@@Avenger222 if you see the like/dislike ratio, youre gonna realize what tends to happen is the leftie part of the community that he gathered shitting on alt-righters claims he was being fallacious or uncharitable when he attackes their positions
I feel like Rem was guilty of making the continuum fallacy when he argued against probability as an important factor for moral considerations. just because I can't define an exact point where the probability is high enough to make the action "wrong", that doesn't mean that the argument isn't convincing. the fact that I can't define a certain point where X occurs, doesn't mean that any statement about the presence of X is unconvincing (e.g. it's impossible to objectively define the exact amount of money that a person has to have in order to be referred to as "rich", but that doesn't make the statement "someone who has a net worh of 0,01€ isn't rich" any less convincing).
Let me fix this, sec: Having sex is the same thing as consenting to a child. Stepping into the middle of a cross-fire is the same thing as consenting to get shot.
The idea that sex is consent to pregnancy is inherently sexist. That belief is putting an additional burden of consent to risk upon women that men do not have to make. Women should have the same ability to consent to sex purely for pleasure that men do, thus we should allow them to get an abortion in the event of unwanted pregnancy. In any case, a woman should be allowed to remove a foreign object from her body if she does not wish it to be there. It just so happens that removing a fetus results in its death. That is not the same as killing/murder.
Comparing the argument to leaving your garage door open with candy in the garage. Its probably your fault the candy got stolen by a child is being intellectually dishonest
Consent to sex is not consent to give birth. Its consent to the risk of pregnancy, for which options besides birth exist. Thats like saying consent to sex is consent to die of a treatable STD like syphilis. Youre skipping from A to C. To me, its a matter of bodily autonomy rights which, IMHO, arent obtained until you become autonomous. A fetus isnt autonomous.
It's not quite that easy. You arguing abortion should be a right because of bodily autonomy for the woman doesn't justify the concept of bodily autonomy. And the same ethical arguments you use for the right to bodily autonomy can easily be used as a pro-life argument. Let me give you an example: You are out driving with your friends. Suddenly you decide to use your bodily autonomy and without a word of warning crash your car in a mountain wall, killing everyone in the car. It can be argued you were justified in killing yourself. But were you justified in killing your friends? They had by their own free will decided to join you out driving. Did they at the same time accept the full responsibility of your potentially crashing your car into the wall? Or do we accept that bodily autonomy is not the only moral consideration to use in life.
@@SweBeach2023 I believe in bodily autonomy rights for everyone (male and female) once bodily autonomy is obtained (post-birth). A fetus is not autonomous. Your example is irrelevant to my position as all people in the vehicle are autonomous. Also, abortion is a response to ones autonomy being infringed. Killing people riding beside you in a car is not.
Rem 100% had the better argument on the topic of consent to pregnancy, destiny had to concede and alter his argument to something else entirely just to appear more correct.
I'm 10 minutes in, and I can't take it, and so I'll just resolve it here and now. It's not about "being human", or crap examples like someone invading your home. It's about the right to decide over your own body, and to remove whatever parasites are leeching off you. If you're pregnant, and don't want the child, then it is, for all intents and purposes, like a parasite. An improbably analogy that gets the point across, is to imagine that you wake of with another person somehow attached to you in a way that would kill that other person, but not you, if you disconnected them. Would you have the right to disconnect that other person, or should you stay connected to them for 9 months? Would that be your duty? I don't think so. It would be an unfortunate thing that the person died, but and maybe we'd even say that you'd have a better moral character if you let them live, but in the end that's only YOUR choice, because YOU decide the use of YOUR body. Easy as that.
A better example would be you participating in a destruction derby with a 1-10 percent of hurting someone so badly that person will need to be hooked up to your body for 9 months to survive. All the participants accept this possibility. Now let''s assume the worst happens and you in fact hurt another participant badly, get hooked up etc. Would you now be justified in saying "screw this, I no longer feel like honoring my part of the deal", unhooking the tubes and let the other participant die?
@@deekay1014 You seem unwilling to understand, i.e. acting in bad faith. Because you probably DO understand the scenario that I'm painting, EVEN though it's something impossible. One person being dependent on the body of another. The point is to catch an intuition here... There's no scenario other scenario that it would be okay to take ownership of a woman's body, and decide FOR HER what to do with is, and whether another organism should be allowed to live there. In a fucked up situation, where another organism is living off of YOUR body, that you DO NOT WANT, you should have the right to ABORT.
@@SweBeach2023 Yes. Because it's still YOUR body. Sex is one of the most normal human activities that there are, as opposed to destruction derby. You could NEVER turn the world into a place where people didn't have sex. (Or maybe nuclear war would do it, but barring that.. ) So in that way there's a slightly better case to be made for your scenario, if you decide to do something that almost no one does, and as such is easy to avoid. But in the end no one can should be allowed to own other people, and if they aren't, then it's up to you to abort an unwanted organism living off your body.
@@deekay1014 Some people will see the point, and others won't. It's offensive to people no matter what. They (some of them) even bomb abortion clinics. (So much for human life..) It's cracy how particular "pro life" people is about exactly when they are pro life. Before the life is born, to be exact. Anyways. My point is that you can call it whatever. Human, fetus, a lump of cells, a parasite, a person.. it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that it's another organism that survives off a person that DOES NOT want it. That's mostly what parasites do unless they're symbiotic, which is why it works as a comparison, however upsetting that might be. It just works almost perfectly by definition. From Dictionary.com: Parasite: "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." The second suggestion from the same place: "a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others." But I don't except this but make sense to everybody. If people believe they are entitled to decide over the body of someone else, then what more can I say? In the end who ever has got the most power wins, I suppose. I also suppose that if the US ever got a nation wide abortion ban it would mean a HUGE LEAP closer to civil war.
@@deekay1014 Well I certainly agree that it's best to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with. About the mental health issues. Would you say that this is usually a very long lasting effect for those who experience it with regards to abortions? I don't mean to suggest that it is in any way an easy decision for women to make. I don't think it is. And to be honest, I don't even like the kind of pro-choice positions in which they say that the fetus is not human, as if calling it by another word makes a difference. This just seems like motivated reasoning to me. It's the beginning of human life, as far as I'm concerned. And as such, and knowing that it turn into a child that you will come to love more than anything, it would be weird if it was a decision lightly made. It's just that nothing or close to nothing should supersede the right to self determination. It's the woman's body, and she who must endure whatever consequences the abortion might have on her mental health. Quite often people are totally fine as well. And with this is as the guiding principle we can pile on what we know about the consequences of NOT allowing abortions. We can talk about self abortions, and children growing up in horrible conditions. We can talk about lives being turned totally upside down for young teens who get pregnant, and so on. All in all I really don't think there's a good case to be made for banning abortions. Though I claim to know that this is your position.
@Brendon-Fetus is a Latin word for human Offspring. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human life...terminology helps sugar coat a deceptive pill.
What about understanding it's not okay as a personal choice but understanding society is better overall if we don't limit access to these sorts of things.
@@paulk9188 Yes outlawing murder is better for society, I agree. The thing is most reasonable / critically thinking people can understand the very clear difference between an OUTRIGHT MURDER VS ABORTION. Again, just for clarification I am against abortion as a personal choice. That being said I'd rather leave it up to the individual, for the betterment of society. If you feel murder and abortion are on the same scale I'd like to agree to disagree.
Destiny says we don’t operate on the notion that literally everything you do basically involves some type of risk. Getting out of bed you could slip and fall on your child harming them. We decide that it’s okay for us to drive cars, fly planes, over safer forms of travel because we find it worth it to endanger other people’s lives for our individual autonomy and choices all the time, literally all the time. This notion that this compromise on values in order to do what it is we want to do as individuals or notion that we don’t constantly undertake risks of harming others for things we don’t actually need to do but instead we want to do because more people get more autonomy to do what they want. It is not criminal when someone dies in a construction accident but we continue to do construction. It is not criminal to do a lot of everyday things that may cause harm to many people that we take that risk on, on purpose, do we consider everything we do that has the slightest possibility of harming anyone else? By this moral reasoning we should all be growing all of our own food in small sustainable ways where the possibility of being harmed by the labour is minimized. We should do zero large construction, zero manufacturing, zero driving, etc. The moral standard he sets to apply to this one situation would implicate the way everyone lives their lives as immoral. Fucking ridiculous.
@Jeff Mccooper My point is with this moral standard applied to say driving, every single time you get in a car and drive for fun and not absolute necessity you are risking a profoundly immoral consequence of your selfish unnecessary action. You could kill someone when you could have taken a train or walked, doesn’t really matter how far it is if you apply this moral standard. It puts an incredibly high burden of morality on every single decision you make that essentially causes you to be completely paralyzed, except to do the things absolutely necessary for your survival. Anything else you do that could cause harm or death to someone else even by accident is a choice you decided to make and Destiny’s judgement is that you OUGHT to know better or you at least ought to know the risk or objectively observe the concrete moral and material consequences of your action perfectly as you might be about to get your dick wet for the first time instead of trying to structure the way the risk is carried by reforming other socioeconomic systems to lessen certain inequalities that could actually reduce the need for someone to feel they need an abortion in the first place.
@Jeff Mccooper I fully understand what you are arguing. Let’s take a step back and do a comparison to see what is missing if there is anything. My argument is that Destiny is placing an impossibly high moral burden on every single action any person takes. So let’s take both examples. In the example I give, the first action is getting into the vehicle. In Destiny’s example sex is the initial action. In my example the death is caused just as intentionally as in the abortion. In the edge cases where someone drives into people on purpose and where someone intentionally gets someone pregnant so they will have an abortion, if that even happens, are exactly that, edge cases. We can eliminate that from what we are considering. Now both actions can and do lead to death. We could reduce speed limits, segregate all walking traffic from driving traffic, etc to eliminate almost all of the risk but in society we recognize that we are collectively willing to take on the individually driven risks of people making their own decisions. The same goes for sex, which unlike driving or so many other actions including driving a car is literally a part of a healthy life, medical experts have done many studies showing mental and physical health are improved by healthy sexual relations. Now, either you think that you are immoral the second you wake up in the morning until the second you go to sleep because almost every action you take creates risk for other people’s lives and you do those things intentionally or you recognize that these risks and the morality of them are subordinate to the morality of individual autonomy or individual ability to make free choices. You have to choose, either it is immoral to use your autonomy in any way that generates any risk for any other human being or that we as society accept the collective risks generated by prioritizing autonomy over risk to life unintentionally generated by our free individual actions.
None of this even matters because the main argument for abortion is that the agency of the woman is paramount, regardless of the outside factors. The only thing that matters in the abortion argument is that the woman has the choice to do as she pleases in regards to her body.
Good discussion. Its always refreshing to see Rem and Marty talk, if just to remind us that not every person that Destiny has discussions with is completely braindead. I think that to this day the only bad take rem expressed was the one on Bolivia, and even that wasnt so bad.
An easy arguement against the this guy's god arguement is the idea of responsiblility for direct influence on probability. This is why these instances are not analogous. The pleasure harm principal relies on direct responsibility of the probability. Explanation: If you have a heart attack in a car you are not responsible for the probability of the heart attack, that probability is always present. If you have sex, you introduce a probability to a child. The idea that you have direct, conscious influence on the probability of the outcome is important.
