a human being because it does not have the complete set of the child's DNA. I'm assuming what the woman was trying to say is that the male contribution (i.e., the sperm) contains a full set of DNA. Of course, this is the father's DNA, not the child's, which is the gaslight. The way she worded it though, it sounds like she's trying to suggest that the sperm is the only contribution to the child's DNA.
Hi Christopher, I do believe there is a difference between gaslighting and being incorrect in your assertions. Therefore i would suggest the woman was mistaken in her belief, rather than knowingly putting forward an incorrect assertion.
@@ultimatejul agreed, there is a difference. I'd say it's gaslighting when you know what you're saying is misleading. Otherwise, yes, it would simply be being incorrect in her assertions. However, given her education, I'd argue that she would (or at least, should) know that what she's saying is misleading.
Really interesting discussion! The participants were way more logical and thoughtful than I was expecting. I suspect that may have to do with it taking place in an Eastern European country vs western? I’m always impressed by people willing to debate hot topics in their non native language. Good job everyone.
I see many people in the "when does life begin?" debate use the 'consciousness' reasoning. The problem is that 'consciousness' is quite an abstract concept. We do not understand the nature of consciousness and have no concrete way of measuring or identifying it; especially since the only state of consciousness that any live person is truly aware of is the waking consciousness of their own life. To reason that 'consciousness' is what makes a person we would have to define what exactly 'consciousness' is and we would need evidence that our agreed upon definition is reliable and valid. For instance, here are a few questions that we would need to answer. Is brain activity the definition of 'consciousness'? How do we know for sure a person without brain activity has no 'consciousness'? Do you even need a brain to have consciousness or can organisms without brains have 'consciousness'? Is 'consciousness' distinctly human? Beyond that, the conversation surrounding consciousness becomes significantly more spiritual and philosophical; therefore, I think the 'consciousness' reasoning is just about as abstract or spiritual as the questions it seeks to answer: 'when does life begin?' and 'when does life end?'.
Yes "consciousness" is an irrelevant concept. Humanity doesn't even have an understanding about what that word means, and we have no way to verify or deny the consciousness of another lifeform. "when does life begin?" however is a much more cut and dry question, it may not be solved, but it's at least an approachable question. We can say for instance that every man with fertile sperm is definitively not several billion individuals because each sperm is not an individual life.
I've been fortunate enough to know many wonderful people in my life and that includes some people with disabilities including some with Down's Syndrome as well as many other disabilities. The idea that their life is somehow less worthy than someone without a disability is frankly disgusting. Rarely do I pick a hill to die on but this is one time that I will. A disabled person is not any less of a person and their life is not any less valuable.
My sister had severe Down syndrome and never developed enough of a vocabulary to have a conversation. She was able to say a very few words so that she could say that she wanted food, water, or to go to the bathroom. We loved her and took good care of her until she died at the age of 58. However, I was so very sorry that she had to live that life. If I had any idea a child of mine would be born that way, I would definitely opt for an abortion.
One of if not the best discussion regarding any subject I’ve listened to and helped with some of my thoughts in the subject, but they should also do a little better at describing DNA vs chromosomes. Well done though.
As ever I enjoyed the discussion playing out - and the format does seem to encourage a bit more two way dialogue in the participants somehow. Glad the bloke in orange got his last point in as a response about the sperm and conception, as I was thinking that too: although I was then interested in knowing how the biologist lady would have responded, but that didn’t happen.
I just found out today my baby will be a girl. This is about as far along as the last pregnancy when i found out I was having my first son. He's awesome. The light of my life. The reason to exist. The argument that " doctors make mistakes when determining the gender/sex of kids dosen't hold any water to me" Its a human life from the moment of conception. She's going to depend on a woman, her mother, to do the rest of mother nature's work until she arrives. Then the rest of us will pass the torch of knowledge.
The biggest question is when does the father get a say I’m 25 and have no kids yet but I’ll be damned if I helped make a child and get no say of anything before he or she is born. It’s nuts to think that the father is completely left out and Is thrown to the side until you are financially needed .
I had no say when I was 20. I'm 29 now and will live with this for the rest of my life. I'm no longer the same person I was before it happened. Totally agree with you, we need change
Like most abortion advocates, the biologist lady keeps arguing the exception rather than the rule. But regardless, life begins at conception. Love how the 'biologist' keeps avoiding the difficult questions, and who gets to decide what is an acceptable 'quality of life'? But I'm sure she would deflect that question, too
I just discovered your channel and have been loving your videos. I'm a Computer Scientist, Philosopher, and Logician so always love having these sort of conversations. I came up with an interesting hypothetical scenario which I would very much like to see you bring up in similar conversations to this. So a lot of people bring up the argument of abortion being moral when the fetus will somehow negatively effect the future livelihood of the mother. My question chain is: "Consider if you were born with a siamese twin in whom has a different head & brain (though underdeveloped) but is not in control of the rest of the body (you however are). Also assume there is some surgery which would safely and entirely be able to remove the twin from your body and be able to make you look completely normal. Thirdly the twin is severely intellectually and mentally impaired but you are not. As such, having this twin would make your life far harder than if you didnt in the vast majority of cases and thus would force the unwilling you to give up any chance of being normal (maybe every ruin your life). With this considered, 1. would it be morally acceptable or condemnable to have the surgery mentioned before at any given age in order to prevent having to live like that and dealing with far more suffering than if not getting it? 2. Would it be more morally acceptable to do such a procedure at a younger age than, say, in adulthood? 3. Because the twin is underdeveloped and in a sort of fetal state, does that make it's life less valuable / does that make not alive?
It's not about being "alive" or human tissue. Personhood is the criteria for the most moral concern. Why should a non-person human lifeform have rights that overrule the rights of a living person---the mother?
I'd throw in another question. What if the fetus was diagnosed with a condition that is incompatible with life outside the uterus? I am a retired Obstetrician, and I've seen this a few times in my career. There are situations where usually these infants die in the delivery room, and at most live for a few hours. Should the mother be required to carry that fetus to term, knowing that it will die shortly after birth despite the best neonatal care? My personal answer is that the choice is up to the mother, and I've had patients want to deliver immediately and some who felt that any life is valuable and carried the pregnancy to term. Then it gets more complicated--these fetuses are "fragile" in that they are more likely to experience fetal distress in labor. Do you perform a c-section, which is major surgery and has implications for future pregnancies to "save" a child who will live a most a few hours? If she chooses to carry the pregnancy, should heroic attempts be made in the NICU or should the baby be wrapped and the parents allowed to hold him/her as long as they wish? I pose these questions not because there is a right or wrong answer, but because the questions "in the field" are a lot more complicated than the lawmakers might have us believe.
Apologies for commenting; I'm not a medical professional. I've often seen the argument that any parents in that position, with no exception, would choose abortion; some even argue it's selfish of them not to do so as soon as they get the news. I find it implausible. If the child is going to die, would it necessarily give the parents any comfort for that death to be gruesome? Personally, I don't think parents should be judged in this very difficult situation, regardless of the choice they make.
@@windycityliz7711 The question existed even if the practice did not, and it was a good question to ask to test how ethically coherent her moral philosophy was.
@@wadetisthammer3612 Exactly. It was meant to illuminate the operative principle that distinguishes acceptable killing of unborn humans from unacceptable killing of born humans.
People in Budapest are pretty based and logical. The older woman moved along the statistical line, disliking abortion as the life progressed. Her argument is wrong about sperm, though. Sperm will die without conception, yet she claims to be a biologist. She is either ignorant or creating a false argument to further an emotional view.
@@JC3335 a living organism is defined as : "a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis." Sperm do not meet the last 4 of those criteria.
@@erikaoliver2591 one definition indeed Erika. But anything that maintains virility can be regarded as living until denatured... some viruses may not meet your criteria for example. Its a matter of perspective on the complexity of chemical sustainability depending on the environment - humans in deep freeze die and cannot survive but sperm can - and as everyone knows "Every sperm is sacred..."
The lady completely deflected the young man’s question about “What’s the difference between a terrible illness after birth and before?” She just asked “what about sperm?” And nobody ever addressed his reasonable question again.
If you want an absurd, dishonest conversation, talk to a pro-abortion advocate. Direct answers are seldom a thing with these people. Whataboutism, shaming, calling you names (forced birther etc), are par for the course. She is far more civil than the types on Twitter, but equally dishonest.
Yeah... her position was pretty strange, if the illness is not life threatening to either the mother or Fetus, then it would be immoral to end that life. The Lady did a poor job at defending abortion rights imo.
What it comes down to is sentience. When is the baby's brain developed enough to facilitate a conscious experience? The "Life begins at contraception" argument is not very convincing as it would lead to logical absurdities when applied to other things. For example: A lump of dough = A loaf of bread. An unmixed solute and solvent = A solution. Egg = Chicken A collection of building materials = A house A seed = A plant Does killing a couple that plan to have 10 kids (100% certainty) = killing 12 people? And so on. This argument also cannot distinguish a dead person from an alive person. To illustrate this point, what body part contains the "self"?
@@EasyAL_YT I apologise for generalising; I'd never come across someone with your position, who refers to themselves as pro-choice/pro-abortion. Most pro-life people, if not all, understand medical emergencies. I'm used to dialogues with people who think there should be no restrictions on abortion, the whole 9 months.
Wow, these people give me hope in humanity. Especially that girl, she is charming, beautiful and very smart, all of which are pretty rare today unfortunately. Maybe all hope is not lost yet
Once like half of them said that life begins at conception, there was pretty much no room left for discussion. At least the guy with the glasses posed some somewhat interesting questions. Should've done more with that or changed to a different question imo. The whole 'third trimester' question is also such an American question. No one who knows what that means from outside the US agrees with that -- outside of some very specific cases (e.g. severe medical complications where the mother could die).
