@@melchior2678 ahh here we go, the typical ad hominem attack from someone who is utterly ignorant to the beatitudes which Christian’s live their life by - one being charity. Please only respond if you actually know about the topic being discussed rather than throwing ad hominem attacks and then making up ridiculous deflections like pretending the Pope is an abortionist! However to your claim even IF the Pope was an abortionist that does NOT deflect from the Catholic dogma taught by Christ which clearly teaches us all not to kill. We don’t stop following Christ because there is a Judas among us
@@irishandscottish1829 it's clear by your misuse of the term "ad hominem" that you obviously don't know what that term means. I never said Christianity doesn't encourage people to be charitable but that the words "charity" and "charitable" are overused by this particular audience (I don't ever see these words being nearly so overused on other Christian channels as they are here). Funny how your reaction to my rather innocuous comment got a rather *uncharitable* response from you however, which clearly speaks to your hypocrisy. 😂
@@irishandscottish1829 also, last I checked the Pope is VERY leftist and therefore has a predisposition for being an abortionist. I would be quite surprised to find that Pope Francis who has openly taken MANY leftist stances was opposed to abortion, but like I said, correct me if I'm wrong - so far you haven't cited any specific instances of the Pope taking a prolife stance and instead resorted to throwing a temper tantrum. 😂
I agree. If my unborn child doesn't have a right to my womb, than why would my born child have a right to my breasts to feed him, my hands to change him, my feet to carry him, my very life to protect him?
A woman’s womb was designed to host and nourish another human being and carry him/her to life. To stop a woman’s womb from that natural automatic function (biological progress or pregnancy does not stop even if the mother mentally wants it to stop) is to do harm to the mother and the human host inside. This why deliberate abortion is biologically and morally wrong regardless of the mom’s reasons: “It’s my body and an infant has no right to my body”. She has the right to freedom of opinion, but her womb imposes its own predisposition to nourish the life of another human being.
@@YashArya01 fetuses don’t own the mother’s womb. Would you say a child owns it’s parent’s house just because the parents have the moral obligation to provide one?
My brother went to university and was really clever, he then had a mental breakdown and his mind is at the capacity of a 7 year old child and needs supervision. He is not the brother l knew growing up and it saddens me, but I would not have his life terminated, and were seeing this more and more in abortion and euthanasia when life is not regarded as suffering and is not valuable or worth living and would become a cross to bear . But life is about suffering and carrying your cross Rejoice every day and thank God for all we suffer and pray pray pray every day and thank God for everything in our life’s good and bad and the trials and tribulations and God will give you peace in this life and the next.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html Also available off my various webpages.
Here is a bit of advice, review the book of Romans, reflect most particularly on the part which mentions that not one single person save Christ himself, is good... What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Romans 3:9-14, 16-20 ESV bible.com/bible/59/rom.3.9-20.ESV When you remember how we obtain our righteousness before God, it is so much easier to remain charitable (used just for melchior who doesn't understand the ties of grace and love to the word charitable in faith... he also doesn't understand the difference in offering charity, offering alms, and offering money as a hand out... but that is one of the more beautiful parts of Catholicism).
@@angelalemos9811 Did you assume my remedy is easy? Sheesh, every time I read Romans I learn way more than I did the time before... that is not easy, in any way shape or form.
@@brendansheehan6180 Um, I am not quite sure how you meant that- did you post that as a jab in all humility? Semi dressing up a jab? Or is just very blunt as a point that my name isn't the one you were hoping to see as answer. FYI, I was being humble, the problem with humility is you can't let go of what is true, that is fake. Christ was perfectly humble: he knew who he is, yet served out of that. Humility is rarer than one would think, most of us play at humility. I just had that thought pop into my head. Trent can still answer you as he may not agree with me, or he has additional thoughts to add... I pretty much believe the second is true. I guess when I see a question in a public forum and I know a possible answer, I share that with the seeker so they can move forward. I personally don't need fan world stuff, but I realise other people do need answers only from the best out there... Thanks for your response, I wasn't expecting one, especially not one that required so much typing. Have a great day!
So impressed with both of these gentlemen to have a civil discussion with someone with whom they disagree with on such a critical and emotional issue. Kudos to Nathan for his willingness to participate in an environment where his view is the minority, and even more Kudos to the students for listening to another side of an issue without shouting him down or claiming his speech is violence against them. If all college students behaved this way, perhaps universities could become places of critical thinking where ideas and issues can be discussed freely.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html Also available off my various webpages.
@@angelalemos9811 This is true, however scientific facts by themselves don’t make any ethical statements. If you’re going to use scientific facts you need to have an ethical premise to go with it.
@@ckmfunk nope maybe you need to read one and educate yourself. It's also why it's taught in all biology classes, including the ones I've had as well, obviously. Facts don't cease to exist were your research or intellect fails.
Nathan's a genuinely smart, down to earth and good-faith person, and was surprisingly intellectually honest on certain points many pro-choicers are not honest about. That being said, Trent definitely had the most sound arguments here. Many of Nathan's arguments were merely assumption-based.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html Also available off my various webpages.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html Also available off my various webpages.
Nathan really had a problem responding to almost any points directly. He generally reframed everything into hypotheticals without addressing the question asked.
That fact only solidify’s our position…unlike other issues abortion is really one sided…pro-lifers are backed by scientific and technological advancements…babies are being born earlier and earlier and yet still surviving…pro choicer arguments are based on opinionated excuses…they try to disqualify someone’s right to life due to them not possessing certain minuscule characteristics
I mean that is the leftists debatę playbook, you constantly reframe everything and Play nebulous, constantly appealing to peoples emotions not their intellect.
Yes thank you! I was listening to this and really attempting to be open to his side of the argument and really struggled because he just posed questions and hypotheticals and didn't respond to Trents questions. Very odd. I guess that's the inexperience. He also used a coupe of straw man arguments that annoyed me at the beginning. Much respect for getting up there and doing the debate but unfortunately two different levels of debaters.
@@NathanNobis101 I disagree. How are theories, in any way, relevant or valid on a topic like this or for any moral matter, for that matter? Moral is either objective and universal or anything goes. Human right's do not depend on anything else but the fact that they're a human being. This fact does not vary, from person to person, like some groups would argue otherwise on (I'm not saying that you necessarily belong to said group(s)). Reducing human life to anything else but the life that originates with conception, leads one to false and extremely evil conclusions, like the nazis, for example, who would equate a black pre-born child as less valuable than a white pre-born child, or a pre-born child with down syndrome as less valuable than a pre-born child without it (like they've done in Iceland and genocided all children with down syndrome over there.) Case in point: A human life is valuable because it is human and is alive. therefore, all human rights include extend to human beings, with no exceptions, because any exception would make it so that 1. human life is arbitrary and relative 2. anyone can do whatever they want with themselves and with anybody else.
Just like the recent debate on the Marian Dogmas, Trent really shined during the cross examination. Cool to see him adopt some of the arguments Ben Watkins used in their devil’s advocate debate. Poor Nate was not prepared and I’m not optimistic Trent will find many interlocutors as good as Watkins.
Thanks for participating in this debate! You did a great job and made some really good points! It’s refreshing to see rational discourse on both sides instead of yelling, slogans etc. I have to admit, though, that I would feel safer in an environment where Trent’s basic moral principles /intuitions about a human person’s right to life are respected. The principles he defended to me seem more robust and less likely to be bend and to lead to disrespect of humans’ life by tyrannical regimes, for instance. Psychological foundations for human dignity are more subjective, it seems to me, and easier to bend than a universal foundation (just by being a member of the human species, independently of race, how intelligent, conscious, worthy your life seems in the eyes of a particular regime etc. ).
I want to thank Dr. Nobis for participating. However, I feel like the audience would be better served if he answered questions more directly. I really do appreciate the discussion though, thank you both!
@@NathanNobis101 Sure (thanks for responding btw!), I believe the answers given at 1:02:16 and 1:03:57 are examples. Again, I sincerely thank you for participating in the debate!
@@vtaylor21 well, I'd be happy to try to provide a direct answer. Sometimes though the best answer is to acknowledge complexity, when people mistakenly think an issue is simple and obvious.
The whole abortion issue needs to be re-framed around the fact the it is fundamentally about mothers killing children. Parents have special obligations towards their children to care for them and NOT to kill them, which is precisely what abortiin does. Abortion is not simply about ANY person killing ANOTHER person. Its so much more than that, and this is why abortion and pregnancy is NOT analogous to any other situation or process in life.