Garin inderdeo what i meant is that choosing to drive the car introduces the probability of u killng someone due to ur heart attack the same as sex introducing the probability of having a child, but just to let u know i agree that the hypothetical is dianalangous beacuse as destiny said the action of abortion is different than killing a person instantly as a result of heart attack,
@@Mo_Bak yeah but if you start from the reference point of killing someone, you are equivicating probability incorrectly. When you get into a car, you create a probability to kill someone. When you have sex you don't have probability of abortion, you have the probability of a child and than you choose to abort. One is a probability and one is a choice. The debate is based on the probability of a child, not of the abortion. That's what the other guy is arguing . Two completely different arguement if you are granting acceptance to a child
@@hannah-zy6il It's more like when you smoke cigarettes you consent to getting that buzz, but at the same time you also have to consent to the possibility of getting lung cancer from it.
Having sex with contraceptions or condoms isn't the normal way to have a child, like driving a car and suddenly having a heart attack or stroke without known diseases isn't the normal way of having a heart attack.
So as I sit outside ready to cry, Nauseated, angry amongst other emotions like trying to stay strong for my Fiancé in order to support and respect her decision to abort our child.... I can’t help to think and wonder several things! Like for example maybe this is obvious or maybe it is only to Me, and Maybe I’m wrong? So let me clarify something 1st.... I believe that woman have the right to choose, and I firmly believe that if a woman is raped, or if she or I knew that the child would be born with some sort of defects than Yes I believe than a abortion should be allowed. I even will say that if your young (I’m 42 and my fiancé is 40 neither of us have children or been married) than You have the option than to abort. However how is it that Men such as myself are stripped, robbed and deprived of any and all choices in the decision process? So I sit here in my truck Not by Choice but because I am Not Allowed in the Abortion Clinic! So Even tho I’m the Father, and I’m here for support of my Fiancé it does Not Matter!! So Any woman having a abortion has to sit in this place that seems so far away from anything else in this world in the medical profession, that I have No Right to be in there with her and our own unborn child to be there for support and Hell maybe I need that too! But No, she will be in there by herself and literally You can’t have even a family member in there for support! I google the place which is called DreamStar located here in Westland Michigan off Ford Rd. And near Wayne Rd. And sits in front of a apartment complex I lived in as a child. The place comes up as Northland something, but the point is why the deceptive nature and a different name? Than what if I didn’t want the child but she did? I have No Rights yet again!! I would legally be obligated to support her and the child Financially till the child turned 18. My fiancé and I where in a motorcycle accident last summer and We both almost died because some asshole was in a rush for Labor Day weekend and pulled out in front of us causing me to T-Bone the guy at almost 40mph and of course he had No insurance! So we are still healing and the COVID-19 outbreak stopped and held up our Physical Therapy and treatment. Hence the reason why she wanted to have the abortion cause she is scared and rightfully so in that regard in my opinion. She broke her neck, spinal injury, and 7 Titanium ribs. Than Now to be almost 14 weeks pregnant I have No Idea how with her being pregnant would or would not effect her recovery or her body during the pregnancy! However on the same note she had at least 2 abortions in the past when she was younger, and never had the urge to have children or get married until she met Me as she said. Something needs to change and in a big way on Abortion in this Country! We as Americans, No fuck that, As Human beings are supposed to have the Freedom of Choice and Need To be Treated Equally! Abortion clinics should be set in a Hospital Setting and should Allow either the father of the child to be allowed in the building, because We Need to be allowed to be there in support of the decision and have rights as well, and at the very least no matter what the reason is to abort a life, support the woman carrying the child! If she was raped for example than what? She should be allowed to have a abortion at a Hospital in case something goes wrong and Hopefully I would hope and Pray that she would be allowed to have a family member or a great friend to be there in support! But Abortion Clinic’s Don’t allow this! Why? If you are close to my age we all seen Maury, and every other talk show Through the 80s and 90s have women on who don’t know who the babies dad is and then 20 shows later in 20 guys later still don’t know who the baby daddy is but the woman claimed only be with one guy! WTF? Or they Know who the father was and he didn’t want anything to do with the Woman or child for whatever the reason may be. But than the Audience would scream out that the guy was a dead beat, and how it takes 2 to make a child! All of which is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit! It does take 2 to make a baby, but than the guy In essence becomes a sperm donor after that because they have No say after the pregnancy takes place! I feel that woman should only be allowed to have a abortion 1 time and that is in regards to being young and stupid, foolish or raped or it’s medically deemed a risk to have a child! I feel woman and men both should have legal rights equally when a pregnancy takes place planned or not! If I could have the child myself I would, so she would not have to Endure any pain, but I can’t for obvious reasons but I’m Soooo Sick of hearing woman say Well We have to carry the child! As Men We have to put up with all the Psychological issues that come with a woman being pregnant! That’s why it’s a proven fact that mental abuse is worse than physical abuse. To clarify this, Woman have mood swings and only God knows the amount Of hormonal change is going on in her body so in short while pregnant they are not gonna be the same person that they were when they were not pregnant. Besides that Remember that bike accident I told you we got in earlier well I broke 18 bones altogether in my body and I broke my pelvis both sides so according to doctors me just breaking one side of my pelvis is the equivalent pain wise of breaking every rib in my body and is equivalent to child birth! I was walking the Next Day! Call it a miracle or whatever You want! But I can say I didn’t have a say or choice to have a accident, So women if you don’t want to be pregnant and don’t spread your legs and use some type of contraceptive or a multitude of contraceptives or get your tubes tied. And Yes this goes for Men as Well. I was just informed by my fiancé that she’ll be here for the better part of the day in this procedure which is not a hospital so that she’ll be here at 11:39 we’ve been here since 10 AM and she’s going to be in there till probably five 6 o’clock at night. No I’m no expert but I would believe that this is something that should be done at a hospital for all women if a abortion for whatever reason needs to take place! This Really Sucks!
Holy shit this must have sucked, i’m sorry. I’m female so I don’t really even know how to empathize properly. I will say I think there is a bit of an imbalance regarding the rights each party has with abortion, and I’ve thought about it a lot. I feel like if women are allowed to unilaterally abort their child without the fathers consent, which I think as painful as it may be should be the case, then I feel like the only way to balance that would be if men had the right to financially not-consent if their partners get pregnant and decide to keep the children when they don’t want them. And I know how bad it can be to be raised by a single mother, I was, but I feel like this is the only equitable way to ensure both genders have an equal degree of autonomy regarding having children...
Car example sucks. Job example works better. Let's say an employer wants to have employees work for them, but knows there's a risk that employees can get hurt on the job site. The employer takes precautions to ensure there's as little chance as possible that their employees get hurt. By whatever unluck, an employee gets hurt on the job site despite the precautions(this being analagous to getting pregnant). NOW, should I as an employer be allowed to kill the employee and erase all records of them working at my business(Have an abortion) to protect my reputation? Is it okay because I did everything I could to minimize the chance of them getting injured? Should I be burdened with bad reputation(baby) just because a freak accident happened?
Having sex is not consenting to get pregnant. Especially when you make the choice to take precautions so you don’t get pregnant. Taking precaution to not get pregnant is taking responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy by limiting those chances. Sex isn’t a hobby, it’s a fundamental part of human psychology. It’s more of a need than a want.
@AimingAtYou One of the outcomes of having sex is also your partner dying from a heart attack while you’re having sex. You aren’t guilty of killing them even if your actions did directly caused their death. You’re also ignoring how taking precautions against possibilities, affects the morality. As well as how our sex drive isn’t really a choice, but a basic motivating aspect of human psychology.
1) I hope Destiny has had someone point out since this that if he engages in the violinist hypothetical, the only reasonable duration of connection between the two people is 40 weeks, not "for the rest of your life." 2) It's funny to hear them discuss whether consent to sex is consent to possible pregnancy. For all of human history until 50 or 60 years ago, it _absolutely_ was, every time. Destiny's grandparents literally would not have understood what the question was asking (at least not when they were Destiny's age). Just because we have the technology now doesn't mean there should be no consideration of what consent to sex has meant historically. That also doesn't mean the consideration would necessarily swing pro-life, depending on your other opinions, since people did have abortions prior to birth control. On the other hand, they didn't have nearly the same scientific knowledge about embryonic development we do. There's a 50/50 chance Destiny's parents didn't know his sex until after he was born--that was tech just coming into wide use at the time. 3) Re: the first argument with the burglar in the house -- I think a better analogy, if you're looking at how the law looks at these things as well as morality, is a woman who wants to own a swimming pool. She wants to swim in it for personal leisure, but she does not want children in the swimming pool. However, any child who comes onto her property and enters her swimming pool, she has a legal duty of care toward, and if that child drowns, she is _legally_ responsible. If the child comes onto her property and ends up swimming safely in her pool, we do _not_ punish the child for trespassing. We actually punish the woman for maintaining an "attractive nuisance," which she has an affirmative duty to safeguard children from, because we acknowledge that a swimming pool, in a child's mind, is inherently an invitation to swim, and thus, inherently risky.
You don't get to tell other people what they consent to. Human beings, even innocent ones, don't get to use others' bodies without consent, nothing else matters.
To make the analogy work couldn't you just say, "if I'm driving with my wife and I have a heart attack, crash and she goes into a coma, would I be held responsible for murder if I decide to pull the plug." That would create the additional action of "killing" her after low probability heart attack/ car accident event.
Well no because fetus are expected to become healthy functioning humans. A coma patient that is expected to make a recovery will never have the plug pulled on them. You can only decide if there is close to no chance at life
@@THEOAKCAT That's not true, because otherwise you would set the precident to kill certain types of people, e.g. severley handicapped people. The argument is that abortion is wrong because you kill a person, and killing a person without justification is wrong period. Not my stance, but that's the argument.
These dudes make some of the worst arguments I've heard on this subject in a while. They just completely skip or ignore some things that Destiny brings up and also just say things then go on another tangent without making their claim.
Analogy: A driver takes reasonable precautions to make sure he drives safely. But one day has a stroke while operating his vehicle, it hits a pedestrian and kills them. He recovers from the stroke. Should he be held responsible. Comparison, a couple who want to take every precaution that is feasible to them, use multiple layers of contraception. Only having sex when the woman is at her least fertile. And somehow still end up getting pregnant. Should the woman then be forced to carry the child to term?
@Dreadnaught1985-"Analogy: A driver takes reasonable precautions to make sure he drives safely. But one day has a stroke while operating his vehicle, it hits a pedestrian and kills them. He recovers from the stroke. Should he be held responsible." Yes, that is want insurance is for. Nine times out of ten his company will settle. "Comparison, a couple who want to take every precaution that is feasible to them, use multiple layers of contraception. Only having sex when the woman is at her least fertile. And somehow still end up getting pregnant. Should the woman then be forced to carry the child to term?" Yes. Everyone that engages is sexual intercourse knows the consequences of the action. Every single action has a reaction. They both gave consent to having a child when they engaged in sexual intercourse. There is preventable measures we can all take that is 1000% effective, it's called abstinence.
Let's say I'm playing at a roulette table with a hundred number spaces on it, the zero being black and the rest being red. If the rules are such that landing on a red causes me to win money and landing on the black causes me to lose money, and I spin that wheel and land on the black, does it make sense for me to say that I shouldn't be held to my bet because I only had a very small chance to lose? Can I really say that in making that bet, that I only consent to winning money and not losing?