But dont fetuses start to have thoughts around that time? the real question is whether the fetus is conscious? does it lose anything if aborted? does it have any memories or something to lose?
@@chadwellington2524 how does the processing unit have thoughts with minimal function, experience and no language? This is the existential challenge in AI as well when AI and indeed most animals are already well more advanced - but we eat them....
@chadwellington2524 consciousness? What do you mean? You're not conscious if they put you out for surgery, morally acceptable to kill you, then? If serial killer sedated you before they kill you, you're not conscious. Ok to kill then?
@chadwellington2524 also, we don't know when fetuses start to have "thoughts". They have the capacity to engage with external stimuli, respond to pain, light, sound, from early in second trimester. I'm a NICU nurse, they have stress responses as early as I've ever taken care of them, which is 21- 22 weeks.
Abortions in the 3rd trimester are not necessary. If it’s a true emergency, the baby is DELIVERED to save the mother. Nobody has time to wait for the abortion process in that emergency. That is always a talking point from ignorance. To kill at baby at that point, when it could be at least be given care, even if that means care to the dying, is inhumane and murder imo.
ปีที่แล้ว +3
Only five subjects - three male and only two female. Interesting choice. Why when women are disproprotionally, overwhelmingly more affected by the choice than men? How would men feel if we, women, made decisions regarding their reproduction rights? Deciding whether they should father children or not, and with whom? Like girls and and women who are raped are often forced to bear the child. To be clear, I'm not giving a statement on what I personally believe, or would do, and under which circumstances, just questioning why is it that men think they have the right to influence a woman's reproductive choices? Only the father could have an input, under certain circumstances, but not the right to make the final decision - that should be the woman's purview solely. Society should not meddle, only offer options with full explanations of consequences of each option. The woman should ultimately decide, and she should be supported. Also, as a Biologist, I sincerely do believe high school children should be educated in safe sexual practices. In countries where they're educated, there's way less abortion. Abortion should really be a last resort, but always an option, especially in the first trimester. After the first trimester, only special circumstances really justify it - child is deformed, unlikely to survive; or the mother's health is endangered. Eh, I guess, I did give my opinion on abortion, at least partially. :)
Ok, a little off topic, but I am very impressed with how sharp everybody looks. Is this just the norm in Hungary? And, OH MY GOD, that Hungarian girl is just gorgeous! I'm not moving there, but it's tempting.
Modern female biologists are mostly just feminists, not scientists. They use their position to pretend science is on their side. "I'm a biologist, so whatever I say is true in science."
The guy that said 1 life equals all lives…. what about the mother’s life? Does her life not count if the pregnancy can lead to her death or some major health issues? What about if the woman becomes pregnant after being rpd and she doesn’t want to have that permanent reminder growing inside of her and she suffers from severe depression or other mental issues due to that traumatic event? She could potentially choose to end her life because society forced her to have the baby she never wanted to begin with. There are so many nuances. One simply can’t firmly disagree with the woman’s choice, we can’t deny women the right to make their own decision when they are the ones who have to grow another human in their own womb.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, making a human life is a human choice and should be left to the stakeholder; unless viable outside the womb, or previously consented to (it should be a permanent decision once made, one cannot declare a life and then say never mind after all).
Yes woman who were rpd and become pregnant should be able to abort.. a fetus has no memories, nothing to really lose if aborted/killed.. also another thought, everyone says life is so important for every fetus or person, but is it really? Their are like 8 billion of us, does 1 person really matter? That sounds dark but honestly, whats even the point of life? most people arent going to change the world for the better or do anyting amazing, we are just surviving. Why do we need birth rate going up or staying the same? so we can produce for the economy? Im trying to find a purpose for life
A woman who has been raped should have a choice up until a point. If you've been raped, carry the child to term, deliver, then change your mind, can you kill it? No. Guess what? Developmentally, it's not any different than it was at 39 weeks gestation. There's nothing magical about the tissue that separates a baby in the womb in the third trimester from the outside world. Most of what they do in the third trimester is gain weight. And for much of the second trimester, everything developed. It's just maturing. I'm sorry, it's just too late after a point. We just need to decide what's a reasonable cut-off.
Being that abortion literally means an emptying of the uterus, you can not "abort after birth." This shouldn't be a debate. It should simply be between a woman and whoever she cares to involve. If medical care is necessary, it is between her and her doctor and whatever their protocol, according to evidence based data.
Did the woman create the new human asexually? No. So how can it be only about her? This privilige to murder that we award women just because they happen to be the sex carrying the new human is ridiculous. For me it is simple. Any woman who ends up in a situation where they think murder is the solution is to be sterilized. End of story. She should not ever have to worry about having to have an abortion ever again.
Brilliant approach, keeping it unbiased and encouraging open exploration of perspectives! I will say, I was wondering if anyone was going to call that biologist on her false assertion that a sperm contains all that is required for a human being. I'm glad that other guy finally did. (her statement is why "argument by authority" is extremely dangerous)
Great discussion and thought experiment. I'm fascinated how both sides were confident enough in their initial positions without having to insert ad hominem or claim a moral superiority. Another point I found fascinating is the argument that if a baby has a chronic or a life shortening disease such as Cystic Fibrosis, that it is a basis to terminate. We all can be sure of death and taxes. Quality of life is a slippery slope of a position to take as well. I would have enjoyed a longer video =)
My mother had a baby sister for I believe some four days. Like most of their generation my grandparents never talked about her or any of their other troubles including their experiences during the great war. Myself I can't even imagine the pain it must have given them to lose a child like that and I praise medical progress that allows people today maybe not to save the child's life but the pain to have to say farewell to a child that you have been able to hold and cuddle only for such a short time. It makes me cry that today there are people that like to have laws instated that force people to endure such pain for no other reason than to prove how morally right they themselves are. Honestly I don't care what other people like to believe, I just wish that they would stop wanting to tell other people how to live their lives. Why do people even do that? Is it because they are so indulged by their own happiness or is it because they seek distraction for their own problems?
Im sorry for your mother's loss. I hope they hugged and loved that baby to the fullest the 4 days of life they had on this earth. I cannot imagine the pain of outliving my children. However, I would never suggest killing a child so they or I wouldn't suffer. The reason people stand against early termination is because the unborn are unable to stand for themselves. It's interesting that you mentioned you dont like people telling others how to live their lives, but it's exactly what you are doing. So, is anyone right?
@@almondbutter9634 Haha! That's priceless. Me wishing people to stop telling other people how to live is telling them how they should live... On the raised topic, my mother was a toddler herself at the time so she doesn't really have much of a memory of her baby sister. Since my grandparents never talked about it I also can't tell whether the kid experienced and/or showed happiness during those days or simply only endured pain which may have already started when she was still in the womb. Her birth may thus have been a blessing which seems apparent you like to believe, but was most likely a curse to especially herself. The trouble here is that if you like to create a law it has to be generic to be able to enforce it and that makes it impossible to consider tragic cases like this. Therefore I hope that common sense prevails but as it stands the extremist view seems to have the upper hand in at least most of the US states.
I agree. Who is the arbiter that gets to decide what constitutes quality of life? What about contributions that individuals make, even while suffering at times? I have a dear friend with 4 adopted children, each with various physical and mental disabilities ranging from the mild (dyslexia, for example), to Down syndrome, and a non-verbal low-functioning child. They live joyful lives together in their family, and deal with very real issues with grace and practicality. The “quality of life” argument essentially asserts that they would be better off dead. To my mind, there is a huge culture problem surrounding this issue, which makes it hard for people to look at it logically.
@@WhoStoleMyAlias, one issue that I take is that the tests they do during pregnancy have a fairly high “false positive” rate. Many parents have been told their child has a chance of one medical problem or another and then it doesn’t materialize to the extent they were told (or even at all). So there are sometimes perfectly healthy babies being aborted out of fear. No matter how we try, there is no avoiding pain in life. It finds us all one way or another, and I think the best we can do is love and support each other when it comes.
12:20 - Conception is the creation of new DNA that is literally unique in the entire Universe. Even twins do not have exact DNA, they have on avg 5.4 different genes.
She just invalidated all her argument by saying " I am àa biologist " that is the equivalent of saying: I just know more then everybody on that subject.
I need YT to stop posting these obnoxious "abortion health information" disclaimers. "Abortion health" is an oxymoron. It's like calling rape "sex therapy."
Absolutely not. An abortion is a medical procedure with the intentional purpose of ENDING a human pregnancy. By definition, if you end the life of a baby that has already been birthed, you are committing murder, which by definition, is the slaying of a human being, by another human being.
no, it's called infanticide. this is an ancient evil practice (sacrificing infants to Moloch) that needs to be stamped out of humanity once and for all
I live in Croatia and we can legaly have an abortion untill the end of 1.trimester. I was pregnant, wanted a baby but at 5th month we descovered that only a third of a brain was developed. I decided to end the pregnancy. It was very difficult decision but I thought at that time that life without a functional brain has no sense. Later, because that event made me more wise, I chanched my opinion about it. If I would know all of the staff before.... but I didn't...I would go trough the pregnancy but I would not allow doctors to operate child's head in order to do some practicing(because they could not grow the brain) and allowed this soul to come to a buman reincarnation, live shortly and continue the journey with less possible trauma. I didn't know something I know now
It would be interesting if the life of the mother was posited to the disagree folks, also when it’s known that the baby will not survive or only live minutes after birth. Conditions like downs or CF weren’t good bc ppl can live meaningful lives w/those conditions, though difficult.
I wonder if we can establish an objective definition of "meaningful life". Downs for example - what you are shown on TV are the top 20%; the bottom 40% are much less fortunate.
If the life of the mother is at risk, the solution is early delivery, not waiting around until the child has been killed before pulling it out in pieces.