The whole abortion issue needs to be re-framed around the fact the it is fundamentally about children removing agency of mothers. Parents don't have any special obligations, unless they willfully take this role. Bear in mind that your propaganda tactics such as reframing to suit better your ideology are tools that can be used against you
@@zeloraz8101 no, it doesn't. Glad I could be helpful. You making assumptions up is one thing, but thinking that adoption is any response, let alone a good one, to an unwanted pregnancy is just sign of being out of touch. Not necessarily being wrong on the conclusion regarding abortion, but being out of touch nonetheless.
@@Mish844 pro choicers are wierd. How is adoption worse then killing an unwanted child? How is it out of touch? Also your line of reasoning would include small children, small children take agency away from mother wither or not their in the womb or not.
@@zeloraz8101 People who want to get an abortion, do it in response to unwanted pregnancy so they end it asap. It is called abortion. The idea they should just pain through 9 months, even if morally superior, which is highly questionable cuse based solely on zealous narcisism, simply doesn't even attempt to address the issue of why seek abortion in the first place. Hence the out of touch, cuse either you avoid adressing people you want to disway from abortion, or you don't know why they want abortion No, it doesn't include small children. I asked that you stop making up assumptions. You know what pregnancy is, right?
@@NathanNobis101 A bacteria is life, a virus is life, a unicellular organism is life, a woman’s reproductive cell plus the union of a man’s reproductive cell equals a new human being, which starts as unicellular, so life has begun, fact. The difference between my first examples and the last comes to DIGNITY. Will you say a fetus has dignity or not? It is not about when life begins, science has said for decades that it starts at conception. The question is does the fetus have inherent value or not. Pro-lifers will say yes, pro-choicers will say no.
@@NathanNobis101 Welcome to TH-cam where if you share links, say slightly controversial things, etc the TH-cam algorithm deletes them without notifying you or the creator of the video.
@@atgred it depends on what you mean by "life": see my recent Salon article on that. It also depends on what makes something have dignity or value: that's the question.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@NathanNobis101 thank you for your responses. I've watched the whole playlist. If you're interested, I'd love to have a Skype discussion about it. Your thoughts will be useful since I'm currently writing a pro life apologetic book.
Consciousness seems far too nebulous and subjective to ground our ethics on the right to life. Even if the position can be argued with sufficient nuance, it's easy to manipulate for one's own gains (like with infants or the mentally disabled). Trent's position is clear and robust. Maybe it lacks sufficient nuance for all cases, but I'd rather err on the side of defending human life than err on the side of killing human beings.
No it’s not, the capacity to deploy a conscious experience takes places 20-24 weeks. What’s actually a crazy position is thinking that conception is a morally significant event… it’s literally a single cell. To think that a single cell has the moral equivalency to a person is insane.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Human rights apply to human beings. At conception, there is a new human being. Creating a distinction between humans and persons is the basis for discrimination. That's why it was wrong to consider black people to be 3/5 of a person, despite being a human being.
@@BrewMeister27 Well they quite literally don’t which is why fetus aren’t legally recognized as having any rights. That firstly. Secondly, no because black people were and are conscious developed human beings. Fetus’ are undeveloped, non-sentient lifeforms.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Slave owners also appealed to the law to justify slavery. I fundamentally reject the concept that human rights depend on humanity, plus some other arbitrary condition. And until we can move past that barbaric idea, we will always find some group of humans to scapegoat and kill.
@@BrewMeister27 I’m not appealing to the law I’m pointing out you made an incorrect statement. Rights do no apply to fetus’s, that’s just not true. Now you can make the argument they ought to, but you haven’t done that. Secondly, it’s not arbitrary, it’s fundamental. A human being that’s not conscious is either an undeveloped, non sentient life form … or, they’re brain dead. In both cases they’re not really a life worth preserving. Also you just gave me a slippery slope fallacy… so just so you understand the capacity to deploy consciousness defining personhood applies to every single conscious human being capable of deploying a conscious experience. It can’t be used to justify any group of people.
Hey Trent, I'd love for you to have a discussion with Kate Greasley. She is a pro-choicer, but surprisingly she agrees with the pro-life view that if the prenatal human being is a person, then abortion is wrong. But she doesn't think that the prenatal humans _are_ persons. So I'd like to see you have a discussion with her on abortion.
@@mike-cc3dd I use the second one because pro-life is also vague. People who are pro-life are not necessarily against the death penalty for example and life could mean any life like plants and animals.
@@crobeastness pro life as an institution... supports natrual life of *humans* from conception to natural death. Official pro lifers are actually against capital punishment in the scenario of justice. So. Bascially you're making the argument based on people who call themselves pro life but are not fully pro life.
@@mike-cc3dd exactly. And also the pro-life organization has way too much sympathy for the mother commuting the murder. No law is going to get passed with that mentality.
I had four ideas listening to this. 1. On the subject of personhood, continuity of experience and so on, is Darth Revan, who had his memory wiped and was reeducated as a good guy, the same person as the then “reformed” Jedi knight Revan? Let’s make it harder and say he never regained the memories of his former identity and had to make a choice to reject it. For me the intuitive answer, based on the biological continuity, is still yes. How might this be used in a pop-culture argument for the personhood of the unborn? 2. Nathan is really quite endearing. I really felt for him as he struggled to speak. He seems like a genuinely thoughtful and honest guy. 3. Trent is a true gentleman. He really covered for Nathan. 4. I’d be really interested in listening to a debate specifically over how “personhood” should be defined. I’m very fond of Trent’s “member of a rational kind” definition. It seems to cover all the bases of identity which is both biological and psychological. But I’d be curious to see how someone might argue against it in favor of a different definition.
The other issue with the “continuous stream of consciousness” definition, which originated in the Enlightenment, is the fact that that doesn’t have to be a single stream. Suppose there’s a “teleporter” which records the structure of your body down to the molecular level, destroys your body, and then reassembles it from a supply of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. on another planet. Is that still you? The new body will have the exact same memories as you, it’ll act and look exactly the same, and from its perspective, it really was “teleported”. But what if, due to some error in the system, two separate stations on different planets were told to rebuild you? There’d then be two different streams of consciousness, with the exact same memories and personality, coexisting on different planets. Which one is the original person? Are they both the same person? It doesn’t make sense. What if the original body was never destroyed? You might then say that original body is “you” and the other two are clones. But if I then kill that original body and only one of the clones, then you essentially have the exact same situation as originally intended, where there’s only one version of that stream of consciousness, on the intended destination planet. So by killing someone on Earth, does that mean that you actually made the person on the other planet “become” them in doing so? It doesn’t make sense, because the person on Earth and the person on the destination planet were clearly distinct streams of consciousness for the short time they coexisted. It just creates too many problems.
Prof. Nobis is obviously a very intelligent man and he does a good job of being charitable and engaged. You can tell that he is not an experienced debater, but he’s a great conversationalist and I really enjoyed the cross-examination period.
Thanks! There were things about this setup that I wasn't really comfortable with, but that's ok. If people learn more and better understand the issues, that's good.
@@NathanNobis101 sorry but you are wrong. Have you ever personally witnessed an abortion? It’s entirely misleading for you to claim anatomically correct images of aborted ‘foetus’ are intentionally misleading. Even in your ‘early abortions’ it is very much a very identifiable tiny baby we are looking for to be passed in the bedpan. This is the problem with the majority of ‘pro choice’ advocates - none of you have ever stepped into a clinic/hospital that kills these babies.
@@NathanNobis101 this was pretty accurate I think as it matches up with even the written literature and several images that come up later for instance recently with aborted fetuses. I should add the images wasn't the only reason but were the tipping point to established arguments. Though I should add I don't remember what age the fetus was
@@NathanNobis101 nathan. A tip for debating since you're new. Never ever ever debate people in the comment section of a debate video featuring yourself. It's soo cringe
25:00 Like being alive isn't the ultimate aspect for all future wellbeing. Like it doesn't provide the opportunity for having a future, having experience of consciousness. Like ending their development into that isn't harming them. Consciousness is an aspect of life, it is a reasonable part of development and just because they don't have it yet doesn't make that individual less valuable. It is one step in one's life, and to take the ability for a living person to experience that before the age they would is morally wrong. We have the duty to provide all human beings the gifts life brings us. Individuals exist from birth to death. They are unique living organisms with the opportunity to impose their will upon the world. I believe it is rational to think one is still a person when they are unconcious, whether they have developed thought yet or not. I believe thought and these things that let us view the lense of the world from the position of an observer (conciousness) is not what makes us us, but the life we are. Unless you fundamentally lack the capability of functionally developing into a being experiencing consciousness being ever, (as when consciousness ends forever it means death) then you would have the same value as any living person.
I like to cite an argument of my own formulation (though I suspect someone far wiser than I has done similarly in the past) that I call an argument of non-interference. Namely, but for a positive act that kills a baby in the womb, if left alone, would become a human being -- a person -- of equal value to myself, and this baby is therefore of equal worth and maintains the same negative rights that I have, and even has additional positive rights that I do not, while yet unborn.