I don’t like the unwillingness for people to accept that abortions are almost entirely done out of convenience and that you can put the kid up for adoption after 9 months.
What if your job for example requires you to drive a car and you have a heart attack or you need it to get somwhere and you have no other options? This whole argument is so fucking stupid. Having a kid is analogous to having sex. Of course you can have sex without wanting a child, but you are increasing the chance of it happening, while driving a car does not directly increase your chance of having a heart attack. Now, if you drive a car purely for pleasure with a heart condition, get a heart attack, and end up killing someone you should be morally culpable. Were you to abstain from all actions that could harm a third party to avoid something you have no control over happening, you could never do anything in your life, and you would have zero freedom. There are like an infinite amount of examples for this that no human being could at all times account for.
The net benefit on society of allowing voluntary and safe access to abortion can't be understated. The cuddly "but it's a person!" argument is an argument based off emotion.
Destiny says the validity of having a heart attack behind the wheel as an exceptional circumstance is dependent on whether it is law, and then IMMEDIATELY proceeds to talk about moral culpability like the law and morality is mutually inclusive. Dude what?
Law and morality is depended on each other. Law often, not always reflects human morality. We, as in human kind, agree that murder is wrong, therefore it's forbidden in law. Not everything immoral is forbidden and not everything moral is legal, but the idea of law is that it's just codification of our morality.
@@szkatu142 Your explanation concedes there is a gap between morality and law. To use the two interchangeably where he did would make this debate moot, because then why question abortion? There are laws established and that would be the end of it. Destiny himself has made this point, talking specifically about prosecuting marijuana offenders. He was cornered and made a bad move.
Rem and Marty are pretty bad at hypotheticals. A better example would be going to a sandwich shop, and asking for a sandwich with no pickles. You've taken a reasonable level of care to make sure you don't get pickles. If there's a 1% chance they fuck up the order and give you pickles anyways, and you open up the sandwich to find the pickles, do you just accept thats how the sandwich came or do you reach in and take out the pickles?
Are pickles persons? What a fucked up analogy is that? You completely missed out on the most important constant in the abortion example, which is "killing a person without justification is morally wrong".
Destiny said you could grow a human body for use as a sex doll, and that there would be nothing morally wrong about that. That gives you everything you need to know about where science and reasoning are taking us.
Isn't Destiny just unable to engage with the hypothetical when he's like "Who builds a golf course like this? This hypothetical is unrealistic!" Like, I'm pretty sure you could probably think of similar examples that make sense... The point is that person A does action B and impossible for anyone to expect factor C happens resulting in person A's action B harming person D... Just plug those into different scenarios until you find something that is possible or just proceed with the hypothetical... I mean, he did kind of do that with the act of god thing, but I feel like the tsunami taking away the friend's car that you parked is something less likely than hitting a person with a golf ball from a golf course due to wind or something... Also Rem's point about comparing the moral consideration we give to pigs vs. the moral consideration we give fetuses is pretty dumb... Like, with morality if Destiny had a biocentrist or ecocentrist perspective on how it is applied, it would be more relevant... However, Destiny is more closer to the anthropocentrist view that humans are the only ones worth moral consideration (or at least the idea that humans come first and foremost with moral consideration in a hierarchy of pigs, penguins, trees, etc... Basically Destiny seems to see humans as superior to other animals or other aspects of the environment with regards to morality and ethics... As most people tend to...)
I agree that Destiny didn't properly engage with the hypothetical but that's irrelevant, because the hypothetical is not analogous. Having sex with the chance of getting pregnant is the first decision you make. Aborting is the second. The golf example only has one choice or action. Swinging the golf club. And that ends up in a death directly. There is no second choice here. Destiny said that taking precautions to prevent result 1 (pregnancy) from happening does not give you the moral right to peform action 2 (abortion). Also Destiny is not an anthropocentrist. I don't know what the term is but Destiny thinks in purely selfish terms here, which is morally justifiable. He says that he will never be harmed for killing pigs, therefore it's ok. This wouldn't work with humans, because if everyone thought like this, you would be at risk of getting killed by other humans. It's a social contract. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. It's a good moral guideline, because a sane person wouldn't disagree with this. Doesn't work with pigs, because they are dumb as fuck. Not my stance, but that's his argument basically.
It was a terrible analogy because it required a freak act of nature for the death to occur, while an abortion requires the couple to go to a clinic and perform another action to get the abortion. And I also fucking hate Rem, he's insufferable.
What if it's your own 6 month old child that needs to be hooked up to you for constant blood fusion to be kept alive for the next 9 months? By consensually having a baby, you are accepting the chance there could be complications and that it will be your responsibility, right? Are you obligated as the parent to do the constant transfusuon? What if it's for longer than 9 months? What if it's a year? 5 years? What if its indefinite and the child will never recover? At what point is it morally okay to call it quits on being permanently attached to this other being? And why does the length of time make a difference? What if it's not forever, but there is a lot of pain involved in the procedure and always a risk of you bleeding out/dying from it? What if the government didnt allow you to choose whether or not you wanted to endure this pain and undergo the risks involved to save your child... what if they just *forced* you to do it? Our bodily autonomy is one of the most important freedoms we have, and we would risk our own lives in pursuit of securing that freedom. Philosophy tube makes this argument perfectly in her Abortion video at 29:50- 32:50 mins.
@taytay swift Yes, I think that a man who had no intent of having a child gets someone pregnant, and she decides to keep it when it is still abortable, he should be able to opt out before it is born. He cant change his mind and opt out after its born obviously. He should not be able to opt out if he raped her. He should not be able to opt out if abortion is unobtainable because of legal/financial reasons. (But we need to make it legal and obtainable so this isnt an issue) And he should have to pay for 50% of the abortion related expenses. But yeah, I agree on that point. Men with financial hardship, should definitely be able to apply to have government assisted relief for child support. (And women who pay into child support too. Because in some cases the dad has custody and the woman pays support) I disagree that its usually mere convenience. A woman who remains pregnant will suffer various conditions and symptoms and have the pain of childbirth and permanent scaring since tearing usually occurs... and that's if it goes well. If it doesnt all go well, theres always a risk of death and bleeding out. Like damn... some women dont want to be forced to risk that. And I dont call that convenience.
@taytay swift Yes every time I said "opt out" I was talking about a legal way to "opt out" of child support. Basically men should have the right to legally "abort" themselves from the situation. Even if the woman doesnt want an abortion. Although I would say the other parental rights would have to be terminated along with this opt out option. Otherwise, tons of men would sign up to opt out of financial support, even if they do in fact want the child. You cant just use a woman as an incubator for a baby and then not contribute. The man either wants to have a baby, or they do not. I see too many ways for men to take unfair advantage otherwise.
@taytay swift I agree free abortions are the best way. Free all healthcare, is what I'd like to see. And I think there should be financial relief programs for men (or women) who struggle to afford to pay child support. The amount expected is sometimes too high to be reasonable. The government would essentially step in and make his payments, or pay a percent depending on how poor he is and how many other dependents he has.
@taytay swift rape sentences are sometimes only like 3 years. So they should still have to pay support when they get out. But they should also loose parental rights.
@taytay swift Child support *should* be calculated in a way that the parent without physical custody is merley contributing to the financial expense. Not paying 100% of all child expenses. I am fully interested in a system which equally protects *both* parents from being taken advantage of. The one with physical custody is *supposed* to be expected to contribute as well, not to just "use someone for their wallet." However you must also take into account the domestic labor and child care that the custodial parent does, and assign that contribution a monetary value, when determining fair 50/50 contribution. Parents who share joint physical custody, *already do not pay any child support at all.* So I agree this is great way to make sure both parents are equally contributing. Problem is, joint physical custody is looked at as "not as stable a routine for the child" by courts and therefore is not granted as often. But I would like to see more research on this, because I dont see why it cant be a stable routine.
If I drive a car and get into a car accident that is caused by another person and my child bleeds badly thats not what I consented to. I consented to driving a car. The state is cannot then obligate me to donate blood to my child to sustain their life. If my child then cannot find another donar and dies as a result it is not then my fault.
Destiny is wrong about like everything he says... on the golf course someone can also be hit in the head, in fact I would wager the overwhelming majority of people getting hit by golf balls are on the golf course...
I'm a leftist, but he's not really a great debater. I find him similar to Ben Shapiro, he just talks fast and uses big words. I agree with him on most topics, but I understand he doesn't do much more to prove his points besides using complicated analogies and than start restricting certain topics because it "complicates the issue."
The issue in their disagreement is that they are arguing whether or not pregnancy is an act that can be justifiable "punished" by childbirth, i.e. abortion is a just remedy in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, whereas Destiny is asking whether abortion is just in-of-itself. So all their analogies are extremeky misguided, because in none of these circumstances would execution of the non-consenting party be viewed as a just resolution of the circumstances. Also, there are plenty of circumstances where intent is not required for a liability to be assigned. For example, last I recall (at least from where I used to live) and rear-end collision (har har) would always find the vehicle following liabile for damages.
Consideration should be based on suffering. A fetus does not have the capacity to fear death or look forward to tomorrow in any meaningful way. Whether or not you consider it human is irrelevant. This would not necessarily apply to adults who are comatose or severely mentally handicapped in some way because there are people around them who would be hurt by their loss those this might change in specific instances. Because the fetus isn't going to experience any suffering from being terminated and can not fathom the prospect the feelings of the mother which would be negative if she is forced to carry the fetus to term must take precedence.
@@betohax no, because the hermit has presumably had previous experience where they would have a real fear/avoidance of death. It's possible that depending on how difficult it is to keep the hermit alive that the resources keeping them alive might be better utilized elsewhere necessitating pulling the plug on the hermit.
Am I crazy? I don't understand at all how Rem is actually saying that a spasm while playing golf has similar responsibility to the conception of a child from sex. They're both things that have a possibility of happening, but an inherent risk of sex, with reasonable chance of occurring, is having a kid. Every time this is a risk that must be assessed. To compare that to the chance of a random guy having the perfect storm of body spasms to send a golf ball through the head of a passerby is ludicrous.
If the woman gets to choose if a mans child gets to live or not then the man should get to choose if he wants to stay and pay child support or leave. (I chose to stay, im not saying leaving your child is right choice). If the man wants to keep the child the woman has the legal right to murder the child in her womb so its seems justified for men to have choice to stay or leave without financial responsibility. No abortions should mean that men have the legal and financial responsibility for the child but not if the woman has the right to terminate everything at will
Destiny constantly equivocated between a fetus and a living autonomous human (which it seemed he was saying was not a good equivocation in the beginning)
What destiny is saying i disagree with him saying thats like saying a woman who dresses provocative at a party is at fault because she knew there was a possibility of her getting raped and getting pregnant not the same and you wouldnt hold her accountable for that. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant
If you hit a golf ball on a golf course and a gust of wind blows the ball over the trees and onto a nearby road and it hits a vehicle you are responsible for the damage to the vehicle.