@@dafunkmonster If the child is wanted but the mother's life is at risk it does not occur to you that every effort is made? But while medical science is doing more and more. the sad fact is there is a reason birth does not normally take place before 9 months and there is a limit to a when a baby can survive an early birth. It must be beyond devastating to be pregnant, wanting the child, but having to go through with a non optional abortion.
Maybe a sign of the low bar set by current social justice trends, but I should recognize the more pro choice woman for two reasons. For one, she did not simply throw up the women's rights shield. And two, she did not discredit the character of her opponents by suggesting that pro lifers simply want to subjugate women into the roll of birthers.
@@Alnivol666 Only in the sense that she may have tried to invoke some sort of authority from it. She just used a bad tactic instead of just saying what she thought. She tried to lure the guy into taking an extreme position and say that birth control should be banned. She seemed to be trying to get him to look like a radical, but her tactic got her into trouble when she said that a sperm has the same value as a fertilized ovum because in the next round she said first trimester abortions should be perfectly justifiable. If she already screwed up trying to hang the dude for an extreme belief that he doesn't actually hold, then she should at least be consistent and say all abortion is equally bad regardless of trimester because of the value of the sperm. All in all, she is a terrible debater, and is the portrait of tribal politics because she doesn't have a shred of reasoning ability. In truth though, it doesn't mean she's necessarily a bad biologist. She just tried to use her credentials to try to tell us when we ought to think life begins, which was not wise. By the looks of it, she was a professor though (was this on a campus?). This would be a major red flag for those who don't already know the pitiful state the universities are in. But those people only watch CNN and MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times... NPR!!!
The biologist admitting that it's a human being, and then stating that it's a question of consciousness is fascinating. I think that she would say we shouldn't deliberately kill those who are sleeping, or in a coma
It’s not consciousness, really. It’s memories. Your personality arises from memories of experiences. I mean the personality in the sense of the state of being a person.
@des757 no. If you're not directly willing the death of someone by turning off life support, I have no objection. The acceptance of the inability to impede natural death is acceptable.
@@lellamas2778 If a human could be grown up from cells to baby in a machine would that be okay with you? Lots of people have artificial hearts and such that keeping them alive, should they be valued less than people who live naturally? Why does the "natural" part matter to you? Why do we value human life over other animal lives? What matters isn't how you live, its how you think. Consciousness is what we really value.
Where was the question about the conception of a living parrot rather than a human? We know they are more advanced and more conscious than we are so by definition for those holding the special argument should have greater priority. Yet I am sure they eat eggs...
Well first off parrots aren't human... I think it should be pretty obvious, but apparently not, they are not entitled to Human Rights. Secondly I don't know of many people who eat parrot eggs BUT what if we require people to eat the aborted fetus if they want to have one? I rather like that idea. Let's see you put your money (or in this case dead baby) where your mouth is if you honestly believe they're not human what's the big deal?
@@gusmc2220 What does it matter if they are not human/ They have more efficient brains and have consciousness - some would argue they are superior. The studies (search the web if you like) have been done on parrots but the network distribution of the brain applies to all birds. Eating chicken egss is thus immoral if morality is not human-centered. And it if is then there is nothing rational about the arguments some are using at all...
@@gusmc2220 certainly if you eat eggs you should have no problem eating discarded or farmed foetus... provided the law permits it... (law doesn't have to be moral). By all means go ahead...
Perhaps it’s partly about the way the young woman looks. But I think it’s more about the fact that she seems to be an unusually charming human. But we digress …….
![[안방1열 풀캠4K] 베이비몬스터 'DRIP' (BABYMONSTER FullCam)│@SBS Inkigayo 241110](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AQ4RIghEvUs/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow, there are a lot of thoughtful comments on this video! I urge you to share this with those around you, as it's a great example of how civil a conversation can be even when the topic is hotly debated.
You are urged to become VEGAN, since carnism (the destructive ideology that supports the use and consumption of animal products, especially for “food”) is arguably the foremost existential crisis.🌱
Peter, these discussions are amazing! It's so pleasant to see normal, thoughtful discourse online that isn't screechy and fanatical! It's like when I m hosting a dinner party, but online! (My friends are of staggeringly diverse opinions, but very thoughtful, and lenient about other people's opinion). Such a joy to watch, thank you so much for putting these up!!
I would have to slightly disagree with you about this being a civil conversation. It is most certainly MORE civil than woke lunatics screaming and having no capacity to listen. BUT the "biologist" lady showed definite signs of NOT discussing with others in good faith. When you DON'T answer questions posed to you, particularly those questions which are exposing your positions in true light - you are not being civil. You are DERAILING the logical flow of arguments in order to avoid EXPOSED consequences of your positions.
She "answered" a question posed to her with asking a different question. And she did it twice: at 2:27 and 7:25. Both times it was just a deflection. She didn't add a nuance to the question posed to her. She was asked about a (I'll call it the way she would call it) collection of cells that without outside destructive interference would result in a born unique human being - as that human being is uniquely genetically defined as soon as crossing over is finished and their genome is SET. Both times she deflected to a question about sperm which she, as a supposed biologist, should know is not a living being, because if a sperm was left without outside interference it would NOT grow into a new born being. Also looking just at the genes that a sperm contains NO ONE can tell you what will the genome be of a possible baby EVEN if they knew the genome of the mother. Crossing over is the reason for that and it's the wild card for sexual reproduction (as opposed to let's say vegetative reproduction).
Refusing to concede the points made by the opposing side IS NOT part of a genuine discussion.
@@milakuzmanic3313, respected British anthropology professor, Dr. Edward Dutton, has demonstrated that “LEFTISM” is due to genetic mutations caused by poor breeding strategies.
🤡
To put it simply, in recent decades, those persons who exhibit leftist traits such as egalitarianism, feminism, gynocentrism, socialism, multiculturalism, transvestism, homosexuality, perverse morality, and laziness, have been reproducing at rates far exceeding the previous norm, leading to an explosion of insane, narcissistic SOCIOPATHS in (mostly) Western societies.
@@milakuzmanic3313 yeh, true, fair points. I think my expectations have become quite low.
My mom was raped, but decided not judge me for it. She gave birth to me and im so glad and so thankful she allowed me to live. She did not hold me accountable for the brutal attitude of my biological father.
Miriam
That was your mother's choice. Other women would have the right to make a different choice. What was right for your mother might not be right for all other women!!
If you chill by a lake and soak jn the beauty of nature, the bliss, the sunset...the frongs and the birds singing, is life less astonishing because of lack of parenting? Thats always my feeling...
Did she have the option to have abortion? Does your existence reminds her daily of the awful experience she went through, I no mean to be rude but it's something I'm interested in knowing how she and women who goes through such experience go through?
My adopted half sister was also a product of rape. Its so offensive when people try to devalue her life. Shes really happy and healthy
@@nadpay2409 yes she did have the option many times. Her whole family and friends turned the back to her bc they thought it was her fault, only yrs later they found out it was rape. But she allowed God to heal her heart. I have never felt rejection from my mom bc of what happened to her and nor thru my relatives. She wanted to be free from her pain, and she was. She said she felt God carrying her thru this pain. She decided to forgive and to love on me bc she understood my life was more important than carrying on unforgiveness. Her pain didn't stopped her to love and respect this little human being. She understood that she was the only one who could give me a voice. She exposed her pain to Jesus and he healed her. She got reunited with her whole family again right after my birth. Forgiveness is powerful, it really healed us. Im forever thankful to my mom for keeping me alive. Of course what happened to her was not from God, but He transformed the pain into something very beautiful: our mom and daughter relationship. I don't know Jesus bc i heard about Him, but I know Him bc we have been walking together. He healed our hearts and we have peace. Unforgiveness is like drinking something poisoning and expecting somebody else to die from it. What my biological father did to my mom, is something that he will have to answer to God and justice.
Wow these people are way more rational and level-headed than the usual participants.
Not American, is why
Lack of diversity is their strength.
Because none of them have green/blue hair
Because they are not Americans
@@miketexas4549That definitely helps 😂
I am genuinely shocked, I was expecting everyone to move to agree. I got goosebumps when the majority disagreed and said life begins at conception ❤
Me too. I think he did this same topic at a college campus and the results were different
@@GreatGazoo8 hmmm education or simply exposure to wider viewpoints?
@@JC3335 different cultural norms, I suspect. None of the people in this video seem uneducated.
Cultural norms reflect exposure to other viewpoints... a good university provides, or used to, that exposure beyond a local culture which is why the percentage of alternative views is typically much higher on campuses
@@JC3335 I agree with your insight. It was refreshing to hear a balanced take!
The older woman who claimed to be a biologist stated that the male sperm "contains the full set" in her argument of the equivalency of a sperm to a full human. I understand her to be saying that it contains the full chromosomal load - or all the genetics - which makes the sperm the potential "full" human.
This is in error. Both gametes (the egg and the sperm) contain half of the chromosomes that spark the beginning of life. As such, they are a cell (like a blood or a skin cell (yes, they are more specialized but this is true)). There is only one egg while there may be 300 million sperm involved in a human fertilization. Fertilization does not end in a genocide of 299,999,999 dead humans but rather in the beginning of one human.
My rant: These purported "scientists" (such as her claim of authority in being a biologist) who routinely skew the truth in order to score a point is why Americans no longer trust science. Not because the science is wrong but the analysis and claims being made are not supported by the science but only the human frailty of the mind of the scientist.
The biologist is an embarassment. Her claim that the sperm is the "FULL SET" should disqualify her from being a biologist.
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾💯🎯
This also suck out to me and I was going to comment on very similar lines.
I have heard this argument before of people trying to say an egg and sperm separate are also human.
She is full of shit. A gamete in humans is only half the information.
Yes! The "biologist" asked a couple of questions that suggested what she thought her opposition's views were: the condom and the sperm questions both were "gotcha" questions to discredit her opposition, so it was genuinely surprising when she (at minimum) half-adopted the incorrect claim (that was not made by her present opposition) regarding the consideration of sperm as "life."