Trent: “Your argument has an implausible implication: it’s wrong to kill rats, maybe even as wrong as it is to kill you or me right now.” Nathan: “But some people have pet rats, and they like them! Just saying...” That moment alone deprived Nathan of any right to call himself a “philosopher.” It was embarrassing.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
An enjoyable "debate" but I think Professor Nobis would have been better suited for a dialogue, it seemed like he was most comfortable during the end part where they were just talking
Nathan was unable to demonstrate a reasonable, convincing argument for his position that it's wrong to smash eagles' eggs yet not wrong to kill a human life before it's developmental stage of having consciousness.
Didn't Trent observe that we tend to think it'd be wrong to smash eagle eggs because eagles are rare and we think they look cool and have patriotic associations with them, and that has nothing to do with abortion?
@@NathanNobis101 The violent act against nature is more fundamentally problematic beyond merely aesthetics or patriotism - that you're not acknowledging.
@@MPFXT hi, yes, the point is that if you think it'd be wrong to smash eagle eggs, that can be explained in ways that have no implications for abortion, right? Even Trent agreed about that, which is why I am wondering why you are wondering about that.
Trent did well, the problem is that common sense and logic passes over the head of these other people no matter how intelligent the arguments are. With some only Jesus could help at this point. Let's pray that this discussion helps someone snap out of delusion. 👍
I'm about halfway through right now, and this is a great dialogue. I really wish he would have responded to your statement at 1:08:10, but he got right into thinking about what he wanted to ask you. But I feel like that was a perfect framing of your argument at the right time, and he just let it go.
I'll say this, at least Mr Nobis was very polite that's a welcome change. His fundamental assumption that cognitive faculties constitute the value of a human life is merely an assumption though, I was very puzzled that his whole opening statement rested on that. Of course if we define the unborn as something unsuitable to have inalienable rights, killing them isn't murder but then I figure the rest of the debate would be about justifying that definition instead of making these analogies to particular scenarios. The issue ultimately should be whether the unborn are the _sort_ of being who is capable of having these valuable perceptions he appreciates.
Any stage in the development or advancement of a human person's life is his/her life, life is the entire time spent being alive from the moment of its earliest beginning to its final end.
@@NathanNobis101 I’ve read your article, and here is my response in responding to what I see as your main points: “In ways that matter morally, if our "lives" end when our consciousness or minds permanently end, then it's plausible to also believe that "life" begins when consciousness begins: that is the start of us. We begin after our bodies begin: as embryos and beginning fetuses, our "stories" - what our lives are like, for us, from our point of view - haven't begun.” -- Human life in the absolute term cannot be separated into his/her so-called “biological life” and his/her “story life” as you present in the article. A human’s entire existence depends upon his/her bodily function, no matter how imperfect, and obviously his/her existence doesn’t depend upon his/her conscious life experiences or memories of past events. On the contrary, a person can only be alive by having his/her bodily organs develop and function appropriately, and this can only happen through the natural process of growth since conception. His/her consciousness is made possible only through all the process of his/her development of bodily functions, including his/her mental function (brain activities, etc.), which can only achieve their fullness of state of awareness and memory recollections, as said, through all the development process right from the very start of conception. When we’re talking about “life stories”, we’re talking about values and meanings, dignity and worth, of someone among others who know or recognize him/her. This assessment itself is very subjective and hence cannot be used as objective assessor. A person’s life stories might be valuable to certain people, but may be considered “worthless” by another group of - let’s say - cruel and violent people. Someone might even consider his/her own life a failure while others see him/her as quite well off, such as the case for example of a person who lives quite affluently in a developed country but suffer stresses due to loneliness for example, while a very poor person from a struggling country will be very happy to live this stressed person’s life in a developed country. A “story” is also something that is known because it has already unfolded, which no person can ever know if no chance is given for that “story” to unfold. “…there seems to be a broad consensus that anti-abortion arguments are not strong enough to determine policy and law for all: indeed, they can seem to be in the category of "personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs." They are not arguments that all reasonable people must accept and their freedom and liberty be constrained by.” -- Regarding the statement that “personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs” cannot form a basis to determine policy and law, I suppose there is a great deal of hypocrisy here where we have seen how laws in certain countries, such as in Canada and in some American States, have been created on the very basis of personal belief, such as law regarding affirmation of gender narratives which are accepted by a group of people subscribing to that belief but applied universally to everyone within the jurisdiction regardless, even when there is still room for discussion regarding its scientific basis, impact on family lives, etc. “But are women obligated to use their bodies to support beings that are merely biologically alive, but not biographically alive?” -- Women and men have obligations to respect every human life, and as outlined above a human life cannot be determined according to its “biology” and its “story” as though these two values are separate entities, a story can only be there when there is a living body to begin with, which starts at conception. Also in the article, you mention that a person who is in vegetative-state coma is no longer alive “story-wise” and hence has died to his/her value because there is no hope of regaining consciousness and hence only alive “biologically” as a kind of unconscious bio-machine, and hence the same can be said to unconscious zygotes. Again, values about life’s achievements and recollections that we think of are assigned and are not entirely universal, they’re subjective and hence what are subjective, and hence not absolute and objective, cannot justifiably make irreversible judgment to a living being as valuable as a human life, such as yourself. If you value your existence but not others, it is your issue in morality; but the person’s life who is in the womb or in a vegetive-state coma, has first and foremost, inherent objective value of human dignity, the humanity, to which we all assign ourselves to as human beings, to which we owe our very own inherent values as human beings, in which we in turn demand to be respected and treated with dignity. If you justify abortion on the grounds of painless-deaths due to unconsciousness and the no-value of other person’s “no-story life”, or “no more story” case effectively, think about if you would think it is justified for yourself to be made non-existence painlessly with some technology, on the ground that other people find your story uninteresting or not-needed.
I appreciate Nathan’s thoughtful answers but it really is frustrating that he rarely seems to state his position or opinion on a question or point. When asked a question he’s quick to say what others say. Or what he thinks the popular answer would be. We’re not to hear from others, we’re here to understand your view and threaten it with reason.
I understand this was a new guy debating, and his opening statement was pretty good but after that it's just the entire debate became an incohesive blur. There was just jumping all over the place, redirecting questions, coming up with complex hypotheticals, and shifting off the main point. There's nothing wrong with any of those things in moderation, but I think the guest speaker should have came a little bit more prepared to drive the conversation in a concrete direction.
Then again debating is a really tough skill because you have to be able to use hypotheticals and then get out of it quickly to make a point, so that you don't get lost in the weeds.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@NathanNobis101 Although I don't agree with your position, these videos definitely helped clarify your points. Thank you for promoting constructive conversation. Please try to ignore insults and unjust criticism because plenty of people are not interested in discussion. Many are just interested in confirmation bias and existing in an echo chamber. This exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
I'm hearing a lot of thought experiments, but not a clear concise explanation of why a juvenile human is more valuable than an embryonic human. Nor why a 25-week gestated born child would be worth protecting over a 25-week pre-born child. They "could be problematic" but the reason why was never concretized.
Btw, there was a particular exchange between Nobis (an ironically religious last name, btw), and another prolife philosopher over Nobis's book. I found the other guy more convincing ONLY FROM A RELATIVELY BRIEF GLANCE, but Nobis isn't a slouch.
The first premise should be rephrased as: It is wrong for anyone to directly and deliberately kill human children. This premise is beyond all dispute and takes care of all the additonal points you had to make about different circumstances of killing and personhood etc
I think the last question's answer should have taken into account that in this situation there was a man included in the creation of this child, so a man is part of the abortion question. That father has a right to make a decision concerning his child and the body part he gave to this child.
I think that is some cases we should separate morality with legality. We do this all of the time for certain actions. For example war, infidelity, capital punishment, arguably eating meat and animal testing are considered immoral, but legally permissible. This also works in the other direction. For example, jaywalking, trespassing, graffitiing, etc. are illegal, but arguably not immoral. I think that a case can be made for the immorality of abortion after the fetus has developed the cerebral cortex, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it should be illegal in most circumstances.
I’m not pro-life, but Trent did very well here. I can tell Nobis is new to debating and didn’t always know what to say, but Trent was super patient. And great job coming in strong on fetal personhood, since that’s Nobis’ area, whereas with Boonin you focussed more on the Good Samaritan argument which was more his area.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html Also available off my various webpages.
@@connormccormick6298 but we have laws that force parents to use their bodies to go to work and earn money and cook dinner for their kids. A woman’s uterus provides food and shelter to her living shelter and is analogous to child support / child negligence laws that already exist. Laws force us to do things with our bodies like wearing seatbelts or even getting certain vaccines.