Is it morally wrong for someone to accidentaly hit a person with their golf ball while playing? Hehe well you should never build a golf course where that can happen Slippery steve cant engage with hypotheticals
@@paulk9188 Even if so, there are many reasons for which even most "Pro-Life" people (straight garbage term) believe the ending of a life is justified. Pro-Choice people simply include the exercise of protecting ones bodily autonomy among those reasons. A fetus does not have bodily autonomy rights as they are not yet autonomous. Unless youre truly 100% consistent across the board against the taking of life for any reason, then your argument is nothing more than a difference of opinion regarding who we can and cant end the lives of. Youre not pro-life. Youre just pro-birth.
@Totan 04-False. A fetus is not part of a womans body, the umbilical cord and placenta exist solely to separate the two people. Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion. A fetus is not part of a womans body, its entirely separate from it, even if its growing inside it. So the argument is invalid.
@@paulk9188 I never claimed a fetus was part of a woman's body. Quite the opposite. However, the fetus does utilize the mothers body and has physiological effects on the mothers body. Since we agree that the fetus is its own entity, that makes it an external influence on the mother (yes, even though it first appeared within the mother). "External" does not refer to outside. It refers to other than ones self. Remember the movie Innerspace? Dennis Quaid couldnt legally override Martin Shorts' autonomy just because he was literally inside him in a shrunken submarine (Even though, technically he did). Only the mother has bodily autonomy. Though it is its own entity, a fetus is not, and has never been, autonomous. It is dependent on the mother. How can it have a right to something it does not possess? Does a fetus have a right to life? Yes. The unborn have the same right to life as the born. That is to say that if either requires anothers body to survive, they must have permission to use it.
It has always struck me that the simple, obvious anti-abortion argument that no one ever makes is that there is broadly perceived to be a special level of protection owed to children and a special relationship between a child and its biological parents. None of these analogies that are being made are even remotely relevant when this factor this taken into account. (And I say this as someone who is *not* anti-abortion.)
I feel like one of Destiny's defenses of white incest isn't morally wrong is because people can have sex without making children. But a lot of defense here was "well who doesn't know that sex doesn't make babies so it's their fault "
I haven't finished the video, but I've finally gotten to the point where they've discussed the "problems" with the violinist thought experiment. I really don't see the relevancy of the presence of someone morally culpable or not. In the case of abortion, there is no group of people that hooked up you up to the fetus, it's just nature instead, but how does that change the moral situation of the person that was non consensually hooked up to the fetus? It doesn't. Just because there was an intentional act that lead to someone's death, doesn't mean there has to be someone morally culpable. So the agency of the people who hooked you up to the violinist is irrelevant to the parties of the person getting hooked to the violinist, and the violinist themselves. I don't know what the fuck Destiny is talking about.
This is ridiculous. We all know intention is important. What is the difference between murder and manslaughter? What is the difference between firstdegree and third-degree murder? Why do we have things such as a crime of passion? Intent is super important
I appreciate destiny's consistency on abortion. If you grant a fetus human rights then it is wrong and is murder, if you don't grant it human rights then it's fine. I'm personally in the camp of a fetus is not a sentient human being and doesn't deserve human rights. Now where exactly you draw that line might be a bit complicated, but I'd probably put it around 20 weeks being the cutoff but I might be lacking information to suggest sooner or later.
He shits on everyone for not being able to engage in hypotheticals but ends up not being able to entertain anyone else’s. Only if it fits his criteria for being comparable or analogous. When he gets triggered it reminds me of those annoying rat dogs called Chihuahuas, with the way he starts shuffling in his seat.
I want to debate Destiny on this so badly man. His big retreat is to always say “what other action could you do JUST FOR FUN that would justify harming other people”. I would respond; isn’t sex more than just fun? Isn’t sex a normal part of a healthy life? Isn’t it proved medically that regular sexual activity improves mental and physical health? Would you not consider that important much like improving ones diet or getting a better job or moving to a better location or anything we do to live and try to improve our lives? Don’t you consider sex above and beyond the aspect of procreation a separate and important aspect of ones overall health? A necessity of the healthiest life you can live?
These are such disingenuous analogies. The biological purpose of sex is procreation. It feels pleasurable is nature's way of making sure people procreate. Having vaginal sex with a woman is more akin to a game of Russian Roulette with a shotgun (if you must use an analogy), whatever you want to claim about the game, you're taking the chance that you're going to blow your head off. Using a condom is like wearing a bullet proof hat while playing Russian Roulette. Either way, you're still playing the game.
i don't get why we are holding people accountable for the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY scenario that someone gets pregnant through a condom and not holding people accountable for the other more likely things thate can occur from everyday actions
I actually think a sleeper idea is that if you take plan B and properly use a condom, it’s incredibly unlikely to get pregnant. Therefor it’s more like that an “accidental” pregnancy was because of misuse of either. We can’t measure that and I wouldn’t want to kill a child over it.
16:57 the argument is that abortion might be acceptable if the persons involved took adequate precautions to prevent the pregnancy from occurring and got pregnant anyway. What precautions does one take to specifically prevent getting a heart attack while driving a car?
Navid M I feel like Destiny just experiences one thing and then thinks everything that doesn’t match up with his experience is infallible. I lived around 5 different golf courses growing up. One of the courses ran through a residential area. The golfers would literally have to cross the road where cars drive in order to get to the next hole. The hole were golfers were aiming for was around 50 meters away from where people walked their dogs on the sidewalk. A couple of my friends also had houses that backed onto the course and they would find a couple of balls a week in their backyard. So no Destiny, not all golf courses are designed perfectly were it becomes impossible to accidentally hit someone with a golf ball.
@@NintendoBlurb yeah and youre using anecdotes to back yourself up. in that case if someone got hit, there's no accident, someone is going to be held liable.
An action having a chance consequence is not equivalent to an action carrying a consequence if a chance independent event confounds it. Someone should tell Rem about the importance of formal study in rhetorical discussions.
If I consent to stab someone but don't consent to kill them and they die. Am I not morally responsible for the consequences regardless of my intentions?
You would be, but this is a false analogy. The more accurate analogy would be if you needed a kidney and I, being the only applicable candidate, refused to donate my body to save you, did I "murder" you?
25:30 This boy really doesn't know the law, doesn't understand taking responsibility, and is out there trying to have sex and say "no matter what, it's getting aborted and that's fine with me. Not my fault." He is the type of person that makes Christians sound reasonable.
@@smiley__kylee Not unless you're tasked with watching a kid in their terrible two's. But when you think of your own kid or potential children that way, it just proves you never should have been having sex to begin with. Every action has a result and you have to own it. Not just hide behind convenience. It's still someone's choice to make and I won't falsely say I could or would ever change someone from having that choice. But that doesn't make it any less of a shitty, self indulgent decision. And doesn't keep you from being any less of a shitty, self indulgent person for choosing it if you REALLY didn't have to.
Tempest Tossed fuck human biology? Humans aren’t going to stop fucking because of whatever little rule books or ideas you have about morality. People don’t have to “own” anything. I don’t think of children as a punishment. That’s why my comment said “children aren’t a punishment”
I feel like both of these comments in response to my own are needlessly antagonistic. I didn't say that the bible doesn't promote abortion. When I say that he "makes Christians sound reasonable" I simply mean when they argue that responsibility is being ignored because of convenience and personal pleasures. Which no matter how you slice it is self indulgent. And in the case of the guys arguing with Destiny, they are also ignorant of law and simple logical understanding of how responsibility works.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
Destiny didn’t get enraged at Vaush in this debate
lmao
Nice one
@Nilly Sigger it is uploaded on Vaush's channel
@Nilly Sigger lol destinys editor sure as hell wont upload it it's on vaushs channel
Nilly Sigger did you enjoy?
Destiny had a 2 minutes argument in this debate
"I'll only do have the abortion debate for like 2 minutes" *proceeds to have hour and a half discussion, classic sickening steve
What a liar dude
What a filthy liar dude
What a rat fuck
Weaselly fucking liar
Still lying
Destiny seems to be getting waaaaaaay more frustrated and uncharitable in these debates as time goes on. I'm guessing it's the League?
He's been playing league for years and it hasn't been this bad ever
He recently talked to Hasan again and his attitude has gotten worse since. I swear to God it’s Hasan that’s put Destiny in this leftist hating mood.
Honestly, I'm just happy Destiny's community calls him out when he's being uncharitable or fallacious. It's really good to see.
@@Avenger222 if you see the like/dislike ratio, youre gonna realize what tends to happen is the leftie part of the community that he gathered shitting on alt-righters claims he was being fallacious or uncharitable when he attackes their positions
Wtf r u on about, he's completely charitable in this debate
I honestly only watch Destiny to see how annoyed he can possibly get at a topic.
Thats literally how he marks the debates titles is by the absurdity of the opposition in each....truly 8Head
Won't lie it is pretty entertaining.
I feel like Rem was guilty of making the continuum fallacy when he argued against probability as an important factor for moral considerations. just because I can't define an exact point where the probability is high enough to make the action "wrong", that doesn't mean that the argument isn't convincing. the fact that I can't define a certain point where X occurs, doesn't mean that any statement about the presence of X is unconvincing (e.g. it's impossible to objectively define the exact amount of money that a person has to have in order to be referred to as "rich", but that doesn't make the statement "someone who has a net worh of 0,01€ isn't rich" any less convincing).
Destiny ran alone into an assasin, a support, and a bruiser in this debate.
Who is who?
@@slylyon6875 18:36 Literally
@@santiagoley6403 Ohh, I thought you ment it as a metaphor in like the people he is talking against are debating similiar to those roles. MB
>I have like 10 minutes
>video is more than 1 hour
Weaseliy little liar dude
You're supposed to watch it at 4x speed. That's what he meant I think
That's literally how 60% of destiny's debates go.
@@PvMstevo WHAT A WEASELIY... LITTLE...
Here before the title changes from "DestinyAbortion - Purple.mp4"
The Plains Jam in my feed it was the original title but when I clicked it became the new title
I was here when this was a prvate video
Good meme
Having sex is the same thing as consenting to a child.
Going to school is the same thing as consenting to get shot.
Let me fix this, sec:
Having sex is the same thing as consenting to a child.
Stepping into the middle of a cross-fire is the same thing as consenting to get shot.
only in America where home-schooling is an option.
@Ides94 enlighten me on how I'm wrong
That is without doubt the worst comparison I've ever seen.
The idea that sex is consent to pregnancy is inherently sexist. That belief is putting an additional burden of consent to risk upon women that men do not have to make. Women should have the same ability to consent to sex purely for pleasure that men do, thus we should allow them to get an abortion in the event of unwanted pregnancy.
In any case, a woman should be allowed to remove a foreign object from her body if she does not wish it to be there. It just so happens that removing a fetus results in its death. That is not the same as killing/murder.
Destiny REGRESSED to Intellectual dishonesty because he can't be bothered with college student hot takes in this debate
Shadow.TechIsTheFuture So......he’s Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder?
what intellectual dishonesty lol. he was coherent the whole time
Comparing the argument to leaving your garage door open with candy in the garage. Its probably your fault the candy got stolen by a child is being intellectually dishonest
Consent to sex is not consent to give birth. Its consent to the risk of pregnancy, for which options besides birth exist. Thats like saying consent to sex is consent to die of a treatable STD like syphilis.
Youre skipping from A to C.
To me, its a matter of bodily autonomy rights which, IMHO, arent obtained until you become autonomous. A fetus isnt autonomous.
It's not quite that easy. You arguing abortion should be a right because of bodily autonomy for the woman doesn't justify the concept of bodily autonomy. And the same ethical arguments you use for the right to bodily autonomy can easily be used as a pro-life argument.