14 years ago the doctor told my wife she was stupid to be pregnant because there is a small statistical risk the baby would be a dwarf. As if life should be 100% without risk. That is not how it works doc. The "dwarf" is 13 years old now 6 foot tall, best student in class, plays basketball. Has a fine sister and a bigger brother.
Your dwarf offspring also suffers from gigantism? What horrible luck. Blessings to you and your family, loving and raising that poor, afflicted child.
Giant dwarf syndrome, no mercy for that poor child. Lol
well, sure, a small risk shouldn't keep you from having sex and kids.
a high risk for severe disability would be worth considering being more careful, but no sex? (would even consider birth control, before not having sex and i'm really against it but also woulnd't wish a disability or having to raise a kid with disability on someone)
@@alastairatcheson1407 hahaha
Has a fine sister? 🤨
That guy in orange is incredibly sharp. You can tell how intelligent someone truly is by how well they can articulate their thoughts. Impressive guy. I’d love to listen to a podcast with him on it.
and by the sweaters they wear 😊
Guy in the orange is narrow.
A blastocyst is a potential human life. Yet it is undifferentiated and we not know which cells will become a placenta and which a fetus. If we biopsy to check for ailments, the cell removed could potentially become an identical twin. Following the reductionist argument of the non-biologists, there would be no ethical to perform biopsies on embryos, nor any ethical way to engage in in-vitro fertilization methods.
This is why the biologist is correct. "Consciousness" may be the wrong idea, legally, but personhood is the key concept.
Moreover, the people wouldn't even grant 3rd trimester in the case of the life of the mother being at stake shows that they are absolutists. At least the one guys admits it.
Personhood is an emergent property. Until the actual circumstances exist for the emergence of that, why would the rights of a potential person overrule the rights of an existing person?
They are not native english speaker, so you cannot judge them this way. One may be far more intelligent yet lack the knowledge to articulate himself in a language he hasn't fully learned yet.
If they were speaking in their native language, then it would make more sense.
At the extreme, someone who knows 100 words of English but is a genious will articulate his thought far worse than me who isn't a genious but has learned English to a more advanced degree.
@@kuhaku9587 I see you took this personally, and I don’t care lol
It wasn’t the words that he used, it was the form of them. He presented his arguments in a way that required deeper thought and in a philosophical format.
@@SavageElites His points were as superficial as you can make them. His moral decisions are manipulated by the language that he uses, just because we use the same world "human" for embryo, and and a developed human it doesn't make them the same thing or equal.
And the argument about no new DNA makes no sense either, why would that give moral considerations, should it be a lesser crime to kill a twin? After all the human with this unique DNA is still alive so what is wrong with that? Also what if somebody would clone himself, that isn't a new human life because it doesn't have new unique DNA?
My daughter has trisomy 18. She is 22 years old. Despite the medical issues that are present in her condition, under my care, her quality of life is pretty darn good. She is loved by her family and free from the follies of an otherwise “normal” human intellect.
I have a child with spina bifida. The pressure we got to let her die was shocking. She is happy and mostly healthy and is not suffering. People can be so cruel.
My wife is in the OB field and she recently saw a patient who had a botched ultrasound and then found out at 22 weeks that the baby had Down Syndrome. She wants to terminate but 20 weeks is the cutoff in my state. I know parenting a child with special needs is a huge undertaking, but it just feels wrong to even think about abortion if you have the means to take care of this innocent person. I thank God there are parents like you out there.
@@vagabond197979 In my time with my child in the NICU I saw many babies be abandoned at birth because they were born with problems. They always got adopted quickly. There is a waiting list to adopt babies, even disabled ones.
Oh my! My sister had trisomy 18 as well, she too would've been 22 this year. She passed away at 5 months though. So glad to hear you still have your daughter with you
@@SW-se5ru I'm sorry for your loss.
Peter, your content is always gold
It is beautiful to see young people holding healthy and strong moral positions who value life's holiness.
It’s Hungary 🇭🇺 ✝️ a Christian catholic nation that values life and preserves motherhood
Oh now I have to clean vomit off my desk. Thanks.
The old lady is clueless.
not everyone is religious or believes in "holiness" at all
So you think as soon as two cells, a sperm and an egg, fuse into one cell you have a human?
The difference between these discussion games conducted in other parts of the world and in an American campus is astounding!!
I was an early bird, born the second trimester at 25 weeks. 6 months or so. Here I am, functioning like everyone else who was born on time. A human life starts at conception and is the same human life all the way up until birth and beyond. It is just a difference in growth. Both a baby and a 90 year old are humans, and both are equally valuable.
Nobody cares when a human life starts. People care when a human life starts to possess value. You aren't making any logical engagement with the other sides viewpoint at all.
@@Elrog3 "People care when a human life starts to possess value."
If the value of a human life is entirely subjective, then you can't ever make an objective moral argument against murder.
@@dafunkmonster Well you could argue it, it would just be a faulty argument.
Why do you think it is necessary to make an objective moral argument against murder? Do you think one person believing that their morals are objective makes their argument any more convincing to another person with different morals? You are stuck in the same boat trying to convince other people regardless.
@@Elrog3 how much value? 5 dollars?
@@JC3335 Depends on who you ask I would guess. That's a good question which highlights how much grey area there is on the subject. Fortunately for me, I don't value things based on intrinsic traits so I can sidestep the entire dilemma.
Ok, different options but everyone was so civil!! No shouting, snarky comments, or demanding validation! This can’t be Ameri…oh no, wait!!…. It isn’t. Lol
Yup
For real
Honestly nice to just see thoughtful dialog with mutual respect and no screaming.
The "biologist" should know that sperm are gametes and only contain HALF...HALF (23) of the chromosomes necessary to make a human. The other half come from the egg. This was an epic fail and a prime example of why 'Appeal to Authority' exists in the list of logical fallacies. I applaud her for still giving it an effort though.
True even if she is a plant biologist.
Every sperm is sacred
sex:
the state of being either male or female in most species of metazoans. In humans, each cell nucleus contains 23 pairs of chromosomes, a total of 46 chromosomes. The first 22 pairs are called autosomes. Autosomes are homologous chromosomes, that is, chromosomes that contain the same genes (regions of DNA) in the same order along their chromosomal arms. The 23rd pair of chromosomes are called allosomes (sex chromosomes). These consist of two X chromosomes in most all females, and an X chromosome and a Y chromosome in most all males. Females, therefore, have 23 homologous chromosome pairs, while males have 22. The X and Y chromosomes have small regions of homology called pseudoautosomal regions. The X chromosome is always present as the 23rd chromosome in the ovum, while either an X or Y chromosome may be present in an individual spermatozoon cell gamete.
An extremely minute percentage of humans are either (anatomical) hermaphrodites or of indeterminate sex (or to be more accurate, disordered sex). That does not negate the incontrovertible FACT that there are but two sexes/genders. In order for reproduction to take place, there is the requirement of a female ovum and a male sperm to unite, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division of most species of animals is to enable procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the individual in question. There is no third gamete. Cf. “gender”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
If the reader is curious to know the reason for this term being included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because, in recent times, LEFTISTS have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the words “sex” and “gender”, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, immoral ideologies, especially by promoting the nonsensical idea that a person is able to transition from one gender to the other.
gender:
the status of being either male or female, and because the entire purpose of the gender/sex division in most species of animal life is to facilitate procreation, the sexual identity of an individual is best classified according to the gametes produced by the person in question. There is no extant third gamete. An extremely minute percentage of humans are either “intersex” (typically referring to those who are anatomical hermaphrodites) or of indeterminate gender (that is, not easily determined by a cursory inspection of the external genitalia), but that does not negate the incontrovertible scientific fact that there are only two genders. As far as we know, there has never existed a single human being with the ability to BOTH conceive a child in his/her womb and, simultaneously, successfully inseminate a woman (or in more disturbing terms, for a hermaphrodite to inseminate him/herself). And even if such an individual has existed, that person would be a combination of BOTH male and female, and not some imaginary, novel third gender.
Cf. “sex”. Both terms (“gender” and “sex”) originate from Latin words: “genus” (meaning “begin”; “birth”; “kind”; “race”; “gender”) and “sexus” (meaning “sex”; “division”; “gender”).
So, essentially, the only significant distinction between the two terms is that the etymology of “gender” pertains to the beginning of things, as can be plainly seen by the other English words that originate from "genus", such as “generic”, “genetic”, and “generate”, whilst “sex” is a scrupulously-literal translation of the Latin cognate “sexus”.
The mere fact that the word “genitals” (referring to reproductive organs) is very closely related to the Latin “genus” is further evidence of the assertion that the term “gender” refers to the binary division of human (and of course, many non-human) sexual identity, and NOT to any taxonomy based on emotion, feelings, psychology, or any other non-biological categorization schema.
If the reader is curious to know why this term is included in the glossary of “F.I.S.H” (apart from the fact that it is actually used in a handful of chapters), it is because leftists have been desperately trying to change the meaning of the word in recent times, in order to serve their immensely-perverse agenda to destroy civil society with their hateful, wicked, sinful, objectively-immoral ideologies.
Until relatively recently, the word “gender” has ALWAYS been used in the etymologically-accurate sense of the term, and even then, predominantly in those locations where leftist ideologues comprise a significant proportion of the general population. Cf. “leftism”.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas but DNA can be altered - most of our junk DNA was added intermittently over time through viral and fungal infections and led to morphological changes away from our ancestors... there are even some people with extra and missing genes... further you discount the entire field of epigenetics overlaying direct genes - RNA and amino proteins and hormones as well as bacteria shape and possibly direct our preferences etc etc which is shown to increasingly play a part in gender orientation.... what you say is not fixed my hombre! Your views need to adapt to new knowledge and the increasing isolation of historical perceptions.... With technology we can advance further - to completely remove gender and share the womb: men like yourself can then partake in the experience of birth if you so choose to save lives if your moral inclinations are that way inclined... with chatgpt we can remove the physical altogether and rather than be replaced by chatgpt we can transfer towards it by uploading and reproducing our consciousness... creating a future of zero prejudice by having nothing to be prejudiced about... ahhhh the wonder of virtual gods! What mind beauty awaits us!