True. Plus it's not as though the kid just showed up and started using their parents' organs, the parents put them in that position. If someone puts you in a coma it is only right for that person to be responsible for seeing to it that you survive that coma.
Geez this debate was honestly brutal for Nathan Nobis. Nathan hardly responded to any of Trent’s arguments and when Trent cross-examined him, he basically just restated most of the questions or gave different examples without answering them and looked like he was stalling for time. Then Nathan couldn’t even respond at all for his own cross-examination after Trent stated his “Impairment” argument where depriving a fetus of its normal development is wrong. Nathan was a charitable interlocutor, but didn’t have any substance to defend his pro-choice stance, while Trent had such a depth and breadth of valid and sound arguments against pro-choice.
Hey Trent I’m currently on my endeavor to study pro-life in depth and I’m really struggling with this one analogy and I can’t find any pro-life responses and or think or any that could do it just. Okay her it goes; Let’s say you wake up in the hospital, connected to a person. You’re then told by the doctor you have been in a car accident (your fault) because of that there is a pedestrian you hit and they are in the needy position because of you. You consent to driving everyday and you know there in an inherit risk you could die or put someone in a needy position we can argue whether it was intentional or not but should you be held liable to be connected to that person uhh give or take 9 months…? Is it fair to say it’s not so different than the pregnancy?
It’s a good analogy. But let’s make it more comparable to an abortion. Let’s say you consent to get in your car and your purpose of driving is to intentionally run down a pedestrian. Let’s say this particular pedestrian happens to be your child. So you get in your car, spot your child in the street, and purposely crash into them. Now let’s say you both survive and you wake up with your child in a coma connected to you. Lets say you know it’s only a 9 month coma, do you have a responsibility to let that child use your body. I would say yes. Your act caused them to be there, you have a responsibility to them as their parent, and you know for a fact that they will awaken in 9 months. But that still not analogous. An abortion directly kills a child. If you unplug from your comatose child you are letting them die because their body can’t sustain itself because it’s in an unnatural condition. A fetus is exactly where it should be and is in its natural condition. To make it analogous to abortion, let’s say you don’t just “disconnect” from your child but you intentionally roll over and suffocate the child with a pillow. I would say you murdered your child. If you disagree that this analogy resulted in murder, I’d be curious to hear your reasoning. Good luck with the study!
Driving is not an action that is ordered towards hitting a pedestrian. Sex is ordered towards reproduction, that it’s primary function, from an evolutionary or designer perspective. Whereas the primary function of driving is to get to a new location. In this scenario the person you are attached to is not your child, they are a stranger. This is important. Imagine a case where a parent chooses not feed their child (when they couldve, they just wanted a new car instead) and allows them to become malnourished, that’s child abuse and it’s illegal and evil. Noe imagine that same parents walks by a homeless person and doesn’t give them any food, again because they want a new car. That homeless person later becomes malnourished. I would say, and you would probably agree, that that is wrong. However should it be illegal? And is it morally as bad as the first? The duty a parent has to their child is different from the duty a person has to a stranger. I think the analogy is under described as well, what do you mean by connected to? Are you filtering their blood for them with your kidneys like in the violinist one? The thing here is that the uterus of a woman exists to be a place for a child to grow and be safe till it is ready to be born. So the child has a natural right to be there. Whereas your blood exists to filter your blood, not a random strangers, that stranger does not have the same natural right to your blood. It’s an extraordinary use of your body, whereas in pregnancy that is an ordinary use of the body. Then in this scenario you are unplugging yourself. However an abortion actively and directly kills another human being. Imagine if instead of unplugging yourself you had to hit the person with an axe several times to kill them? That changes things a lot. This is particularly important because since the unborn are alive, they should have a right to life like us (you can refute this with personhood arguments sure, but I assume you already know why those are faulty). A right to life is not a right to not be let die, if so it would be illegal to not donate all our money that we can to charities, it’s a right to not be killed. So even if the mother did have the right to stop the child from using her body, which I don’t think she does, but even if the child also has a right to not be killed. So we have a conflict of rights. So which option do we go with? I’d say that here it would be right to go with the passive option instead of the active option. As then we aren’t actively doing anything wrong. Killing the child intentionally is the active option, not intervening in the pregnancy is the passive option. Hope this helps! I wrote this out quickly so might be some mistakes and not mentioning of important things if so my bad.
Nobis’ problem seems to be that he thinks a human being is just the highest degree of an animal, and not a categorically different type of being. This allows him to say that a dog who has longer to live loses more than a human being who only has 10 minutes of life left. He doesn’t view these lives as fundamentally different.
I guess I understand that. You would need more argument to prove that humans are categorically different type of being, because it sure doesn't seem to be the case, prima facie. But it can definitely be made, in a larger argument.
@@Kyssifrot Personally, I think the fact that there are no dogs presenting their philosophical views in the debate puts them, prima facie, in a different category than us. They aren't just lower on the scale of intellectual abilities, they aren't even on the same plane. I always find it mildly amusing that it takes years and years of studying philosophy to begin to wrestle with complex questions like "are humans qualitatively different than rats and dogs?" and "do I exist?" Probably one of the reasons philosophers generally get a bad rap.
This was one of the less productive debates/ dialogues on the topic I've watched. Nathan was nice and polite, but didn't seem able or prepared to defend his position well.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
The president example was good. I think it is true, the president elect before inauguration does not yet have the rights of a president. But it still would not be ok for the people who didn’t vote for him or did vote for him but changed their minds about it to prevent the inauguration from happening.
Child endangerment is an actual crime. Like in trent's example of not killing the child but not letting him use my house knowing he will freeze to death.
well that was a quick 2 hrs. Felt sorry for Mr Nobis though as Trent kind of just trampled him as he was at a loss of what to say a great many times. Not sure why he kept bringing up animals, rats, dogs, etc, it is not about animals, its about human babies, not animals. It is pretty simple, one either believes in God and what he says.....or you don't, you think your human existence over rides Gods.
And we are supposed to be the thinking species in earth and are trying to excuse abortion with a ton of bs! He’s so empty full of it, he has been indoctrinated to think so stupid ly
@@NathanNobis101 I thought the debate went very well. Even though I stand on Trent’s side of the issue. You have helped me come to a better understanding. Your effort produced a benefit.
I think catholic apologists would benefit from rejecting the flawed terms used in morality debates, "right" and "freedom". These describe exclusively the relationship between a person and the State, I don't think they are fit for describing absolute morality. Rights are the boundries the State guarantees won't be crossed by other citizens, the freedoms are the boundries the State guarantees won't cross. These are appropriate definitions that don't ooze into the moral sphere. The reason I don't go on the street and kill pedophiles is not that I don't have the freedom to do that or that the pedophiles have the rights to a trial or whatever else, these things don't apply to *me*, i don't do that because it's objectively wrong.
Rights aren't a prerogative of the State. Right, wrong, even if we say these words are only correlated to rights and obligations, that implies there's something objective within the act in the abstract that merits either protection or punishment
Rights are of absolute morality, they come up in legal documents as that which the government recognizes it has no power to harm them. Check out the 10th amendment for an example
The guy that supports abortion doesn’t make sense what he’s saying and he’s not getting to the point. Trent makes more sense and he gets straight to the point in my opinion. Trent Horn wins!
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
As someone with ADHD i can unfortunately relate debates being a weird experience on a painful level. It's not just that i lose focus but i have so many things in my head i can't articulate them, or while i am i forget what i was talking about e.x.t. Not saying these apply to you but i can relate to finding it easier to respond through seperate videos with visuals and such. That being said i heavily disagree with you on this topic but i'll happily check them out. God bless.
I think smashing the eagles' eggs is immoral and is related to the pro-human life argument. Trent dropped the ball on this one. I think both debaters grant human life is more important, however, the wrong of smashing the living eggs is beyond mere deprivation or destruction of aesthetics. God created the eagles & their reproduction and the eggs, as well. In that sense animals and their offspring have dignity too! Not the same as human dignity, but dignity nonetheless!
@@mike-cc3dd Yes, of course. The scenario presented was that the eggs were fertilized & the father & mother eagles were captured on a webcam as they prepared for and took care of the eggs before hatching.
So that is part of the reason why "debates" can be foolish. If you think the goal of discussions is to "dunk" on people, you have a poor goal for inquiry and thinking.
@@NathanNobis101 sir relax. You are making alot of assumptions about my character and attitude twords debates off of one simple meme text. Have a beer 🍺
Doctors abortions usually tell latino future parents that their children have some kind of disability so that way they can have that baby abort, in lots of cases children are ok, is that population control or racism
So here's another version of my initial presentation if you are interested: www.abortionarguments.com/p/presentation_12.html Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
If we wanted to read the ramblings of a philosopher. We would have. But you came to the debate and performed poorly. We learned enough about the strength of your arguments by hearing them in this format.