Let me give you an example: You are out driving with your friends. Suddenly you decide to use your bodily autonomy and without a word of warning crash your car in a mountain wall, killing everyone in the car. It can be argued you were justified in killing yourself. But were you justified in killing your friends? They had by their own free will decided to join you out driving. Did they at the same time accept the full responsibility of your potentially crashing your car into the wall? Or do we accept that bodily autonomy is not the only moral consideration to use in life.
@@SweBeach2023
I believe in bodily autonomy rights for everyone (male and female) once bodily autonomy is obtained (post-birth). A fetus is not autonomous.
Your example is irrelevant to my position as all people in the vehicle are autonomous. Also, abortion is a response to ones autonomy being infringed. Killing people riding beside you in a car is not.
Rem 100% had the better argument on the topic of consent to pregnancy, destiny had to concede and alter his argument to something else entirely just to appear more correct.
Children have extra-sensory abilities to detect candy, in this debate.
Heh, good one
What a dum mem, you must be a baby Bummer.
@Gage Chier-Don't be like that, there's enough hatred in this comment section already.
Paul K the original comment was dismissive towards destinys hypothetical, mine was dismissive towards his comment lol
@Gage Chier-Do you follow Destiny?
Anologies are a great tool to clarify your point, some people love using them to complicate it instead.
I'm 10 minutes in, and I can't take it, and so I'll just resolve it here and now. It's not about "being human", or crap examples like someone invading your home. It's about the right to decide over your own body, and to remove whatever parasites are leeching off you. If you're pregnant, and don't want the child, then it is, for all intents and purposes, like a parasite.
An improbably analogy that gets the point across, is to imagine that you wake of with another person somehow attached to you in a way that would kill that other person, but not you, if you disconnected them. Would you have the right to disconnect that other person, or should you stay connected to them for 9 months? Would that be your duty?
I don't think so. It would be an unfortunate thing that the person died, but and maybe we'd even say that you'd have a better moral character if you let them live, but in the end that's only YOUR choice, because YOU decide the use of YOUR body. Easy as that.
A better example would be you participating in a destruction derby with a 1-10 percent of hurting someone so badly that person will need to be hooked up to your body for 9 months to survive. All the participants accept this possibility. Now let''s assume the worst happens and you in fact hurt another participant badly, get hooked up etc. Would you now be justified in saying "screw this, I no longer feel like honoring my part of the deal", unhooking the tubes and let the other participant die?
@@deekay1014 You seem unwilling to understand, i.e. acting in bad faith.
Because you probably DO understand the scenario that I'm painting, EVEN though it's something impossible. One person being dependent on the body of another.
The point is to catch an intuition here...
There's no scenario other scenario that it would be okay to take ownership of a woman's body, and decide FOR HER what to do with is, and whether another organism should be allowed to live there.
In a fucked up situation, where another organism is living off of YOUR body, that you DO NOT WANT, you should have the right to ABORT.
@@SweBeach2023 Yes. Because it's still YOUR body.
Sex is one of the most normal human activities that there are, as opposed to destruction derby. You could NEVER turn the world into a place where people didn't have sex. (Or maybe nuclear war would do it, but barring that.. )
So in that way there's a slightly better case to be made for your scenario, if you decide to do something that almost no one does, and as such is easy to avoid.
But in the end no one can should be allowed to own other people, and if they aren't, then it's up to you to abort an unwanted organism living off your body.
@@deekay1014
Some people will see the point, and others won't.
It's offensive to people no matter what. They (some of them) even bomb abortion clinics. (So much for human life..)
It's cracy how particular "pro life" people is about exactly when they are pro life. Before the life is born, to be exact.
Anyways. My point is that you can call it whatever. Human, fetus, a lump of cells, a parasite, a person.. it doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that it's another organism that survives off a person that DOES NOT want it. That's mostly what parasites do unless they're symbiotic, which is why it works as a comparison, however upsetting that might be. It just works almost perfectly by definition. From Dictionary.com: Parasite: "an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment."
The second suggestion from the same place: "a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others."
But I don't except this but make sense to everybody. If people believe they are entitled to decide over the body of someone else, then what more can I say? In the end who ever has got the most power wins, I suppose. I also suppose that if the US ever got a nation wide abortion ban it would mean a HUGE LEAP closer to civil war.
@@deekay1014 Well I certainly agree that it's best to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
About the mental health issues. Would you say that this is usually a very long lasting effect for those who experience it with regards to abortions?
I don't mean to suggest that it is in any way an easy decision for women to make. I don't think it is.
And to be honest, I don't even like the kind of pro-choice positions in which they say that the fetus is not human, as if calling it by another word makes a difference. This just seems like motivated reasoning to me. It's the beginning of human life, as far as I'm concerned. And as such, and knowing that it turn into a child that you will come to love more than anything, it would be weird if it was a decision lightly made.
It's just that nothing or close to nothing should supersede the right to self determination. It's the woman's body, and she who must endure whatever consequences the abortion might have on her mental health. Quite often people are totally fine as well.
And with this is as the guiding principle we can pile on what we know about the consequences of NOT allowing abortions. We can talk about self abortions, and children growing up in horrible conditions. We can talk about lives being turned totally upside down for young teens who get pregnant, and so on.
All in all I really don't think there's a good case to be made for banning abortions. Though I claim to know that this is your position.
When it comes down to the moral argument for abortion I think it really just boils down to whether or whether not you care about fetuses being killed.
@Brendon-Fetus is a Latin word for human Offspring. Abortion is the intentional killing of a human life...terminology helps sugar coat a deceptive pill.
What about understanding it's not okay as a personal choice but understanding society is better overall if we don't limit access to these sorts of things.
@ay lmao-Limiting/outlawing access for the ability of people to kill others is a good thing for society.
Killing for convenice is not.
@@paulk9188 Yes outlawing murder is better for society, I agree. The thing is most reasonable / critically thinking people can understand the very clear difference between an OUTRIGHT MURDER VS ABORTION. Again, just for clarification I am against abortion as a personal choice. That being said I'd rather leave it up to the individual, for the betterment of society. If you feel murder and abortion are on the same scale I'd like to agree to disagree.
@ay lmao-Abortion is murder by its very definition..which is why the laws are changing & Amendment 67 is gaining so much traction
Lmao When they say “this gets weird” it’s them saying “I’m wrong but I can’t admit it”
Destiny says we don’t operate on the notion that literally everything you do basically involves some type of risk. Getting out of bed you could slip and fall on your child harming them. We decide that it’s okay for us to drive cars, fly planes, over safer forms of travel because we find it worth it to endanger other people’s lives for our individual autonomy and choices all the time, literally all the time. This notion that this compromise on values in order to do what it is we want to do as individuals or notion that we don’t constantly undertake risks of harming others for things we don’t actually need to do but instead we want to do because more people get more autonomy to do what they want. It is not criminal when someone dies in a construction accident but we continue to do construction. It is not criminal to do a lot of everyday things that may cause harm to many people that we take that risk on, on purpose, do we consider everything we do that has the slightest possibility of harming anyone else? By this moral reasoning we should all be growing all of our own food in small sustainable ways where the possibility of being harmed by the labour is minimized. We should do zero large construction, zero manufacturing, zero driving, etc. The moral standard he sets to apply to this one situation would implicate the way everyone lives their lives as immoral. Fucking ridiculous.
@Jeff Mccooper My point is with this moral standard applied to say driving, every single time you get in a car and drive for fun and not absolute necessity you are risking a profoundly immoral consequence of your selfish unnecessary action. You could kill someone when you could have taken a train or walked, doesn’t really matter how far it is if you apply this moral standard. It puts an incredibly high burden of morality on every single decision you make that essentially causes you to be completely paralyzed, except to do the things absolutely necessary for your survival. Anything else you do that could cause harm or death to someone else even by accident is a choice you decided to make and Destiny’s judgement is that you OUGHT to know better or you at least ought to know the risk or objectively observe the concrete moral and material consequences of your action perfectly as you might be about to get your dick wet for the first time instead of trying to structure the way the risk is carried by reforming other socioeconomic systems to lessen certain inequalities that could actually reduce the need for someone to feel they need an abortion in the first place.
@Jeff Mccooper I fully understand what you are arguing. Let’s take a step back and do a comparison to see what is missing if there is anything. My argument is that Destiny is placing an impossibly high moral burden on every single action any person takes. So let’s take both examples. In the example I give, the first action is getting into the vehicle. In Destiny’s example sex is the initial action. In my example the death is caused just as intentionally as in the abortion. In the edge cases where someone drives into people on purpose and where someone intentionally gets someone pregnant so they will have an abortion, if that even happens, are exactly that, edge cases. We can eliminate that from what we are considering. Now both actions can and do lead to death. We could reduce speed limits, segregate all walking traffic from driving traffic, etc to eliminate almost all of the risk but in society we recognize that we are collectively willing to take on the individually driven risks of people making their own decisions. The same goes for sex, which unlike driving or so many other actions including driving a car is literally a part of a healthy life, medical experts have done many studies showing mental and physical health are improved by healthy sexual relations. Now, either you think that you are immoral the second you wake up in the morning until the second you go to sleep because almost every action you take creates risk for other people’s lives and you do those things intentionally or you recognize that these risks and the morality of them are subordinate to the morality of individual autonomy or individual ability to make free choices. You have to choose, either it is immoral to use your autonomy in any way that generates any risk for any other human being or that we as society accept the collective risks generated by prioritizing autonomy over risk to life unintentionally generated by our free individual actions.
None of this even matters because the main argument for abortion is that the agency of the woman is paramount, regardless of the outside factors. The only thing that matters in the abortion argument is that the woman has the choice to do as she pleases in regards to her body.
Good discussion. Its always refreshing to see Rem and Marty talk, if just to remind us that not every person that Destiny has discussions with is completely braindead. I think that to this day the only bad take rem expressed was the one on Bolivia, and even that wasnt so bad.
No, Rem cannot be considered refreshing based on some of the shit he said.
Marty is pretty braindead
"children don't just die automatically"
ahahahahaaha
Tell that to the front of my ford pickup
If they can't die automatically then what the fuck is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome?
@@Azraelmaximilian for infants not children :)
An easy arguement against the this guy's god arguement is the idea of responsiblility for direct influence on probability. This is why these instances are not analogous. The pleasure harm principal relies on direct responsibility of the probability.
Explanation: If you have a heart attack in a car you are not responsible for the probability of the heart attack, that probability is always present. If you have sex, you introduce a probability to a child. The idea that you have direct, conscious influence on the probability of the outcome is important.
No but u are introducing that probability by choosing to drive the car
Drive every day and have sex every day and see which happens first.... get back to me when you are a heart healthy great grandfather
@@Mo_Bak do you think driving a car increases the probability of having a heart attack ?