@@ReverendDr.Thomas ooo honey your so gaay!
All of these people were thoughtful, on point and articulate. The guy in the mustard/rust (?) colored sweater with glasses was quite eloquent and clearly a critical thinker.
While I very much like the format and the provocative questions. I also like that Peter travels around the world getting diverse opinions from other cultures. The one critique would be that almost all of the participants seem to be urban, it would be interesting to see Peter traveling to more rural communities.
Thanks,
He seems to focus on universities a lot
The minute he goes rural, English fluency is going to plummet, which will be difficult for both him and his viewers I imagine
good point
These experiments of yours work wonderfully when you have sincere participants. By that I mean people that are willing to change their mind and have their own positions challenged. Thank you.
Love that the woman almost said pregnant people and said woman instead!! YES
This is wonderful! Personal feelings aside, we should be having these real discussions around this topic. This is a very difficult moral and philosophical question. Anyone that claims otherwise either hadn't thought much about it or isn't being honest.
Depends on the viewpoint taken - it's obvious that many of the inflexible in the video would not agree its complex...
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without doubt a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it not being fully-developed, insentient and/or conscious.
Any person with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is STILL not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary stages of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve year old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the stage of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is FULLY human. The aforementioned preliminary stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life-cycle, and although the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five year-old child, that is insufficient justification in itself for destroying its life.
Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious, sentient person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Buddha, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if it was morally-permissible, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. As a strict vegan, I sometimes feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe! It would be far preferable for me to encourage my daughter, wife or mother to give birth to the child and then relinquish it to an adoptive family.
See Chapter 12 of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity” (“F.I.S.H”) to learn the distinction between legitimate abortion and illegal abortion, and to understand metaethics/morality in general.
In summary, abortion is legitimate only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is at risk.
To read “F.I.S.H”, which is, without the slightest shadow of a doubt, by FAR the most important work of literature ever composed, Email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
@@ReverendDr.Thomas chatbot? Sounds fishy....
@@JC3335, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
@@ReverendDr.Thomas I don't go out with gender-confused chatbots...
This is an excellent cross-section of some common positions on the topic. Thanks for the level-headed, as well as the brisk but probing, moderation.
I was incorrectly detected for downsyndrome, despite being encouraged to abort me my mother continued further into the pregnancy, and I was actually completely normal and healthy.
My god the moral fortitude of the young lady with the red hair band is stunning and stand up. And the guy in the back of those on the right side, you can tell he is every smart and educated; yet doesn't talk down to the others.
moral fortitude pretty much just means being stubborn. How did she show moral fortitude? she was on the side with most people. The real question to ask was brought up by the lady on slightly agree, when does conciousness begin? are you really ending a life when aborting a fetus? do they have any memories? are they losing anything if they get aborted/die?
you just said sher mortal fortitude is stunning because you find her attractie
@@chadwellington2524 amazing how easily offended and offensive people get when mentally taxed... where are people from?
@@chadwellington2524 Why is achieving some arbitrary level of consciousness the criterion for deciding whether someone has the right not to be killed?
@@JC3335 Who are you talking about?
I really like the fact that those people actually participate in the experiment... Way more fruitful than other instances.
I really wanted them to answer the first day question at the end. Shame the video was cut short.
They should have gotten into when does conciousness begin? does a fetus really lose anything if aborted?
@@chadwellington2524 Besides its life ? Not much, I would say.
Consciousness is irrelevant. Just a random checkpoint in the development of a human being. Saying you can kill somebody before they reach that checkpoint makes no sense to any rational thinking person.
@@Alnivol666 True it is alive, but what is a human without consciousness? Does it feel anything if killed, does it lose anything?
@@chadwellington2524 It is not about that specific human. It is about us as a so-called moral society. You are positing that it is okay to kill somebody because they do not YET have consciousness. The fact that you know they will and still think it is okay to kill them is to me a bit disturbing.
@@chadwellington2524 Can you therefore murder someone when they're asleep, or unconscious?
I think in society we should talk more about preventing pregnancy BEFORE and not after conception.
That is the number one problem with society. They don’t see that their actions having consequences. Humans are so damn narcissistic and sociopathic. they literally do not care they throw the logic out the window that their actions are their responsibility. they truly believe they can do whatever they want whenever they want including blatant murder of their own child.
And I think we should have the means to terminate the pregnancy 🤷
@@anthonyl9126 I think every abortion should come with mandatory sterilization. Ending a life should have life long consequences.
@@SubconsciouslyConsciouscarrot And, that's why your side will never, ever take a foothold with the rational people who believe basic biological facts 🤷
That will only happen if abortions are banned. The automatic reaction to no more abortions would be more self responsibility which would lead to a lot less need for abortions.
My guy in the orange already shut this down at 6:06-7:23 with his line of questioning. Right before the other person committed the red herring fallacy and never answered his question. 👌🏾
He was courteous enough to answer, but she dodged that one like a viper(see what I did there!?..).
The difference between a sperm and a fertilized egg, is that at the moment of conception, when the egg is fertilized, a new human life is formed, complete with its own genetically unique DNA. Unique DNA means it is actually a new human person, not a genetic copycat of its parent. It has an unrepeatable blueprint which dictates features, hair, size, colors, personality, intelligence spectrum, unique fingerprint, gender (surprise suprise!). From that moment what this human will be and look like biologically is already fixed. It's just a matter of time...
The appeal to authorithy fallacy didn't do her case much good...
Amazing that the eldest woman said that sperm is "a potential human being".
She has to understand that the fertilized egg is. Shocking if she has such cognitive dissonance to insist on sperm alone being enough. My guess is she is completely avoiding the challenge altogether ( for whatever reasons ).
Yes a new human life begins at conception, but a new unique DNA doesn't give you the right to life. What if I die, but my kidneys are still alive and is transplanted to another body, that person would have two unique DNAs in their body. Am I still alive since my living kidney with my DNA is still alive and functioning? Does my kidney have a say if the host decides to run or drink alcohol?
Conjoined twins are a single organism with the same body and DNA. Scientifically, they are the same. But metaphysically, are "they" a single person, or are "they" two people?
When it comes to human life, biology does not discriminate between a single human cell and an entire human organism because an organism is basically a clump of cells. What gives us the right to life is our brain, as that is where our "soul" or "personhood" lies. Our kidneys don't have the right to life just because it is alive and human since kidneys can't possess personhood. Conjoined twins are two separate human "souls" despite having one body because they possess two minds.
Our gamete cells don't have the right to life. So when a sperm and egg becomes an embryo, it does not have the right to life yet because its brain has not developed to the point of sentience. Once its brain has developed enough to the point of sentience (around the fetus stage), that's when it gets personhood and the right to life.
Yeah. The fact that she is a biologist is so horrifying… if that employer/university she works at sees this, they should re-evaluate if they want to employ her😮
@Bitch D No one said it did, thosenwould be live cell that originated from someone who is now deceased. No one has ever claimed that they were human, the same way you finger isnt a separate human if i cut it off.
They are conjoined... Its in the name.
How are twins sharing the same dna any less human?
oh good lord. if someone says yes im leaving this planet
you dont think that if going to be seriously handicapped the child/person will suffer?
@chadwellington2524 can you kill a 1 month old? If they're going to suffer, bc from a developmental standpoint, there isn't much difference between a 39 weeker and a 1 month old
Define suffering. That's subjective. You might look at someone with no legs and think they're suffering, but they might lead a perfectly content and fulfilled life.
Yes 🤣
@Erika Oliver this guy thinks he's being noble.
"I'm a good person, I kill things to end their perceived suffering that I imagine in my head"
This whole "ending suffering" argument is a might makes right argument. I'm bigger and stronger and I can speak, and you can't, and I've determined you will suffer if you love. And since I'm such a good person, I don't let people suffer, GOODBYE NOW.
@@chadwellington2524 We all suffer. We can't just kill people because we determine that their quality of life is "low."
How discussions should be held in schools.
This is difficult stuff. Good to keep the discussion going. I use to be strong against in all cases. Now I really don’t know. But I do know we need to listen to each other.
Thanks for your comment. Compromise also seems warranted in this debate.
@@bradspringer2372, how so?
Compromise on a "solution" to how laws are fashioned with regards to if and when legal abortion can be carried out.
@@bradspringer2372, do you realize that when you use the words “LAW” or "LEGAL", instead of the proper word, “rule”, you are giving authority and legitimacy to the arbitrary rules imposed on citizens by dirty, demonic, democratic governments?
"F.I.S.H", Ch. 12:
There is but ONE law - the inextricable laws of God. These laws include the natural laws (such as the law of gravity and the various cycles of the biosphere) as well as the moral laws (which are extremely complex and must be revealed via God’s spokesmen, i.e. prophets).
When either kind of law is transgressed, there is a detrimental effect on the entire universe. Every thought and deed has an equal and opposite reaction. The various “laws” instigated by governments are (in almost every instance) merely subjective rules and regulations imposed by self-obsessed men and women.
Judging the actions of others is a normal, natural and necessary function of every thinking person. However, one can only directly PASS judgement on those whom one has direct or indirect authority over. One should avoid passing judgement on those one has no authority over but remain silent.
To read the remaining twenty-nine chapters of “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, which your god has graciously given to his people on Earth, email the address listed on the "About" page of my TH-cam channel, with the acronym “FISH” in the subject field.