@@mike-cc3dd You remind me of a lot of the New Atheists who think debate is everything and don't take the time to study the nuance and complex philosophical questions these issues bring. I'd encourage you to perhaps be more charitable in your approach.
If this is the best of modern philosophy it's no wonder the world is lost. I'm not even referring to his debate skills, as that is something difficult. Rather, his arguments are so shallow in nature that they're borderline elementary.
Destroying eagle’s eggs is also wrong because it is unnecessary (if it indeed is), and not just because the eagle’s endangered status. So you can replace it in the example with whatever animal’s egg, if they are destroyed without a just cause it is not right. But for example, if you need to destroy the eggs to decrease the animal population in order to make humans’ life more comfortable, it is ok. If you kill babies to do the same, it is definitely not ok.
It seems like Nathan couldn't think of any rebuttals to Trent's arguments. I feel like Nathan was overall stumped throughout the majority of the discussion/debate and simply didn't know how to interact with Trent's thinking. Either he was unprepared or stumped
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
There is no excuse for abortion, killing of a baby inside a mothers womb. It is impossible to argue for abortion. It is unnatural, mothers protect their babies, God looks at abortion in disgust and with a feeling of nausea.
Life will keep being redefined. It is just a matter of convenience, and comfort. And having a hitman do the job. These murder apologists will keep saying stuff like... Uhh depends how you define life. Read my Salon article or something. If that is the case and we are just debating the whims of someone's unethical and godless philosophy I don't see how the debates would ever convince them. All I can hope for is a society that defines life for everyone except those who promote the murder of the most vulnerable. We should all hope for a society where these abortions are legal- The abortion of murder advocates. Why?... Well I should probably write an article on Salon for my reasons.
My perspective is that Mr. Nathan has no idea about what his talking about, also I will like to know his response about what a person is or who a person is. I was waiting for him to say that a Dog is a person 🙄🫣🤪
Bruh this nathan guy needs to debate easier opponents. He was so inexperienced. And did he imply he's a philosopher when he mentioned his TikTok videos.....I mean that's total cap.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@melchior2678 Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks! th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Plan Parenthood lists over 10 different contraceptives and ways to prevent getting pregnant on their web page. At what number are these folks going to accept their responsibility and use them?
Prof. Nobis should stop saying how new he is to this, he's not sure how exactly to respond, he's just going to ramble randomly... Geeesh! Do you want your students to imitate that? Be an example
Everybody is pro-choice....one side just wants it to be a privilege of well-to-do women. Think about it. Name ANY restriction dreamed up by "pro-lifers" and enacted by Republicans, that would stop or even inconvenience a middle class or wealthy woman from getting a safe abortion? "Well, it'll stop a lot of them". 1st, you have to prove that. 2nd, doesn't refute my point.
No one can deny Trent’s absolute humility and charity with dealing with guest debaters especially when they are new to debating.
The word "charity" is ridiculously overused by this channel's audience I noticed.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the Pope himself an abortionist?
@@melchior2678 ahh here we go, the typical ad hominem attack from someone who is utterly ignorant to the beatitudes which Christian’s live their life by - one being charity.
Please only respond if you actually know about the topic being discussed rather than throwing ad hominem attacks and then making up ridiculous deflections like pretending the Pope is an abortionist!
However to your claim even IF the Pope was an abortionist that does NOT deflect from the Catholic dogma taught by Christ which clearly teaches us all not to kill.
We don’t stop following Christ because there is a Judas among us
@@irishandscottish1829 it's clear by your misuse of the term "ad hominem" that you obviously don't know what that term means. I never said Christianity doesn't encourage people to be charitable but that the words "charity" and "charitable" are overused by this particular audience (I don't ever see these words being nearly so overused on other Christian channels as they are here). Funny how your reaction to my rather innocuous comment got a rather *uncharitable* response from you however, which clearly speaks to your hypocrisy. 😂
@@melchior2678 nope hes not
@@irishandscottish1829 also, last I checked the Pope is VERY leftist and therefore has a predisposition for being an abortionist. I would be quite surprised to find that Pope Francis who has openly taken MANY leftist stances was opposed to abortion, but like I said, correct me if I'm wrong - so far you haven't cited any specific instances of the Pope taking a prolife stance and instead resorted to throwing a temper tantrum. 😂
Judith Thompson's assertion that "fetuses don't have a right to their mother's body" has got to be the most horrifying statement I've ever heard.
I agree. If my unborn child doesn't have a right to my womb, than why would my born child have a right to my breasts to feed him, my hands to change him, my feet to carry him, my very life to protect him?
That, and a uterus is *made* to carry a fetus. That’s its primary purpose.
A woman’s womb was designed to host and nourish another human being and carry him/her to life. To stop a woman’s womb from that natural automatic function (biological progress or pregnancy does not stop even if the mother mentally wants it to stop) is to do harm to the mother and the human host inside. This why deliberate abortion is biologically and morally wrong regardless of the mom’s reasons: “It’s my body and an infant has no right to my body”. She has the right to freedom of opinion, but her womb imposes its own predisposition to nourish the life of another human being.
@@EpoRose1 Purpose or need doesn't determine ownership.
@@YashArya01 fetuses don’t own the mother’s womb. Would you say a child owns it’s parent’s house just because the parents have the moral obligation to provide one?
My brother went to university and was really clever, he then had a mental breakdown and his mind is at the capacity of a 7 year old child and needs supervision.
He is not the brother l knew growing up and it saddens me, but I would not have his life terminated, and were seeing this more and more in abortion and euthanasia when life is not regarded as suffering and is not valuable or worth living and would become a cross to bear . But life is about suffering and carrying your cross
Rejoice every day and thank God for all we suffer and pray pray pray every day and thank God for everything in our life’s good and bad and the trials and tribulations and God will give you peace in this life and the next.
Trent’s charity toward his opponent is quite admirable. God bless.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Also available off my various webpages.
I'd love for Trent to do an episode on how to remain charitable when talking with people who spend great effort justifying horrific moral evils.
Here is a bit of advice, review the book of Romans, reflect most particularly on the part which mentions that not one single person save Christ himself, is good... What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:9-14, 16-20 ESV
bible.com/bible/59/rom.3.9-20.ESV
When you remember how we obtain our righteousness before God, it is so much easier to remain charitable (used just for melchior who doesn't understand the ties of grace and love to the word charitable in faith... he also doesn't understand the difference in offering charity, offering alms, and offering money as a hand out... but that is one of the more beautiful parts of Catholicism).
If there was an easy remedy we would all know about it by now lol
@@angelalemos9811 Did you assume my remedy is easy? Sheesh, every time I read Romans I learn way more than I did the time before... that is not easy, in any way shape or form.
@@michellelaudet5363 I appreciate your point of view. Remaining humble is key.
@@brendansheehan6180 Um, I am not quite sure how you meant that- did you post that as a jab in all humility? Semi dressing up a jab? Or is just very blunt as a point that my name isn't the one you were hoping to see as answer.
FYI, I was being humble, the problem with humility is you can't let go of what is true, that is fake. Christ was perfectly humble: he knew who he is, yet served out of that. Humility is rarer than one would think, most of us play at humility. I just had that thought pop into my head. Trent can still answer you as he may not agree with me, or he has additional thoughts to add... I pretty much believe the second is true. I guess when I see a question in a public forum and I know a possible answer, I share that with the seeker so they can move forward. I personally don't need fan world stuff, but I realise other people do need answers only from the best out there... Thanks for your response, I wasn't expecting one, especially not one that required so much typing. Have a great day!
So impressed with both of these gentlemen to have a civil discussion with someone with whom they disagree with on such a critical and emotional issue. Kudos to Nathan for his willingness to participate in an environment where his view is the minority, and even more Kudos to the students for listening to another side of an issue without shouting him down or claiming his speech is violence against them. If all college students behaved this way, perhaps universities could become places of critical thinking where ideas and issues can be discussed freely.
Thanks. Unfortunately, though not many students showed up. There were very few, if any, "pro-choice" people in the audience.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Also available off my various webpages.
All I needed to hear was Nathan's case to embolden my own belief in life at conception and the fetuses right to life. Thanks Nathan
Yes life at conception is basic embryology 101 and in every textbook.
@@angelalemos9811 Totally false.
It’s interesting that you think that but it would be more interesting to know why.
@@angelalemos9811 This is true, however scientific facts by themselves don’t make any ethical statements. If you’re going to use scientific facts you need to have an ethical premise to go with it.
@@ckmfunk nope maybe you need to read one and educate yourself. It's also why it's taught in all biology classes, including the ones I've had as well, obviously. Facts don't cease to exist were your research or intellect fails.