Garin inderdeo what i meant is that choosing to drive the car introduces the probability of u killng someone due to ur heart attack the same as sex introducing the probability of having a child, but just to let u know i agree that the hypothetical is dianalangous beacuse as destiny said the action of abortion is different than killing a person instantly as a result of heart attack,
@@Mo_Bak yeah but if you start from the reference point of killing someone, you are equivicating probability incorrectly. When you get into a car, you create a probability to kill someone. When you have sex you don't have probability of abortion, you have the probability of a child and than you choose to abort. One is a probability and one is a choice. The debate is based on the probability of a child, not of the abortion. That's what the other guy is arguing . Two completely different arguement if you are granting acceptance to a child
Bruh I feel like Destiny has been mad for a year
1999 This is your brain on COOM.
Saying choosing sex is not consent to pregnancy is like choosing to pound shots but not consenting to getting wasted.
yeah except pounding shots necessarily only results in you getting wasted whereas if you use protection during sex it's a very small chance
@@hannah-zy6il It's more like when you smoke cigarettes you consent to getting that buzz, but at the same time you also have to consent to the possibility of getting lung cancer from it.
Or buying a lottery ticket and not consenting to losing💀
If you don't agree with Destiny's opinions on this, don't worry, he'll change them in a few months.
the intuitive leap is from action to action through inaction
also, Destiny could not grapple with a hypothetical in this debate
Having sex with contraceptions or condoms isn't the normal way to have a child, like driving a car and suddenly having a heart attack or stroke without known diseases isn't the normal way of having a heart attack.
So as I sit outside ready to cry, Nauseated, angry amongst other emotions like trying to stay strong for my Fiancé in order to support and respect her decision to abort our child....
I can’t help to think and wonder several things!
Like for example maybe this is obvious or maybe it is only to Me, and Maybe I’m wrong?
So let me clarify something 1st....
I believe that woman have the right to choose, and I firmly believe that if a woman is raped, or if she or I knew that the child would be born with some sort of defects than Yes I believe than a abortion should be allowed.
I even will say that if your young (I’m 42 and my fiancé is 40 neither of us have children or been married) than You have the option than to abort.
However how is it that Men such as myself are stripped, robbed and deprived of any and all choices in the decision process?
So I sit here in my truck Not by Choice but because I am Not Allowed in the Abortion Clinic!
So Even tho I’m the Father, and I’m here for support of my Fiancé it does Not Matter!!
So Any woman having a abortion has to sit in this place that seems so far away from anything else in this world in the medical profession, that I have No Right to be in there with her and our own unborn child to be there for support and Hell maybe I need that too!
But No, she will be in there by herself and literally You can’t have even a family member in there for support!
I google the place which is called DreamStar located here in Westland Michigan off Ford Rd. And near Wayne Rd. And sits in front of a apartment complex I lived in as a child.
The place comes up as Northland something, but the point is why the deceptive nature and a different name?
Than what if I didn’t want the child but she did? I have No Rights yet again!!
I would legally be obligated to support her and the child Financially till the child turned 18.
My fiancé and I where in a motorcycle accident last summer and We both almost died because some asshole was in a rush for Labor Day weekend and pulled out in front of us causing me to T-Bone the guy at almost 40mph and of course he had No insurance!
So we are still healing and the COVID-19 outbreak stopped and held up our Physical Therapy and treatment.
Hence the reason why she wanted to have the abortion cause she is scared and rightfully so in that regard in my opinion.
She broke her neck, spinal injury, and 7 Titanium ribs. Than Now to be almost 14 weeks pregnant I have No Idea how with her being pregnant would or would not effect her recovery or her body during the pregnancy!
However on the same note she had at least 2 abortions in the past when she was younger, and never had the urge to have children or get married until she met Me as she said.
Something needs to change and in a big way on Abortion in this Country!
We as Americans, No fuck that, As Human beings are supposed to have the Freedom of Choice and Need To be Treated Equally!
Abortion clinics should be set in a Hospital Setting and should Allow either the father of the child to be allowed in the building, because We Need to be allowed to be there in support of the decision and have rights as well, and at the very least no matter what the reason is to abort a life, support the woman carrying the child!
If she was raped for example than what? She should be allowed to have a abortion at a Hospital in case something goes wrong and Hopefully I would hope and Pray that she would be allowed to have a family member or a great friend to be there in support!
But Abortion Clinic’s Don’t allow this! Why?
If you are close to my age we all seen Maury, and every other talk show Through the 80s and 90s have women on who don’t know who the babies dad is and then 20 shows later in 20 guys later still don’t know who the baby daddy is but the woman claimed only be with one guy! WTF?
Or they Know who the father was and he didn’t want anything to do with the Woman or child for whatever the reason may be.
But than the Audience would scream out that the guy was a dead beat, and how it takes 2 to make a child!
All of which is a bunch of hypocritical bullshit!
It does take 2 to make a baby, but than the guy In essence becomes a sperm donor after that because they have No say after the pregnancy takes place!
I feel that woman should only be allowed to have a abortion 1 time and that is in regards to being young and stupid, foolish or raped or it’s medically deemed a risk to have a child!
I feel woman and men both should have legal rights equally when a pregnancy takes place planned or not!
If I could have the child myself I would, so she would not have to Endure any pain, but I can’t for obvious reasons but I’m Soooo Sick of hearing woman say Well We have to carry the child!
As Men We have to put up with all the Psychological issues that come with a woman being pregnant!
That’s why it’s a proven fact that mental abuse is worse than physical abuse.
To clarify this, Woman have mood swings and only God knows the amount Of hormonal change is going on in her body so in short while pregnant they are not gonna be the same person that they were when they were not pregnant.
Besides that Remember that bike accident I told you we got in earlier well I broke 18 bones altogether in my body and I broke my pelvis both sides so according to doctors me just breaking one side of my pelvis is the equivalent pain wise of breaking every rib in my body and is equivalent to child birth!
I was walking the Next Day! Call it a miracle or whatever You want!
But I can say I didn’t have a say or choice to have a accident, So women if you don’t want to be pregnant and don’t spread your legs and use some type of contraceptive or a multitude of contraceptives or get your tubes tied.
And Yes this goes for Men as Well.
I was just informed by my fiancé that she’ll be here for the better part of the day in this procedure which is not a hospital so that she’ll be here at 11:39 we’ve been here since 10 AM and she’s going to be in there till probably five 6 o’clock at night. No I’m no expert but I would believe that this is something that should be done at a hospital for all women if a abortion for whatever reason needs to take place!
This Really Sucks!
Holy shit this must have sucked, i’m sorry.
I’m female so I don’t really even know how to empathize properly. I will say I think there is a bit of an imbalance regarding the rights each party has with abortion, and I’ve thought about it a lot. I feel like if women are allowed to unilaterally abort their child without the fathers consent, which I think as painful as it may be should be the case, then I feel like the only way to balance that would be if men had the right to financially not-consent if their partners get pregnant and decide to keep the children when they don’t want them.
And I know how bad it can be to be raised by a single mother, I was, but I feel like this is the only equitable way to ensure both genders have an equal degree of autonomy regarding having children...
If no one compares Destiny to Ben Shapiro, is it even a Destiny debate?
25:42 imagine making this argument to the guy you just hit in the parking lot of a golf course lul
Yea all his analogies but mostly this one were insanely stupid. That golf example made me want to abort myself.
IT WAS AN ACT OF GOD, PLEASE DONT SUE ME
Car example sucks. Job example works better. Let's say an employer wants to have employees work for them, but knows there's a risk that employees can get hurt on the job site. The employer takes precautions to ensure there's as little chance as possible that their employees get hurt. By whatever unluck, an employee gets hurt on the job site despite the precautions(this being analagous to getting pregnant).
NOW, should I as an employer be allowed to kill the employee and erase all records of them working at my business(Have an abortion) to protect my reputation? Is it okay because I did everything I could to minimize the chance of them getting injured? Should I be burdened with bad reputation(baby) just because a freak accident happened?
Destiny got consensually killed by a rogue golf ball at a golf course in this debate.
Having sex is not consenting to get pregnant. Especially when you make the choice to take precautions so you don’t get pregnant. Taking precaution to not get pregnant is taking responsibility for the possibility of pregnancy by limiting those chances. Sex isn’t a hobby, it’s a fundamental part of human psychology. It’s more of a need than a want.
Having sex is consenting to perform an act where one of the possible outcomes is pregnancy.
@AimingAtYou One of the outcomes of having sex is also your partner dying from a heart attack while you’re having sex. You aren’t guilty of killing them even if your actions did directly caused their death. You’re also ignoring how taking precautions against possibilities, affects the morality. As well as how our sex drive isn’t really a choice, but a basic motivating aspect of human psychology.
1) I hope Destiny has had someone point out since this that if he engages in the violinist hypothetical, the only reasonable duration of connection between the two people is 40 weeks, not "for the rest of your life."
2) It's funny to hear them discuss whether consent to sex is consent to possible pregnancy. For all of human history until 50 or 60 years ago, it _absolutely_ was, every time. Destiny's grandparents literally would not have understood what the question was asking (at least not when they were Destiny's age). Just because we have the technology now doesn't mean there should be no consideration of what consent to sex has meant historically.
That also doesn't mean the consideration would necessarily swing pro-life, depending on your other opinions, since people did have abortions prior to birth control. On the other hand, they didn't have nearly the same scientific knowledge about embryonic development we do. There's a 50/50 chance Destiny's parents didn't know his sex until after he was born--that was tech just coming into wide use at the time.
3) Re: the first argument with the burglar in the house -- I think a better analogy, if you're looking at how the law looks at these things as well as morality, is a woman who wants to own a swimming pool. She wants to swim in it for personal leisure, but she does not want children in the swimming pool. However, any child who comes onto her property and enters her swimming pool, she has a legal duty of care toward, and if that child drowns, she is _legally_ responsible.
If the child comes onto her property and ends up swimming safely in her pool, we do _not_ punish the child for trespassing. We actually punish the woman for maintaining an "attractive nuisance," which she has an affirmative duty to safeguard children from, because we acknowledge that a swimming pool, in a child's mind, is inherently an invitation to swim, and thus, inherently risky.
You don't get to tell other people what they consent to. Human beings, even innocent ones, don't get to use others' bodies without consent, nothing else matters.
Destiny gets way too triggered quick nowadays
"It's Marty"
the driving example is bad solely because having sex directly causes pregnancy while heart attacks and driving are independent events
To make the analogy work couldn't you just say, "if I'm driving with my wife and I have a heart attack, crash and she goes into a coma, would I be held responsible for murder if I decide to pull the plug." That would create the additional action of "killing" her after low probability heart attack/ car accident event.
Well no because fetus are expected to become healthy functioning humans.
A coma patient that is expected to make a recovery will never have the plug pulled on them.
You can only decide if there is close to no chance at life
@@THEOAKCAT That's not true, because otherwise you would set the precident to kill certain types of people, e.g. severley handicapped people. The argument is that abortion is wrong because you kill a person, and killing a person without justification is wrong period. Not my stance, but that's the argument.
These dudes make some of the worst arguments I've heard on this subject in a while. They just completely skip or ignore some things that Destiny brings up and also just say things then go on another tangent without making their claim.
Destiny ironically had no self control to avoid the pleasurable activity in this debate
Analogy: A driver takes reasonable precautions to make sure he drives safely. But one day has a stroke while operating his vehicle, it hits a pedestrian and kills them. He recovers from the stroke. Should he be held responsible.
Comparison, a couple who want to take every precaution that is feasible to them, use multiple layers of contraception. Only having sex when the woman is at her least fertile. And somehow still end up getting pregnant. Should the woman then be forced to carry the child to term?