🐟
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices Way to toss out a strawman. You sound like a person who would rather be right than happy. I feel bad for you.
Imagine calling yourself a biologist and not knowing what an organism is.
This is a fantastic discussion, thank you for recording it for us.
Would have been interesting to see this but with five 19 year old's at University.... And in America, Australia, UK or Canada....
Thats not interesting
not really, most 19 year olds dont know anything
@@chadwellington2524 thats the age when the critical thinking limits set in (not all humans reach the same level of consciousness) - at a university these will probably be substantially more advanced than what your familiar with so its a great idea
It would be interesting to see the conditioning and indoctrination in the school systems.
@@JC3335 You clearly have not met any 19 year olds on a university campus in 2015-2023. They severely lack critical thinking skills.
Also, there is a difference between "your" and "you're" and "its" and "it's". I would tell you what the difference, but looking it up on your own would be a better way of learning.
Having university kids in the West discussing this topic would be a terrible waste of time. They would all be on strongly agree (unless you found the rare, non-tiktok watching intelligent kid) and be screaming all the tiresome slogans and hating religion.
Great content! I believe there was a little gaslighting going on there, however. Referring to the "set of human DNA that will become a human", the biologist says “the male contribution is the full set”. That's easily debunked.
@@f8888gkcfyfgjfjhgjfcju The man was arguing that a sperm is not a human being because it does not have the complete set of the child's DNA. I'm assuming what the woman was trying to say is that the male contribution (i.e., the sperm) contains a full set of DNA. Of course, this is the father's DNA, not the child's, which is the gaslight. The way she worded it though, it sounds like she's trying to suggest that the sperm is the only contribution to the child's DNA.
Hi Christopher, I do believe there is a difference between gaslighting and being incorrect in your assertions. Therefore i would suggest the woman was mistaken in her belief, rather than knowingly putting forward an incorrect assertion.
@@ultimatejul agreed, there is a difference. I'd say it's gaslighting when you know what you're saying is misleading. Otherwise, yes, it would simply be being incorrect in her assertions. However, given her education, I'd argue that she would (or at least, should) know that what she's saying is misleading.
@@ultimatejul she was intentionally trying to mislead and deflecting from position
Really interesting discussion! The participants were way more logical and thoughtful than I was expecting. I suspect that may have to do with it taking place in an Eastern European country vs western? I’m always impressed by people willing to debate hot topics in their non native language. Good job everyone.
I see many people in the "when does life begin?" debate use the 'consciousness' reasoning. The problem is that 'consciousness' is quite an abstract concept. We do not understand the nature of consciousness and have no concrete way of measuring or identifying it; especially since the only state of consciousness that any live person is truly aware of is the waking consciousness of their own life. To reason that 'consciousness' is what makes a person we would have to define what exactly 'consciousness' is and we would need evidence that our agreed upon definition is reliable and valid. For instance, here are a few questions that we would need to answer. Is brain activity the definition of 'consciousness'? How do we know for sure a person without brain activity has no 'consciousness'? Do you even need a brain to have consciousness or can organisms without brains have 'consciousness'? Is 'consciousness' distinctly human? Beyond that, the conversation surrounding consciousness becomes significantly more spiritual and philosophical; therefore, I think the 'consciousness' reasoning is just about as abstract or spiritual as the questions it seeks to answer: 'when does life begin?' and 'when does life end?'.
Yes "consciousness" is an irrelevant concept. Humanity doesn't even have an understanding about what that word means, and we have no way to verify or deny the consciousness of another lifeform. "when does life begin?" however is a much more cut and dry question, it may not be solved, but it's at least an approachable question. We can say for instance that every man with fertile sperm is definitively not several billion individuals because each sperm is not an individual life.
I've been fortunate enough to know many wonderful people in my life and that includes some people with disabilities including some with Down's Syndrome as well as many other disabilities. The idea that their life is somehow less worthy than someone without a disability is frankly disgusting.
Rarely do I pick a hill to die on but this is one time that I will. A disabled person is not any less of a person and their life is not any less valuable.
My sister had severe Down syndrome and never developed enough of a vocabulary to have a conversation. She was able to say a very few words so that she could say that she wanted food, water, or to go to the bathroom. We loved her and took good care of her until she died at the age of 58. However, I was so very sorry that she had to live that life. If I had any idea a child of mine would be born that way, I would definitely opt for an abortion.
In our hyper polarized world where discourse has become war Peter your method and videos are a breath of fresh air. Keep it up good sir!
Nobody:
TH-cam: This needs additional ”context”
This was a really interesting discussion. Thanks for posting.
Her: I'm a biologist
Me: Well, I guess titles doesn't mean anything now
I know! 🤦🏻♀️
Appeal to authority fallacy. If she doesn't have facts to back up her reasoning, it doesn't matter what her job is.
One of if not the best discussion regarding any subject I’ve listened to and helped with some of my thoughts in the subject, but they should also do a little better at describing DNA vs chromosomes. Well done though.
Well Ms Cartman wanted to legalize Abortion to the 40th Trimester in Colorado USA...
"I'm a biologist"....I wouldn't be so sure of that lady
As ever I enjoyed the discussion playing out - and the format does seem to encourage a bit more two way dialogue in the participants somehow.
Glad the bloke in orange got his last point in as a response about the sperm and conception, as I was thinking that too: although I was then interested in knowing how the biologist lady would have responded, but that didn’t happen.
I just found out today my baby will be a girl.
This is about as far along as the last pregnancy when i found out I was having my first son.
He's awesome. The light of my life. The reason to exist.
The argument that " doctors make mistakes when determining the gender/sex of kids dosen't hold any water to me"
Its a human life from the moment of conception. She's going to depend on a woman, her mother, to do the rest of mother nature's work until she arrives. Then the rest of us will pass the torch of knowledge.
amazing!!! i love it when someone says something so simple, but makes your brain pop with an amazing new thought pattern... good shit!!!
The biggest question is when does the father get a say I’m 25 and have no kids yet but I’ll be damned if I helped make a child and get no say of anything before he or she is born. It’s nuts to think that the father is completely left out and Is thrown to the side until you are financially needed .
Well don't have unprotected sex unless you and partner/wife have decided you both want to try for a baby.
Niether the mother nor the father get a say in the continued existence of their child. They child gets to live. That's it. No debate necessary
I had no say when I was 20. I'm 29 now and will live with this for the rest of my life. I'm no longer the same person I was before it happened. Totally agree with you, we need change
I like the way you help make us all think about things, and how you open discussions, Thank you
Like most abortion advocates, the biologist lady keeps arguing the exception rather than the rule. But regardless, life begins at conception.
Love how the 'biologist' keeps avoiding the difficult questions, and who gets to decide what is an acceptable 'quality of life'? But I'm sure she would deflect that question, too
I just discovered your channel and have been loving your videos. I'm a Computer Scientist, Philosopher, and Logician so always love having these sort of conversations. I came up with an interesting hypothetical scenario which I would very much like to see you bring up in similar conversations to this.
So a lot of people bring up the argument of abortion being moral when the fetus will somehow negatively effect the future livelihood of the mother. My question chain is: "Consider if you were born with a siamese twin in whom has a different head & brain (though underdeveloped) but is not in control of the rest of the body (you however are). Also assume there is some surgery which would safely and entirely be able to remove the twin from your body and be able to make you look completely normal. Thirdly the twin is severely intellectually and mentally impaired but you are not. As such, having this twin would make your life far harder than if you didnt in the vast majority of cases and thus would force the unwilling you to give up any chance of being normal (maybe every ruin your life). With this considered, 1. would it be morally acceptable or condemnable to have the surgery mentioned before at any given age in order to prevent having to live like that and dealing with far more suffering than if not getting it? 2. Would it be more morally acceptable to do such a procedure at a younger age than, say, in adulthood? 3. Because the twin is underdeveloped and in a sort of fetal state, does that make it's life less valuable / does that make not alive?
It's not about being "alive" or human tissue. Personhood is the criteria for the most moral concern. Why should a non-person human lifeform have rights that overrule the rights of a living person---the mother?
I'd throw in another question. What if the fetus was diagnosed with a condition that is incompatible with life outside the uterus? I am a retired Obstetrician, and I've seen this a few times in my career. There are situations where usually these infants die in the delivery room, and at most live for a few hours. Should the mother be required to carry that fetus to term, knowing that it will die shortly after birth despite the best neonatal care? My personal answer is that the choice is up to the mother, and I've had patients want to deliver immediately and some who felt that any life is valuable and carried the pregnancy to term. Then it gets more complicated--these fetuses are "fragile" in that they are more likely to experience fetal distress in labor. Do you perform a c-section, which is major surgery and has implications for future pregnancies to "save" a child who will live a most a few hours? If she chooses to carry the pregnancy, should heroic attempts be made in the NICU or should the baby be wrapped and the parents allowed to hold him/her as long as they wish?
I pose these questions not because there is a right or wrong answer, but because the questions "in the field" are a lot more complicated than the lawmakers might have us believe.
Apologies for commenting; I'm not a medical professional. I've often seen the argument that any parents in that position, with no exception, would choose abortion; some even argue it's selfish of them not to do so as soon as they get the news. I find it implausible. If the child is going to die, would it necessarily give the parents any comfort for that death to be gruesome? Personally, I don't think parents should be judged in this very difficult situation, regardless of the choice they make.
@@mobwatch8119 Exactly--the decision needs to be left to the parents.
I love the way you interview and genuinely listen to the people and try to understand and explain their point of view.
I was annoyed that the post-birth abortion question was repeatedly dodged (particularly given the video's title!).
Maybe because it does not exist.
@@windycityliz7711
The question existed even if the practice did not, and it was a good question to ask to test how ethically coherent her moral philosophy was.