Nathan's a genuinely smart, down to earth and good-faith person, and was surprisingly intellectually honest on certain points many pro-choicers are not honest about. That being said, Trent definitely had the most sound arguments here. Many of Nathan's arguments were merely assumption-based.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Also available off my various webpages.
@@NathanNobis101 Thank you so much for sharing! I'll definitely check these out.
been waiting for this one for a while so happy how this debate turned out
Trent, you were incredibly precise in your articulation and cross-examination. Also, I loved the Mr. Meeseeks reference.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Also available off my various webpages.
Nathan really had a problem responding to almost any points directly. He generally reframed everything into hypotheticals without addressing the question asked.
Which is exactly what he said people do erroneously in his opening statement. Irony
@@mike-cc3dd that's exactly what I was thinking
That fact only solidify’s our position…unlike other issues abortion is really one sided…pro-lifers are backed by scientific and technological advancements…babies are being born earlier and earlier and yet still surviving…pro choicer arguments are based on opinionated excuses…they try to disqualify someone’s right to life due to them not possessing certain minuscule characteristics
I mean that is the leftists debatę playbook, you constantly reframe everything and Play nebulous, constantly appealing to peoples emotions not their intellect.
Yes thank you! I was listening to this and really attempting to be open to his side of the argument and really struggled because he just posed questions and hypotheticals and didn't respond to Trents questions. Very odd. I guess that's the inexperience. He also used a coupe of straw man arguments that annoyed me at the beginning. Much respect for getting up there and doing the debate but unfortunately two different levels of debaters.
It's not a human right to end a human's life, so, as always; it's a resounding "no" from any sensible and moral person.
Well, there are hard questions on what anyone's rights depend on. There are different theories, which will have different implications here.
@@NathanNobis101 I disagree. How are theories, in any way, relevant or valid on a topic like this or for any moral matter, for that matter?
Moral is either objective and universal or anything goes.
Human right's do not depend on anything else but the fact that they're a human being. This fact does not vary, from person to person, like some groups would argue otherwise on (I'm not saying that you necessarily belong to said group(s)).
Reducing human life to anything else but the life that originates with conception, leads one to false and extremely evil conclusions, like the nazis, for example, who would equate a black pre-born child as less valuable than a white pre-born child, or a pre-born child with down syndrome as less valuable than a pre-born child without it (like they've done in Iceland and genocided all children with down syndrome over there.)
Case in point: A human life is valuable because it is human and is alive. therefore, all human rights include extend to human beings, with no exceptions, because any exception would make it so that 1. human life is arbitrary and relative 2. anyone can do whatever they want with themselves and with anybody else.
Agreed.
Egyetértek. 🙂
@@NathanNobis101 mental gymnastics
I think the State when properly ordered has a legitimate right to issue the death penalty
Just like the recent debate on the Marian Dogmas, Trent really shined during the cross examination.
Cool to see him adopt some of the arguments Ben Watkins used in their devil’s advocate debate. Poor Nate was not prepared and I’m not optimistic Trent will find many interlocutors as good as Watkins.
I feel like I’ve heard more challenging objections on Catholic answers live than this debate.
When Trent opens by complimenting his opponent for even being willing to show up to the debate, the writing's on the wall.
indeed
Yes, it is unfortunate that too many people are unwilling to discuss these issues. But to be fair, that's the only point that can be made here.
@FaithfulMillennial do you think it's a good thing when people are unwilling to discuss impossible issues?
Sorry that was a typo. Fixed that. Thanks.
Thanks for participating in this debate! You did a great job and made some really good points! It’s refreshing to see rational discourse on both sides instead of yelling, slogans etc. I have to admit, though, that I would feel safer in an environment where Trent’s basic moral principles /intuitions about a human person’s right to life are respected. The principles he defended to me seem more robust and less likely to be bend and to lead to disrespect of humans’ life by tyrannical regimes, for instance. Psychological foundations for human dignity are more subjective, it seems to me, and easier to bend than a universal foundation (just by being a member of the human species, independently of race, how intelligent, conscious, worthy your life seems in the eyes of a particular regime etc. ).
I want to thank Dr. Nobis for participating. However, I feel like the audience would be better served if he answered questions more directly. I really do appreciate the discussion though, thank you both!
Which questions would you like more direct answers to?
@@NathanNobis101 Sure (thanks for responding btw!), I believe the answers given at 1:02:16 and 1:03:57 are examples. Again, I sincerely thank you for participating in the debate!
@@jamesp767 sorry, but can you write out what these questions are, please?
That is one thing about philosophers. There is never a direct answer, lol. There is always nuance to rationalize.
@@vtaylor21 well, I'd be happy to try to provide a direct answer. Sometimes though the best answer is to acknowledge complexity, when people mistakenly think an issue is simple and obvious.
The whole abortion issue needs to be re-framed around the fact the it is fundamentally about mothers killing children. Parents have special obligations towards their children to care for them and NOT to kill them, which is precisely what abortiin does.
Abortion is not simply about ANY person killing ANOTHER person. Its so much more than that, and this is why abortion and pregnancy is NOT analogous to any other situation or process in life.
The whole abortion issue needs to be re-framed around the fact the it is fundamentally about children removing agency of mothers. Parents don't have any special obligations, unless they willfully take this role.
Bear in mind that your propaganda tactics such as reframing to suit better your ideology are tools that can be used against you
@@Mish844 your line of reasoning faultily assumes murder is the correct response instead of adoption for example.
@@zeloraz8101 no, it doesn't. Glad I could be helpful. You making assumptions up is one thing, but thinking that adoption is any response, let alone a good one, to an unwanted pregnancy is just sign of being out of touch. Not necessarily being wrong on the conclusion regarding abortion, but being out of touch nonetheless.
@@Mish844 pro choicers are wierd. How is adoption worse then killing an unwanted child?
How is it out of touch?
Also your line of reasoning would include small children, small children take agency away from mother wither or not their in the womb or not.
@@zeloraz8101 People who want to get an abortion, do it in response to unwanted pregnancy so they end it asap. It is called abortion. The idea they should just pain through 9 months, even if morally superior, which is highly questionable cuse based solely on zealous narcisism, simply doesn't even attempt to address the issue of why seek abortion in the first place. Hence the out of touch, cuse either you avoid adressing people you want to disway from abortion, or you don't know why they want abortion
No, it doesn't include small children. I asked that you stop making up assumptions. You know what pregnancy is, right?
Life begins with conception.
Great discussion, Trent.
So it depends on what you mean by "life." See my recent Salon article on that.
My comments keep getting deleted.
@@NathanNobis101 A bacteria is life, a virus is life, a unicellular organism is life, a woman’s reproductive cell plus the union of a man’s reproductive cell equals a new human being, which starts as unicellular, so life has begun, fact. The difference between my first examples and the last comes to DIGNITY. Will you say a fetus has dignity or not? It is not about when life begins, science has said for decades that it starts at conception. The question is does the fetus have inherent value or not. Pro-lifers will say yes, pro-choicers will say no.
@@NathanNobis101 Welcome to TH-cam where if you share links, say slightly controversial things, etc the TH-cam algorithm deletes them without notifying you or the creator of the video.
@@atgred it depends on what you mean by "life": see my recent Salon article on that. It also depends on what makes something have dignity or value: that's the question.
@@Kyle-pj2vc yes I am learning that. Thanks! I hadn't encountered that before.
Nathan barely responded to Trent's opening statement.
Well, if you wanted to make a list of the arguments given, I could some time. Thanks!
@@NathanNobis101 dude. Move along
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@NathanNobis101 thank you for your responses. I've watched the whole playlist.
If you're interested, I'd love to have a Skype discussion about it.
Your thoughts will be useful since I'm currently writing a pro life apologetic book.
@@NathanNobis101 I've made this pro life conference if you're interested! th-cam.com/video/4MkKsrIfqH8/w-d-xo.html
Consciousness seems far too nebulous and subjective to ground our ethics on the right to life. Even if the position can be argued with sufficient nuance, it's easy to manipulate for one's own gains (like with infants or the mentally disabled). Trent's position is clear and robust. Maybe it lacks sufficient nuance for all cases, but I'd rather err on the side of defending human life than err on the side of killing human beings.
No it’s not, the capacity to deploy a conscious experience takes places 20-24 weeks.
What’s actually a crazy position is thinking that conception is a morally significant event… it’s literally a single cell. To think that a single cell has the moral equivalency to a person is insane.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Human rights apply to human beings. At conception, there is a new human being. Creating a distinction between humans and persons is the basis for discrimination. That's why it was wrong to consider black people to be 3/5 of a person, despite being a human being.
@@BrewMeister27 Well they quite literally don’t which is why fetus aren’t legally recognized as having any rights. That firstly.