@Dreadnaught1985-"Analogy: A driver takes reasonable precautions to make sure he drives safely. But one day has a stroke while operating his vehicle, it hits a pedestrian and kills them. He recovers from the stroke. Should he be held responsible."
Yes, that is want insurance is for. Nine times out of ten his company will settle.
"Comparison, a couple who want to take every precaution that is feasible to them, use multiple layers of contraception. Only having sex when the woman is at her least fertile. And somehow still end up getting pregnant. Should the woman then be forced to carry the child to term?"
Yes. Everyone that engages is sexual intercourse knows the consequences of the action. Every single action has a reaction. They both gave consent to having a child when they engaged in sexual intercourse. There is preventable measures we can all take that is 1000% effective, it's called abstinence.
Let's say I'm playing at a roulette table with a hundred number spaces on it, the zero being black and the rest being red. If the rules are such that landing on a red causes me to win money and landing on the black causes me to lose money, and I spin that wheel and land on the black, does it make sense for me to say that I shouldn't be held to my bet because I only had a very small chance to lose? Can I really say that in making that bet, that I only consent to winning money and not losing?
Did Rem just allude that he doesn't see a moral difference between a pig and a human fetus by asking Destiny that loaded question?
Pigs have way more moral worth
He was asking why Destiny sees abortion as murder but is okay with eating meat
I don’t like the unwillingness for people to accept that abortions are almost entirely done out of convenience and that you can put the kid up for adoption after 9 months.
Destiny learned the violin in this debate
What happened to the Democrats Las Vegas debate that was here today
umreli will Taken down so they can put it up in two weeks time
Dmca maybe
Destiny rode around in his massive monster truck and licked everyone's doorknob in this debate.
What if your job for example requires you to drive a car and you have a heart attack or you need it to get somwhere and you have no other options?
This whole argument is so fucking stupid. Having a kid is analogous to having sex. Of course you can have sex without wanting a child, but you are increasing the chance of it happening, while driving a car does not directly increase your chance of having a heart attack.
Now, if you drive a car purely for pleasure with a heart condition, get a heart attack, and end up killing someone you should be morally culpable.
Were you to abstain from all actions that could harm a third party to avoid something you have no control over happening, you could never do anything in your life, and you would have zero freedom. There are like an infinite amount of examples for this that no human being could at all times account for.
The net benefit on society of allowing voluntary and safe access to abortion can't be understated. The cuddly "but it's a person!" argument is an argument based off emotion.
"Feels over reals for me, but not for thee."
- Bonelli, specifically when discussing abortion
It is not possible to ethically defend abortion, you just have to accept that the act is wrong but do not care.
Idea to rephrase the question. If you become pregnant are you morally obligated to stay pregnant.
Steve really needs to stop playing League, he starts malding way too quickly.
Destiny says the validity of having a heart attack behind the wheel as an exceptional circumstance is dependent on whether it is law, and then IMMEDIATELY proceeds to talk about moral culpability like the law and morality is mutually inclusive. Dude what?
Law and morality is depended on each other. Law often, not always reflects human morality. We, as in human kind, agree that murder is wrong, therefore it's forbidden in law. Not everything immoral is forbidden and not everything moral is legal, but the idea of law is that it's just codification of our morality.
@@szkatu142 Your explanation concedes there is a gap between morality and law. To use the two interchangeably where he did would make this debate moot, because then why question abortion? There are laws established and that would be the end of it.
Destiny himself has made this point, talking specifically about prosecuting marijuana offenders. He was cornered and made a bad move.
Rem and Marty are pretty bad at hypotheticals. A better example would be going to a sandwich shop, and asking for a sandwich with no pickles. You've taken a reasonable level of care to make sure you don't get pickles. If there's a 1% chance they fuck up the order and give you pickles anyways, and you open up the sandwich to find the pickles, do you just accept thats how the sandwich came or do you reach in and take out the pickles?
Are pickles persons? What a fucked up analogy is that? You completely missed out on the most important constant in the abortion example, which is "killing a person without justification is morally wrong".
"I dont have 10 hours"
Looks at video length
Sure lol
Apparently he doesn’t lol
This is like saying you can eat unhealthy food all the time and not consent to being unhealthy or fat
Destiny became spontaneously pregnant in this debate.
Destiny said you could grow a human body for use as a sex doll, and that there would be nothing morally wrong about that.
That gives you everything you need to know about where science and reasoning are taking us.
Isn't Destiny just unable to engage with the hypothetical when he's like "Who builds a golf course like this? This hypothetical is unrealistic!"
Like, I'm pretty sure you could probably think of similar examples that make sense... The point is that person A does action B and impossible for anyone to expect factor C happens resulting in person A's action B harming person D... Just plug those into different scenarios until you find something that is possible or just proceed with the hypothetical... I mean, he did kind of do that with the act of god thing, but I feel like the tsunami taking away the friend's car that you parked is something less likely than hitting a person with a golf ball from a golf course due to wind or something...
Also Rem's point about comparing the moral consideration we give to pigs vs. the moral consideration we give fetuses is pretty dumb... Like, with morality if Destiny had a biocentrist or ecocentrist perspective on how it is applied, it would be more relevant... However, Destiny is more closer to the anthropocentrist view that humans are the only ones worth moral consideration (or at least the idea that humans come first and foremost with moral consideration in a hierarchy of pigs, penguins, trees, etc... Basically Destiny seems to see humans as superior to other animals or other aspects of the environment with regards to morality and ethics... As most people tend to...)
I agree that Destiny didn't properly engage with the hypothetical but that's irrelevant, because the hypothetical is not analogous. Having sex with the chance of getting pregnant is the first decision you make. Aborting is the second. The golf example only has one choice or action. Swinging the golf club. And that ends up in a death directly. There is no second choice here. Destiny said that taking precautions to prevent result 1 (pregnancy) from happening does not give you the moral right to peform action 2 (abortion).
Also Destiny is not an anthropocentrist. I don't know what the term is but Destiny thinks in purely selfish terms here, which is morally justifiable. He says that he will never be harmed for killing pigs, therefore it's ok. This wouldn't work with humans, because if everyone thought like this, you would be at risk of getting killed by other humans. It's a social contract. I don't kill you, you don't kill me. It's a good moral guideline, because a sane person wouldn't disagree with this. Doesn't work with pigs, because they are dumb as fuck. Not my stance, but that's his argument basically.
It was a terrible analogy because it required a freak act of nature for the death to occur, while an abortion requires the couple to go to a clinic and perform another action to get the abortion. And I also fucking hate Rem, he's insufferable.
Destiny, I look forward to your PragerU guest appearance vid.
lmao
Destiny talked about abortion for two minutes in this debate.
I honestly love how Destiny tells pretty much everyone he loves them at the end of these conversations. It's really wholesome and beautiful.
What if it's your own 6 month old child that needs to be hooked up to you for constant blood fusion to be kept alive for the next 9 months? By consensually having a baby, you are accepting the chance there could be complications and that it will be your responsibility, right? Are you obligated as the parent to do the constant transfusuon?
What if it's for longer than 9 months? What if it's a year? 5 years? What if its indefinite and the child will never recover? At what point is it morally okay to call it quits on being permanently attached to this other being? And why does the length of time make a difference? What if it's not forever, but there is a lot of pain involved in the procedure and always a risk of you bleeding out/dying from it?
What if the government didnt allow you to choose whether or not you wanted to endure this pain and undergo the risks involved to save your child... what if they just *forced* you to do it?
Our bodily autonomy is one of the most important freedoms we have, and we would risk our own lives in pursuit of securing that freedom.
Philosophy tube makes this argument perfectly in her Abortion video at 29:50- 32:50 mins.
@taytay swift Yes, I think that a man who had no intent of having a child gets someone pregnant, and she decides to keep it when it is still abortable, he should be able to opt out before it is born.
He cant change his mind and opt out after its born obviously.
He should not be able to opt out if he raped her.
He should not be able to opt out if abortion is unobtainable because of legal/financial reasons. (But we need to make it legal and obtainable so this isnt an issue)
And he should have to pay for 50% of the abortion related expenses.
But yeah, I agree on that point.
Men with financial hardship, should definitely be able to apply to have government assisted relief for child support. (And women who pay into child support too. Because in some cases the dad has custody and the woman pays support)
I disagree that its usually mere convenience. A woman who remains pregnant will suffer various conditions and symptoms and have the pain of childbirth and permanent scaring since tearing usually occurs... and that's if it goes well. If it doesnt all go well, theres always a risk of death and bleeding out.
Like damn... some women dont want to be forced to risk that. And I dont call that convenience.
@taytay swift Yes every time I said "opt out" I was talking about a legal way to "opt out" of child support.
Basically men should have the right to legally "abort" themselves from the situation. Even if the woman doesnt want an abortion.
Although I would say the other parental rights would have to be terminated along with this opt out option. Otherwise, tons of men would sign up to opt out of financial support, even if they do in fact want the child. You cant just use a woman as an incubator for a baby and then not contribute. The man either wants to have a baby, or they do not. I see too many ways for men to take unfair advantage otherwise.
@taytay swift I agree free abortions are the best way. Free all healthcare, is what I'd like to see.
And I think there should be financial relief programs for men (or women) who struggle to afford to pay child support. The amount expected is sometimes too high to be reasonable. The government would essentially step in and make his payments, or pay a percent depending on how poor he is and how many other dependents he has.
@taytay swift rape sentences are sometimes only like 3 years.
So they should still have to pay support when they get out. But they should also loose parental rights.
@taytay swift Child support *should* be calculated in a way that the parent without physical custody is merley contributing to the financial expense. Not paying 100% of all child expenses.
I am fully interested in a system which equally protects *both* parents from being taken advantage of.
The one with physical custody is *supposed* to be expected to contribute as well, not to just "use someone for their wallet."
However you must also take into account the domestic labor and child care that the custodial parent does, and assign that contribution a monetary value, when determining fair 50/50 contribution.
Parents who share joint physical custody, *already do not pay any child support at all.* So I agree this is great way to make sure both parents are equally contributing. Problem is, joint physical custody is looked at as "not as stable a routine for the child" by courts and therefore is not granted as often. But I would like to see more research on this, because I dont see why it cant be a stable routine.
Destiny repealed Roe v Wade in this debate
destiny making a rhetoric move not releasing the vaush "debate" on his own channel
@Nilly Sigger On Vaush's TH-cam channel.
If I drive a car and get into a car accident that is caused by another person and my child bleeds badly thats not what I consented to. I consented to driving a car.
The state is cannot then obligate me to donate blood to my child to sustain their life. If my child then cannot find another donar and dies as a result it is not then my fault.
Destiny is wrong about like everything he says... on the golf course someone can also be hit in the head, in fact I would wager the overwhelming majority of people getting hit by golf balls are on the golf course...
Destiny yelled a lot to take control of this debate in this debate
I'm a leftist, but he's not really a great debater. I find him similar to Ben Shapiro, he just talks fast and uses big words. I agree with him on most topics, but I understand he doesn't do much more to prove his points besides using complicated analogies and than start restricting certain topics because it "complicates the issue."
The issue in their disagreement is that they are arguing whether or not pregnancy is an act that can be justifiable "punished" by childbirth, i.e. abortion is a just remedy in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, whereas Destiny is asking whether abortion is just in-of-itself.