@@wadetisthammer3612 Exactly. It was meant to illuminate the operative principle that distinguishes acceptable killing of unborn humans from unacceptable killing of born humans.
I appreciate so much this kind of discussion! Pure Socrates' spirit.
People in Budapest are pretty based and logical. The older woman moved along the statistical line, disliking abortion as the life progressed. Her argument is wrong about sperm, though. Sperm will die without conception, yet she claims to be a biologist. She is either ignorant or creating a false argument to further an emotional view.
If you put it in a fridge it can outlive a human...
@@JC3335 a living organism is defined as : "a living thing that has an organized structure, can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, adapt, and maintain homeostasis." Sperm do not meet the last 4 of those criteria.
@jcanning333 incidentally, this is also why sperm can "live" longer in a fridge, they're not actually living.
@@erikaoliver2591 one definition indeed Erika. But anything that maintains virility can be regarded as living until denatured... some viruses may not meet your criteria for example. Its a matter of perspective on the complexity of chemical sustainability depending on the environment - humans in deep freeze die and cannot survive but sperm can - and as everyone knows "Every sperm is sacred..."
@@JC3335 viruses are not living. Not a biologist, huh?
These debates are so boring in a country that is healthy and undivided
The lady completely deflected the young man’s question about “What’s the difference between a terrible illness after birth and before?” She just asked “what about sperm?” And nobody ever addressed his reasonable question again.
If you want an absurd, dishonest conversation, talk to a pro-abortion advocate. Direct answers are seldom a thing with these people. Whataboutism, shaming, calling you names (forced birther etc), are par for the course. She is far more civil than the types on Twitter, but equally dishonest.
Yeah... her position was pretty strange, if the illness is not life threatening to either the mother or Fetus, then it would be immoral to end that life.
The Lady did a poor job at defending abortion rights imo.
What it comes down to is sentience. When is the baby's brain developed enough to facilitate a conscious experience?
The "Life begins at contraception" argument is not very convincing as it would lead to logical absurdities when applied to other things. For example:
A lump of dough = A loaf of bread.
An unmixed solute and solvent = A solution.
Egg = Chicken
A collection of building materials = A house
A seed = A plant
Does killing a couple that plan to have 10 kids (100% certainty) = killing 12 people?
And so on.
This argument also cannot distinguish a dead person from an alive person.
To illustrate this point, what body part contains the "self"?
@@mobwatch8119 Nice generalisation. mind addressing my comment? (I doubt you'll find any of the things you pointed out).
@@EasyAL_YT I apologise for generalising; I'd never come across someone with your position, who refers to themselves as pro-choice/pro-abortion. Most pro-life people, if not all, understand medical emergencies. I'm used to dialogues with people who think there should be no restrictions on abortion, the whole 9 months.
Wow, these people give me hope in humanity. Especially that girl, she is charming, beautiful and very smart, all of which are pretty rare today unfortunately. Maybe all hope is not lost yet
Once like half of them said that life begins at conception, there was pretty much no room left for discussion. At least the guy with the glasses posed some somewhat interesting questions. Should've done more with that or changed to a different question imo.
The whole 'third trimester' question is also such an American question. No one who knows what that means from outside the US agrees with that -- outside of some very specific cases (e.g. severe medical complications where the mother could die).
But dont fetuses start to have thoughts around that time? the real question is whether the fetus is conscious? does it lose anything if aborted? does it have any memories or something to lose?
@@chadwellington2524 how does the processing unit have thoughts with minimal function, experience and no language? This is the existential challenge in AI as well when AI and indeed most animals are already well more advanced - but we eat them....
@chadwellington2524 consciousness? What do you mean? You're not conscious if they put you out for surgery, morally acceptable to kill you, then? If serial killer sedated you before they kill you, you're not conscious. Ok to kill then?
@chadwellington2524 also, we don't know when fetuses start to have "thoughts". They have the capacity to engage with external stimuli, respond to pain, light, sound, from early in second trimester. I'm a NICU nurse, they have stress responses as early as I've ever taken care of them, which is 21- 22 weeks.
Abortions in the 3rd trimester are not necessary. If it’s a true emergency, the baby is DELIVERED to save the mother. Nobody has time to wait for the abortion process in that emergency. That is always a talking point from ignorance. To kill at baby at that point, when it could be at least be given care, even if that means care to the dying, is inhumane and murder imo.
Only five subjects - three male and only two female. Interesting choice. Why when women are disproprotionally, overwhelmingly more affected by the choice than men? How would men feel if we, women, made decisions regarding their reproduction rights? Deciding whether they should father children or not, and with whom? Like girls and and women who are raped are often forced to bear the child. To be clear, I'm not giving a statement on what I personally believe, or would do, and under which circumstances, just questioning why is it that men think they have the right to influence a woman's reproductive choices? Only the father could have an input, under certain circumstances, but not the right to make the final decision - that should be the woman's purview solely. Society should not meddle, only offer options with full explanations of consequences of each option. The woman should ultimately decide, and she should be supported. Also, as a Biologist, I sincerely do believe high school children should be educated in safe sexual practices. In countries where they're educated, there's way less abortion. Abortion should really be a last resort, but always an option, especially in the first trimester. After the first trimester, only special circumstances really justify it - child is deformed, unlikely to survive; or the mother's health is endangered. Eh, I guess, I did give my opinion on abortion, at least partially. :)
Do women reproduce asexually?
Orange sweater guy is class. Good for him.
Scientific justification for the abdication of responsibility.
Love these prolifers!! ❤ makes me hopeful ☺
This was actually entertaining to watch. Well done, Peter. GG
This was refreshing!
Ok, a little off topic, but I am very impressed with how sharp everybody looks. Is this just the norm in Hungary? And, OH MY GOD, that Hungarian girl is just gorgeous! I'm not moving there, but it's tempting.
Interesting how the woman says she’s a biologist but then doesn’t use science to defend her position.
Modern female biologists are mostly just feminists, not scientists. They use their position to pretend science is on their side. "I'm a biologist, so whatever I say is true in science."
Damn, I wish Pr. Boghossian would have been one of my profs. Totally engaged.
The guy that said 1 life equals all lives…. what about the mother’s life? Does her life not count if the pregnancy can lead to her death or some major health issues? What about if the woman becomes pregnant after being rpd and she doesn’t want to have that permanent reminder growing inside of her and she suffers from severe depression or other mental issues due to that traumatic event? She could potentially choose to end her life because society forced her to have the baby she never wanted to begin with. There are so many nuances. One simply can’t firmly disagree with the woman’s choice, we can’t deny women the right to make their own decision when they are the ones who have to grow another human in their own womb.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, making a human life is a human choice and should be left to the stakeholder; unless viable outside the womb, or previously consented to (it should be a permanent decision once made, one cannot declare a life and then say never mind after all).
Yes woman who were rpd and become pregnant should be able to abort.. a fetus has no memories, nothing to really lose if aborted/killed.. also another thought, everyone says life is so important for every fetus or person, but is it really? Their are like 8 billion of us, does 1 person really matter? That sounds dark but honestly, whats even the point of life? most people arent going to change the world for the better or do anyting amazing, we are just surviving. Why do we need birth rate going up or staying the same? so we can produce for the economy? Im trying to find a purpose for life
A woman who has been raped should have a choice up until a point. If you've been raped, carry the child to term, deliver, then change your mind, can you kill it? No. Guess what? Developmentally, it's not any different than it was at 39 weeks gestation. There's nothing magical about the tissue that separates a baby in the womb in the third trimester from the outside world. Most of what they do in the third trimester is gain weight. And for much of the second trimester, everything developed. It's just maturing. I'm sorry, it's just too late after a point. We just need to decide what's a reasonable cut-off.
@@40s Consent to drinking 20 beers...does not consent to a hangover. Just because you dont want something doesnt mean you might get it.
In the western world, when is the womans life in danger for pregnancy? How much of a %? 1%?
God bless you Peter ty for these videos ❤
Being that abortion literally means an emptying of the uterus, you can not "abort after birth." This shouldn't be a debate. It should simply be between a woman and whoever she cares to involve. If medical care is necessary, it is between her and her doctor and whatever their protocol, according to evidence based data.
Did the woman create the new human asexually? No. So how can it be only about her? This privilige to murder that we award women just because they happen to be the sex carrying the new human is ridiculous. For me it is simple. Any woman who ends up in a situation where they think murder is the solution is to be sterilized. End of story. She should not ever have to worry about having to have an abortion ever again.
"abortion literally means an emptying of the uterus" Your definition skips a step.
Brilliant approach, keeping it unbiased and encouraging open exploration of perspectives! I will say, I was wondering if anyone was going to call that biologist on her false assertion that a sperm contains all that is required for a human being. I'm glad that other guy finally did. (her statement is why "argument by authority" is extremely dangerous)
Great discussion and thought experiment. I'm fascinated how both sides were confident enough in their initial positions without having to insert ad hominem or claim a moral superiority. Another point I found fascinating is the argument that if a baby has a chronic or a life shortening disease such as Cystic Fibrosis, that it is a basis to terminate. We all can be sure of death and taxes. Quality of life is a slippery slope of a position to take as well. I would have enjoyed a longer video =)
My mother had a baby sister for I believe some four days. Like most of their generation my grandparents never talked about her or any of their other troubles including their experiences during the great war. Myself I can't even imagine the pain it must have given them to lose a child like that and I praise medical progress that allows people today maybe not to save the child's life but the pain to have to say farewell to a child that you have been able to hold and cuddle only for such a short time. It makes me cry that today there are people that like to have laws instated that force people to endure such pain for no other reason than to prove how morally right they themselves are. Honestly I don't care what other people like to believe, I just wish that they would stop wanting to tell other people how to live their lives. Why do people even do that? Is it because they are so indulged by their own happiness or is it because they seek distraction for their own problems?