Secondly, no because black people were and are conscious developed human beings. Fetus’ are undeveloped, non-sentient lifeforms.
@@IvanGonzalez-kf4lp Slave owners also appealed to the law to justify slavery.
I fundamentally reject the concept that human rights depend on humanity, plus some other arbitrary condition. And until we can move past that barbaric idea, we will always find some group of humans to scapegoat and kill.
@@BrewMeister27 I’m not appealing to the law I’m pointing out you made an incorrect statement. Rights do no apply to fetus’s, that’s just not true. Now you can make the argument they ought to, but you haven’t done that.
Secondly, it’s not arbitrary, it’s fundamental. A human being that’s not conscious is either an undeveloped, non sentient life form … or, they’re brain dead. In both cases they’re not really a life worth preserving.
Also you just gave me a slippery slope fallacy… so just so you understand the capacity to deploy consciousness defining personhood applies to every single conscious human being capable of deploying a conscious experience. It can’t be used to justify any group of people.
Hey Trent, I'd love for you to have a discussion with Kate Greasley. She is a pro-choicer, but surprisingly she agrees with the pro-life view that if the prenatal human being is a person, then abortion is wrong. But she doesn't think that the prenatal humans _are_ persons. So I'd like to see you have a discussion with her on abortion.
I think by pro-choice you mean pro-abortion? Pro-choice and pro-life are dumb terms.
@@crobeastness true. Pro death vs pro life. Is better.
Pro abortion and anti abortion. Is another one.
@@mike-cc3dd I use the second one because pro-life is also vague. People who are pro-life are not necessarily against the death penalty for example and life could mean any life like plants and animals.
@@crobeastness pro life as an institution... supports natrual life of *humans* from conception to natural death. Official pro lifers are actually against capital punishment in the scenario of justice. So. Bascially you're making the argument based on people who call themselves pro life but are not fully pro life.
@@mike-cc3dd exactly. And also the pro-life organization has way too much sympathy for the mother commuting the murder. No law is going to get passed with that mentality.
I had four ideas listening to this.
1. On the subject of personhood, continuity of experience and so on, is Darth Revan, who had his memory wiped and was reeducated as a good guy, the same person as the then “reformed” Jedi knight Revan? Let’s make it harder and say he never regained the memories of his former identity and had to make a choice to reject it. For me the intuitive answer, based on the biological continuity, is still yes. How might this be used in a pop-culture argument for the personhood of the unborn?
2. Nathan is really quite endearing. I really felt for him as he struggled to speak. He seems like a genuinely thoughtful and honest guy.
3. Trent is a true gentleman. He really covered for Nathan.
4. I’d be really interested in listening to a debate specifically over how “personhood” should be defined. I’m very fond of Trent’s “member of a rational kind” definition. It seems to cover all the bases of identity which is both biological and psychological. But I’d be curious to see how someone might argue against it in favor of a different definition.
The other issue with the “continuous stream of consciousness” definition, which originated in the Enlightenment, is the fact that that doesn’t have to be a single stream. Suppose there’s a “teleporter” which records the structure of your body down to the molecular level, destroys your body, and then reassembles it from a supply of carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, etc. on another planet. Is that still you? The new body will have the exact same memories as you, it’ll act and look exactly the same, and from its perspective, it really was “teleported”. But what if, due to some error in the system, two separate stations on different planets were told to rebuild you? There’d then be two different streams of consciousness, with the exact same memories and personality, coexisting on different planets. Which one is the original person? Are they both the same person? It doesn’t make sense. What if the original body was never destroyed? You might then say that original body is “you” and the other two are clones. But if I then kill that original body and only one of the clones, then you essentially have the exact same situation as originally intended, where there’s only one version of that stream of consciousness, on the intended destination planet. So by killing someone on Earth, does that mean that you actually made the person on the other planet “become” them in doing so? It doesn’t make sense, because the person on Earth and the person on the destination planet were clearly distinct streams of consciousness for the short time they coexisted. It just creates too many problems.
The best part about these is the way they both conducted themselves.
Prof. Nobis is obviously a very intelligent man and he does a good job of being charitable and engaged. You can tell that he is not an experienced debater, but he’s a great conversationalist and I really enjoyed the cross-examination period.
Thanks! There were things about this setup that I wasn't really comfortable with, but that's ok. If people learn more and better understand the issues, that's good.
Most philosophers that sniff their own farts have the gift of gab. But do they really say anything worthwhile?
Not in this case
I feel that 1:45:45 best sums up this debate as to why we should not base personhood on consciousness.
Is killing babies immoral? Why are we asking this question?
Lol, that's what I'm saying!
This video is clearly just Trent's excuse to give a leftist a platform
Thanks for defending prolife. I saw images of an abortion and immediately became prolife some years back
Yeah, this is an issue where images can be distorting, since those images can be highly unrepresentative of most abortions.
@@NathanNobis101 sorry but you are wrong.
Have you ever personally witnessed an abortion?
It’s entirely misleading for you to claim anatomically correct images of aborted ‘foetus’ are intentionally misleading.
Even in your ‘early abortions’ it is very much a very identifiable tiny baby we are looking for to be passed in the bedpan.
This is the problem with the majority of ‘pro choice’ advocates - none of you have ever stepped into a clinic/hospital that kills these babies.
@@NathanNobis101 this was pretty accurate I think as it matches up with even the written literature and several images that come up later for instance recently with aborted fetuses.
I should add the images wasn't the only reason but were the tipping point to established arguments.
Though I should add I don't remember what age the fetus was
@@NathanNobis101 nathan. A tip for debating since you're new. Never ever ever debate people in the comment section of a debate video featuring yourself. It's soo cringe
@@mike-cc3dd thanks so much. I didn't know there are rules about this.
25:00
Like being alive isn't the ultimate aspect for all future wellbeing.
Like it doesn't provide the opportunity for having a future, having experience of consciousness.
Like ending their development into that isn't harming them.
Consciousness is an aspect of life, it is a reasonable part of development and just because they don't have it yet doesn't make that individual less valuable.
It is one step in one's life, and to take the ability for a living person to experience that before the age they would is morally wrong.
We have the duty to provide all human beings the gifts life brings us.
Individuals exist from birth to death.
They are unique living organisms with the opportunity to impose their will upon the world.
I believe it is rational to think one is still a person when they are unconcious, whether they have developed thought yet or not.
I believe thought and these things that let us view the lense of the world from the position of an observer (conciousness) is not what makes us us, but the life we are.
Unless you fundamentally lack the capability of functionally developing into a being experiencing consciousness being ever, (as when consciousness ends forever it means death) then you would have the same value as any living person.
1:26:25 You know you’re not doing too well when your debate opponent says this 😂
He's inexperienced, and I love how Trent chose to help him think
I like to cite an argument of my own formulation (though I suspect someone far wiser than I has done similarly in the past) that I call an argument of non-interference. Namely, but for a positive act that kills a baby in the womb, if left alone, would become a human being -- a person -- of equal value to myself, and this baby is therefore of equal worth and maintains the same negative rights that I have, and even has additional positive rights that I do not, while yet unborn.
Nathan's reply about the rats.
Yikes that was cringe.
And then when he leaned on it during the seated back and forth... sooooooo weak.
Trent: “Your argument has an implausible implication: it’s wrong to kill rats, maybe even as wrong as it is to kill you or me right now.”
Nathan: “But some people have pet rats, and they like them! Just saying...”
That moment alone deprived Nathan of any right to call himself a “philosopher.” It was embarrassing.
@@mnmmnm925 agreed and yes we can kill rats lol
Trent is burning with the fire of the Holy Spirit!
Remember to be nice to Nathan guys. I noticed some people are hating on him or trolling him based on his performance. Please treat everyone kindly
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
An enjoyable "debate" but I think Professor Nobis would have been better suited for a dialogue, it seemed like he was most comfortable during the end part where they were just talking
Nathan was unable to demonstrate a reasonable, convincing argument for his position that it's wrong to smash eagles' eggs yet not wrong to kill a human life before it's developmental stage of having consciousness.
Didn't Trent observe that we tend to think it'd be wrong to smash eagle eggs because eagles are rare and we think they look cool and have patriotic associations with them, and that has nothing to do with abortion?
@@NathanNobis101 I don't understand what is your point or logic?
You even admitted that it wouldn't be good for the eagle parents.
@@NathanNobis101 The violent act against nature is more fundamentally problematic beyond merely aesthetics or patriotism - that you're not acknowledging.
@@MPFXT hi, yes, the point is that if you think it'd be wrong to smash eagle eggs, that can be explained in ways that have no implications for abortion, right? Even Trent agreed about that, which is why I am wondering why you are wondering about that.
Well done Trent!