So all their analogies are extremeky misguided, because in none of these circumstances would execution of the non-consenting party be viewed as a just resolution of the circumstances.
Also, there are plenty of circumstances where intent is not required for a liability to be assigned. For example, last I recall (at least from where I used to live) and rear-end collision (har har) would always find the vehicle following liabile for damages.
Consideration should be based on suffering. A fetus does not have the capacity to fear death or look forward to tomorrow in any meaningful way. Whether or not you consider it human is irrelevant. This would not necessarily apply to adults who are comatose or severely mentally handicapped in some way because there are people around them who would be hurt by their loss those this might change in specific instances. Because the fetus isn't going to experience any suffering from being terminated and can not fathom the prospect the feelings of the mother which would be negative if she is forced to carry the fetus to term must take precedence.
So should we kill hermits who are in a coma?
Depending on the situation an unborn fetus's loss, whether that be through abortion or miscarriage, can greatly hurt people other than the mother.
@@titanscar2183 what's an instance in which a mother forced to give birth would be less than the suffering of others?
@@betohax no, because the hermit has presumably had previous experience where they would have a real fear/avoidance of death. It's possible that depending on how difficult it is to keep the hermit alive that the resources keeping them alive might be better utilized elsewhere necessitating pulling the plug on the hermit.
@@betohax But in general there isn't anyone who actively doesn't want the hermit around. This is not true of the fetus a woman who doesn't want one.
Am I crazy? I don't understand at all how Rem is actually saying that a spasm while playing golf has similar responsibility to the conception of a child from sex.
They're both things that have a possibility of happening, but an inherent risk of sex, with reasonable chance of occurring, is having a kid. Every time this is a risk that must be assessed.
To compare that to the chance of a random guy having the perfect storm of body spasms to send a golf ball through the head of a passerby is ludicrous.
If the woman gets to choose if a mans child gets to live or not then the man should get to choose if he wants to stay and pay child support or leave. (I chose to stay, im not saying leaving your child is right choice). If the man wants to keep the child the woman has the legal right to murder the child in her womb so its seems justified for men to have choice to stay or leave without financial responsibility. No abortions should mean that men have the legal and financial responsibility for the child but not if the woman has the right to terminate everything at will
Destiny constantly equivocated between a fetus and a living autonomous human (which it seemed he was saying was not a good equivocation in the beginning)
What destiny is saying i disagree with him saying thats like saying a woman who dresses provocative at a party is at fault because she knew there was a possibility of her getting raped and getting pregnant not the same and you wouldnt hold her accountable for that. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy and consent to pregnancy is not consent to remain pregnant
If you hit a golf ball on a golf course and a gust of wind blows the ball over the trees and onto a nearby road and it hits a vehicle you are responsible for the damage to the vehicle.
Is it morally wrong for someone to accidentaly hit a person with their golf ball while playing?
Hehe well you should never build a golf course where that can happen
Slippery steve cant engage with hypotheticals
Destiny should read J.J. Thomson's 'A Defense of Abortion' in this debate.
I've yet to hear a good argument for why aborting a being who didn't exist at all before you engaged in the sex is a negative
@Kurokami Najimi-Because you are killing a human being...you realize human life begins at conception..right?
Paul K i mean it depends, is 10 cells a human being? Don’t think most people would agree with you
@@paulk9188 Even if so, there are many reasons for which even most "Pro-Life" people (straight garbage term) believe the ending of a life is justified. Pro-Choice people simply include the exercise of protecting ones bodily autonomy among those reasons.
A fetus does not have bodily autonomy rights as they are not yet autonomous. Unless youre truly 100% consistent across the board against the taking of life for any reason, then your argument is nothing more than a difference of opinion regarding who we can and cant end the lives of. Youre not pro-life. Youre just pro-birth.
@Totan 04-False. A fetus is not part of a womans body, the umbilical cord and placenta exist solely to separate the two people.
Bodily autonomy is defined as the right to self governance over one's own body without external influence or coercion.
A fetus is not part of a womans body, its entirely separate from it, even if its growing inside it.
So the argument is invalid.
@@paulk9188 I never claimed a fetus was part of a woman's body. Quite the opposite. However, the fetus does utilize the mothers body and has physiological effects on the mothers body. Since we agree that the fetus is its own entity, that makes it an external influence on the mother (yes, even though it first appeared within the mother). "External" does not refer to outside. It refers to other than ones self. Remember the movie Innerspace? Dennis Quaid couldnt legally override Martin Shorts' autonomy just because he was literally inside him in a shrunken submarine (Even though, technically he did).
Only the mother has bodily autonomy. Though it is its own entity, a fetus is not, and has never been, autonomous. It is dependent on the mother. How can it have a right to something it does not possess?
Does a fetus have a right to life? Yes. The unborn have the same right to life as the born. That is to say that if either requires anothers body to survive, they must have permission to use it.
It has always struck me that the simple, obvious anti-abortion argument that no one ever makes is that there is broadly perceived to be a special level of protection owed to children and a special relationship between a child and its biological parents. None of these analogies that are being made are even remotely relevant when this factor this taken into account. (And I say this as someone who is *not* anti-abortion.)
Destiny spontaneously get pregnant in this debate.
I'm unironically super happy about another abortion debate
I feel like one of Destiny's defenses of white incest isn't morally wrong is because people can have sex without making children. But a lot of defense here was "well who doesn't know that sex doesn't make babies so it's their fault "
I haven't finished the video, but I've finally gotten to the point where they've discussed the "problems" with the violinist thought experiment. I really don't see the relevancy of the presence of someone morally culpable or not. In the case of abortion, there is no group of people that hooked up you up to the fetus, it's just nature instead, but how does that change the moral situation of the person that was non consensually hooked up to the fetus? It doesn't. Just because there was an intentional act that lead to someone's death, doesn't mean there has to be someone morally culpable. So the agency of the people who hooked you up to the violinist is irrelevant to the parties of the person getting hooked to the violinist, and the violinist themselves. I don't know what the fuck Destiny is talking about.
Does anyone else see "Destiny Abortion - Purple.mp4" as the title?
This is ridiculous. We all know intention is important. What is the difference between murder and manslaughter? What is the difference between firstdegree and third-degree murder? Why do we have things such as a crime of passion? Intent is super important
I appreciate destiny's consistency on abortion. If you grant a fetus human rights then it is wrong and is murder, if you don't grant it human rights then it's fine. I'm personally in the camp of a fetus is not a sentient human being and doesn't deserve human rights. Now where exactly you draw that line might be a bit complicated, but I'd probably put it around 20 weeks being the cutoff but I might be lacking information to suggest sooner or later.
He shits on everyone for not being able to engage in hypotheticals but ends up not being able to entertain anyone else’s. Only if it fits his criteria for being comparable or analogous. When he gets triggered it reminds me of those annoying rat dogs called Chihuahuas, with the way he starts shuffling in his seat.
I want to debate Destiny on this so badly man. His big retreat is to always say “what other action could you do JUST FOR FUN that would justify harming other people”. I would respond; isn’t sex more than just fun? Isn’t sex a normal part of a healthy life? Isn’t it proved medically that regular sexual activity improves mental and physical health? Would you not consider that important much like improving ones diet or getting a better job or moving to a better location or anything we do to live and try to improve our lives? Don’t you consider sex above and beyond the aspect of procreation a separate and important aspect of ones overall health? A necessity of the healthiest life you can live?
These are such disingenuous analogies. The biological purpose of sex is procreation. It feels pleasurable is nature's way of making sure people procreate. Having vaginal sex with a woman is more akin to a game of Russian Roulette with a shotgun (if you must use an analogy), whatever you want to claim about the game, you're taking the chance that you're going to blow your head off. Using a condom is like wearing a bullet proof hat while playing Russian Roulette. Either way, you're still playing the game.
1) driving a car isn’t just for pleasure
2) the case he used made no fucking sense, you are not aware driving a car can GIVE you a heart attack.
i don't get why we are holding people accountable for the EXTREMELY UNLIKELY scenario that someone gets pregnant through a condom and not holding people accountable for the other more likely things thate can occur from everyday actions
I actually think a sleeper idea is that if you take plan B and properly use a condom, it’s incredibly unlikely to get pregnant. Therefor it’s more like that an “accidental” pregnancy was because of misuse of either. We can’t measure that and I wouldn’t want to kill a child over it.
16:57 the argument is that abortion might be acceptable if the persons involved took adequate precautions to prevent the pregnancy from occurring and got pregnant anyway. What precautions does one take to specifically prevent getting a heart attack while driving a car?
Not being a fat fuck, excecise and healthy life.
Ta Boss gottem
Not driving a car
One of my former Community Collage's parking lots was right next to a golf course
Navid M I feel like Destiny just experiences one thing and then thinks everything that doesn’t match up with his experience is infallible.
I lived around 5 different golf courses growing up. One of the courses ran through a residential area. The golfers would literally have to cross the road where cars drive in order to get to the next hole. The hole were golfers were aiming for was around 50 meters away from where people walked their dogs on the sidewalk. A couple of my friends also had houses that backed onto the course and they would find a couple of balls a week in their backyard.
So no Destiny, not all golf courses are designed perfectly were it becomes impossible to accidentally hit someone with a golf ball.
Then they are consenting to death. Should’ve been richer.
@@NintendoBlurb yeah and youre using anecdotes to back yourself up. in that case if someone got hit, there's no accident, someone is going to be held liable.
An action having a chance consequence is not equivalent to an action carrying a consequence if a chance independent event confounds it. Someone should tell Rem about the importance of formal study in rhetorical discussions.
If I consent to stab someone but don't consent to kill them and they die. Am I not morally responsible for the consequences regardless of my intentions?
You would be, but this is a false analogy. The more accurate analogy would be if you needed a kidney and I, being the only applicable candidate, refused to donate my body to save you, did I "murder" you?
25:30 This boy really doesn't know the law, doesn't understand taking responsibility, and is out there trying to have sex and say "no matter what, it's getting aborted and that's fine with me. Not my fault."
He is the type of person that makes Christians sound reasonable.
Tempest Tossed children aren’t a punishment
@@smiley__kylee Not unless you're tasked with watching a kid in their terrible two's. But when you think of your own kid or potential children that way, it just proves you never should have been having sex to begin with.
Every action has a result and you have to own it. Not just hide behind convenience. It's still someone's choice to make and I won't falsely say I could or would ever change someone from having that choice. But that doesn't make it any less of a shitty, self indulgent decision. And doesn't keep you from being any less of a shitty, self indulgent person for choosing it if you REALLY didn't have to.
Tempest Tossed fuck human biology? Humans aren’t going to stop fucking because of whatever little rule books or ideas you have about morality. People don’t have to “own” anything.
I don’t think of children as a punishment. That’s why my comment said “children aren’t a punishment”
Christianity lol the Bible permits abortions.
I feel like both of these comments in response to my own are needlessly antagonistic. I didn't say that the bible doesn't promote abortion. When I say that he "makes Christians sound reasonable" I simply mean when they argue that responsibility is being ignored because of convenience and personal pleasures. Which no matter how you slice it is self indulgent. And in the case of the guys arguing with Destiny, they are also ignorant of law and simple logical understanding of how responsibility works.
Rem Accidentally Nuked this Debate
Two things:
1) do businesses count as non-conscious agents?
2) does it matter that there are different cultural values around cutting hair?