Im sorry for your mother's loss. I hope they hugged and loved that baby to the fullest the 4 days of life they had on this earth. I cannot imagine the pain of outliving my children. However, I would never suggest killing a child so they or I wouldn't suffer. The reason people stand against early termination is because the unborn are unable to stand for themselves. It's interesting that you mentioned you dont like people telling others how to live their lives, but it's exactly what you are doing. So, is anyone right?
@@almondbutter9634 Haha! That's priceless. Me wishing people to stop telling other people how to live is telling them how they should live... On the raised topic, my mother was a toddler herself at the time so she doesn't really have much of a memory of her baby sister. Since my grandparents never talked about it I also can't tell whether the kid experienced and/or showed happiness during those days or simply only endured pain which may have already started when she was still in the womb. Her birth may thus have been a blessing which seems apparent you like to believe, but was most likely a curse to especially herself. The trouble here is that if you like to create a law it has to be generic to be able to enforce it and that makes it impossible to consider tragic cases like this. Therefore I hope that common sense prevails but as it stands the extremist view seems to have the upper hand in at least most of the US states.
I agree. Who is the arbiter that gets to decide what constitutes quality of life? What about contributions that individuals make, even while suffering at times?
I have a dear friend with 4 adopted children, each with various physical and mental disabilities ranging from the mild (dyslexia, for example), to Down syndrome, and a non-verbal low-functioning child. They live joyful lives together in their family, and deal with very real issues with grace and practicality.
The “quality of life” argument essentially asserts that they would be better off dead.
To my mind, there is a huge culture problem surrounding this issue, which makes it hard for people to look at it logically.
@@WhoStoleMyAlias, one issue that I take is that the tests they do during pregnancy have a fairly high “false positive” rate. Many parents have been told their child has a chance of one medical problem or another and then it doesn’t materialize to the extent they were told (or even at all). So there are sometimes perfectly healthy babies being aborted out of fear.
No matter how we try, there is no avoiding pain in life. It finds us all one way or another, and I think the best we can do is love and support each other when it comes.
Wait shes a biologist? We are screwed
I commend these people on providing evidence for their claims and respecting opposing opinions.
Literally no one gave evidence for anything...
@@hjge1012, as opposed to FIGURATIVELY no-one? 🤔
@@ReverendDr.Thomas no dr, dogmas are not evidence ;)
@@sunshin3man, kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
"I am a biologist".......proceeds to ask what the difference is between sperm and a human.
12:20 - Conception is the creation of new DNA that is literally unique in the entire Universe. Even twins do not have exact DNA, they have on avg 5.4 different genes.
Question for Hungarians -- how representative is this sample of people?
7:40 "The male contribution is the full set" She's talking nonsense.
Best one yet, bossman. GREAT interaction in this group.
She just invalidated all her argument by saying " I am àa biologist " that is the equivalent of saying: I just know more then everybody on that subject.
I need YT to stop posting these obnoxious "abortion health information" disclaimers. "Abortion health" is an oxymoron. It's like calling rape "sex therapy."
It's only an oxymoron to one who is a moron. Healthcare is healthcare even if pro-slavery people don't like it.
@@avishevin1976 It isn’t “healthcare” when a human is intentionally killed.
"I started Planned Parenthood to prevent black population growth."
-Margaret Sanger
3:07 is suchhhhh a good point.
If it occurs after birth is it an abortion?
It's murder before birth and murder after birth.
Absolutely not. An abortion is a medical procedure with the intentional purpose of ENDING a human pregnancy. By definition, if you end the life of a baby that has already been birthed, you are committing murder, which by definition, is the slaying of a human being, by another human being.
no, it's called infanticide. this is an ancient evil practice (sacrificing infants to Moloch) that needs to be stamped out of humanity once and for all
Of course it isn't. Abortion is the end of a pregnancy. After birth, there is no pregnancy.
Its not called abortion.
I live in Croatia and we can legaly have an abortion untill the end of 1.trimester.
I was pregnant, wanted a baby but at 5th month we descovered that only a third of a brain was developed. I decided to end the pregnancy. It was very difficult decision but I thought at that time that life without a functional brain has no sense.
Later, because that event made me more wise, I chanched my opinion about it.
If I would know all of the staff before.... but I didn't...I would go trough the pregnancy but I would not allow doctors to operate child's head in order to do some practicing(because they could not grow the brain) and allowed this soul to come to a buman reincarnation, live shortly and continue the journey with less possible trauma.
I didn't know something I know now
If a sperm is equal to a post-conception foetus, then a man needs a woman like a fish needs a bicycle. Ironic, isn't it?
Very impressed with the moral character of Hungarians.
It would be interesting if the life of the mother was posited to the disagree folks, also when it’s known that the baby will not survive or only live minutes after birth. Conditions like downs or CF weren’t good bc ppl can live meaningful lives w/those conditions, though difficult.
I was thinking the same thing and was hoping for those kinds of questions.
I wonder if we can establish an objective definition of "meaningful life". Downs for example - what you are shown on TV are the top 20%; the bottom 40% are much less fortunate.
If the life of the mother is at risk, the solution is early delivery, not waiting around until the child has been killed before pulling it out in pieces.
@@dafunkmonster If the child is wanted but the mother's life is at risk it does not occur to you that every effort is made? But while medical science is doing more and more. the sad fact is there is a reason birth does not normally take place before 9 months and there is a limit to a when a baby can survive an early birth. It must be beyond devastating to be pregnant, wanting the child, but having to go through with a non optional abortion.
@@dafunkmonster If the life of the mother is at risk the next step is up to the doctor and the mother. Not you.
Much better quality discussion than we typically have in the US on this topic
Maybe a sign of the low bar set by current social justice trends, but I should recognize the more pro choice woman for two reasons. For one, she did not simply throw up the women's rights shield. And two, she did not discredit the character of her opponents by suggesting that pro lifers simply want to subjugate women into the roll of birthers.
She still had some pretty idiotic takes on things. Saying that she is a biologist made her take on things look even worse.
@@Alnivol666 Only in the sense that she may have tried to invoke some sort of authority from it. She just used a bad tactic instead of just saying what she thought. She tried to lure the guy into taking an extreme position and say that birth control should be banned. She seemed to be trying to get him to look like a radical, but her tactic got her into trouble when she said that a sperm has the same value as a fertilized ovum because in the next round she said first trimester abortions should be perfectly justifiable. If she already screwed up trying to hang the dude for an extreme belief that he doesn't actually hold, then she should at least be consistent and say all abortion is equally bad regardless of trimester because of the value of the sperm.
All in all, she is a terrible debater, and is the portrait of tribal politics because she doesn't have a shred of reasoning ability. In truth though, it doesn't mean she's necessarily a bad biologist. She just tried to use her credentials to try to tell us when we ought to think life begins, which was not wise.
By the looks of it, she was a professor though (was this on a campus?). This would be a major red flag for those who don't already know the pitiful state the universities are in. But those people only watch CNN and MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times... NPR!!!
Bruuuuuuh, give the older lady a chance. Matey did a brilliant push back on sperm/baby equivalence and we never heard the end of it! Great episode tbh
The biologist admitting that it's a human being, and then stating that it's a question of consciousness is fascinating. I think that she would say we shouldn't deliberately kill those who are sleeping, or in a coma
Just curious, do you think brain dead patients or families should never be able to turn off life support then?
It’s not consciousness, really. It’s memories. Your personality arises from memories of experiences. I mean the personality in the sense of the state of being a person.
@@des757 Having a human dependent on life support vs a natural life dependent on a loving caring and non-murdering mother.. hmm
@des757 no. If you're not directly willing the death of someone by turning off life support, I have no objection. The acceptance of the inability to impede natural death is acceptable.
@@lellamas2778 If a human could be grown up from cells to baby in a machine would that be okay with you? Lots of people have artificial hearts and such that keeping them alive, should they be valued less than people who live naturally? Why does the "natural" part matter to you? Why do we value human life over other animal lives? What matters isn't how you live, its how you think. Consciousness is what we really value.
That biologist is HORRIFYING. She may as well be comparing every act of ejaculation a mass abortion.
The spilling of the seed is a sin
Where was the question about the conception of a living parrot rather than a human? We know they are more advanced and more conscious than we are so by definition for those holding the special argument should have greater priority. Yet I am sure they eat eggs...
Well first off parrots aren't human... I think it should be pretty obvious, but apparently not, they are not entitled to Human Rights.
Secondly I don't know of many people who eat parrot eggs BUT what if we require people to eat the aborted fetus if they want to have one?
I rather like that idea. Let's see you put your money (or in this case dead baby) where your mouth is if you honestly believe they're not human what's the big deal?
@@gusmc2220 What does it matter if they are not human/ They have more efficient brains and have consciousness - some would argue they are superior. The studies (search the web if you like) have been done on parrots but the network distribution of the brain applies to all birds. Eating chicken egss is thus immoral if morality is not human-centered. And it if is then there is nothing rational about the arguments some are using at all...
@@gusmc2220 certainly if you eat eggs you should have no problem eating discarded or farmed foetus... provided the law permits it... (law doesn't have to be moral). By all means go ahead...
@@JC3335 lmfao you're an idiot. Thanks for showcasing how stupid your sides arguments are though
@@JC3335 you're the one claiming they aren't human, moron. Ergo YOU eat them dumbass. You're fucking stupid
Peter looking jacked. Agree or slightly agree or totally agree?
"I am a biologist".....
Probably can't define a woman though.
It’s always shocking when someone admits the unborn baby is a life then agrees with killing it. Very sickening.
If the baby might grow up to look like the young woman in the video... we need to protect the life at all costs
SIMP 🤡
Perhaps it’s partly about the way the young woman looks. But I think it’s more about the fact that she seems to be an unusually charming human. But we digress …….
Definintely not opinionated in the least . . .