Trent did well, the problem is that common sense and logic passes over the head of these other people no matter how intelligent the arguments are. With some only Jesus could help at this point. Let's pray that this discussion helps someone snap out of delusion. 👍
If you have to force me to believe in your religion in order to think the way you do that doesn’t seem fair or civil.
Trent had some absolute TERRIBLE arguments lmao
I'm about halfway through right now, and this is a great dialogue. I really wish he would have responded to your statement at 1:08:10, but he got right into thinking about what he wanted to ask you. But I feel like that was a perfect framing of your argument at the right time, and he just let it go.
What was that about?
Just finished your debate with Cecili Chadwick on abortion this morning so this is a pleasant surprise.
Me too. Pleasant coincidence. I watched it yesterday.
The funny thing is, prof. Chadwick did a really bad job in her debate with Trent.
Watching that debate was like watching somebody shoot a fish in a barrel.
I'll say this, at least Mr Nobis was very polite that's a welcome change. His fundamental assumption that cognitive faculties constitute the value of a human life is merely an assumption though, I was very puzzled that his whole opening statement rested on that. Of course if we define the unborn as something unsuitable to have inalienable rights, killing them isn't murder but then I figure the rest of the debate would be about justifying that definition instead of making these analogies to particular scenarios.
The issue ultimately should be whether the unborn are the _sort_ of being who is capable of having these valuable perceptions he appreciates.
Any stage in the development or advancement of a human person's life is his/her life, life is the entire time spent being alive from the moment of its earliest beginning to its final end.
It depends on what you mean by "life." See my Salon article on that topic.
@@NathanNobis101 It doesn't depend on me trust me, I don't determine what is life based on my opinion, personal experience, or political view.
@@JohnR.T.B. hi, I am unsure what your point is, but "life" can mean different things. See my recent Salon article on the topic.
@@NathanNobis101 I’ve read your article, and here is my response in responding to what I see as your main points:
“In ways that matter morally, if our "lives" end when our consciousness or minds permanently end, then it's plausible to also believe that "life" begins when consciousness begins: that is the start of us. We begin after our bodies begin: as embryos and beginning fetuses, our "stories" - what our lives are like, for us, from our point of view - haven't begun.”
-- Human life in the absolute term cannot be separated into his/her so-called “biological life” and his/her “story life” as you present in the article. A human’s entire existence depends upon his/her bodily function, no matter how imperfect, and obviously his/her existence doesn’t depend upon his/her conscious life experiences or memories of past events. On the contrary, a person can only be alive by having his/her bodily organs develop and function appropriately, and this can only happen through the natural process of growth since conception. His/her consciousness is made possible only through all the process of his/her development of bodily functions, including his/her mental function (brain activities, etc.), which can only achieve their fullness of state of awareness and memory recollections, as said, through all the development process right from the very start of conception.
When we’re talking about “life stories”, we’re talking about values and meanings, dignity and worth, of someone among others who know or recognize him/her. This assessment itself is very subjective and hence cannot be used as objective assessor. A person’s life stories might be valuable to certain people, but may be considered “worthless” by another group of - let’s say - cruel and violent people. Someone might even consider his/her own life a failure while others see him/her as quite well off, such as the case for example of a person who lives quite affluently in a developed country but suffer stresses due to loneliness for example, while a very poor person from a struggling country will be very happy to live this stressed person’s life in a developed country. A “story” is also something that is known because it has already unfolded, which no person can ever know if no chance is given for that “story” to unfold.
“…there seems to be a broad consensus that anti-abortion arguments are not strong enough to determine policy and law for all: indeed, they can seem to be in the category of "personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs." They are not arguments that all reasonable people must accept and their freedom and liberty be constrained by.”
-- Regarding the statement that “personal, religious, and otherwise beliefs” cannot form a basis to determine policy and law, I suppose there is a great deal of hypocrisy here where we have seen how laws in certain countries, such as in Canada and in some American States, have been created on the very basis of personal belief, such as law regarding affirmation of gender narratives which are accepted by a group of people subscribing to that belief but applied universally to everyone within the jurisdiction regardless, even when there is still room for discussion regarding its scientific basis, impact on family lives, etc.
“But are women obligated to use their bodies to support beings that are merely biologically alive, but not biographically alive?”
-- Women and men have obligations to respect every human life, and as outlined above a human life cannot be determined according to its “biology” and its “story” as though these two values are separate entities, a story can only be there when there is a living body to begin with, which starts at conception.
Also in the article, you mention that a person who is in vegetative-state coma is no longer alive “story-wise” and hence has died to his/her value because there is no hope of regaining consciousness and hence only alive “biologically” as a kind of unconscious bio-machine, and hence the same can be said to unconscious zygotes. Again, values about life’s achievements and recollections that we think of are assigned and are not entirely universal, they’re subjective and hence what are subjective, and hence not absolute and objective, cannot justifiably make irreversible judgment to a living being as valuable as a human life, such as yourself. If you value your existence but not others, it is your issue in morality; but the person’s life who is in the womb or in a vegetive-state coma, has first and foremost, inherent objective value of human dignity, the humanity, to which we all assign ourselves to as human beings, to which we owe our very own inherent values as human beings, in which we in turn demand to be respected and treated with dignity.
If you justify abortion on the grounds of painless-deaths due to unconsciousness and the no-value of other person’s “no-story life”, or “no more story” case effectively, think about if you would think it is justified for yourself to be made non-existence painlessly with some technology, on the ground that other people find your story uninteresting or not-needed.
@@NathanNobis101 nothing on Salon is worth reading
I appreciate Nathan’s thoughtful answers but it really is frustrating that he rarely seems to state his position or opinion on a question or point. When asked a question he’s quick to say what others say. Or what he thinks the popular answer would be. We’re not to hear from others, we’re here to understand your view and threaten it with reason.
I've interacted with him several times on twitter. Extracting a direct answer from him has been impossible.
I understand this was a new guy debating, and his opening statement was pretty good but after that it's just the entire debate became an incohesive blur. There was just jumping all over the place, redirecting questions, coming up with complex hypotheticals, and shifting off the main point. There's nothing wrong with any of those things in moderation, but I think the guest speaker should have came a little bit more prepared to drive the conversation in a concrete direction.
Then again debating is a really tough skill because you have to be able to use hypotheticals and then get out of it quickly to make a point, so that you don't get lost in the weeds.
Yeah,then skipped the discussion midway and jumped to Q & A . Seems like he was only prepared for opening Statement and rebuttal .
Yes, it could have been better! It was however a good opportunity for a nearly all anti-abortion crowd to ask questions. So that's good.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@NathanNobis101 Although I don't agree with your position, these videos definitely helped clarify your points. Thank you for promoting constructive conversation. Please try to ignore insults and unjust criticism because plenty of people are not interested in discussion. Many are just interested in confirmation bias and existing in an echo chamber. This exists on all sides of the political spectrum.
I'm hearing a lot of thought experiments, but not a clear concise explanation of why a juvenile human is more valuable than an embryonic human.
Nor why a 25-week gestated born child would be worth protecting over a 25-week pre-born child. They "could be problematic" but the reason why was never concretized.
The very question that we are asking, wether it’s ok to kill any living thing at anytime should just be answered yes or no. No additional “if”
HOLY CRAP I REMEMBER A FEW MONTHS AGO RUNNING INTO NOBIS AND WONDERING IF THIS WOULD EVER HAPPEN
Btw, there was a particular exchange between Nobis (an ironically religious last name, btw), and another prolife philosopher over Nobis's book. I found the other guy more convincing ONLY FROM A RELATIVELY BRIEF GLANCE, but Nobis isn't a slouch.
The first premise should be rephrased as:
It is wrong for anyone to directly and deliberately kill human children.
This premise is beyond all dispute and takes care of all the additonal points you had to make about different circumstances of killing and personhood etc
good thing that abortion is not delibetae killing anyone, as it's merely terminating pregnancy, and child's death is secondary consequence
@@Mish844 whatever sociopathic euphimisms, mental gymnastics and logical fallacies make you sleep at night.
I think the last question's answer should have taken into account that in this situation there was a man included in the creation of this child, so a man is part of the abortion question. That father has a right to make a decision concerning his child and the body part he gave to this child.
Trent, what if the rat was _Master Splinter_ though?!
Trent, it would be very useful if you analyze the Dillahunty debate about this issue!
I think that is some cases we should separate morality with legality. We do this all of the time for certain actions. For example war, infidelity, capital punishment, arguably eating meat and animal testing are considered immoral, but legally permissible. This also works in the other direction. For example, jaywalking, trespassing, graffitiing, etc. are illegal, but arguably not immoral.
I think that a case can be made for the immorality of abortion after the fetus has developed the cerebral cortex, but I wholeheartedly disagree that it should be illegal in most circumstances.
Thanks!
The lady that asked the question at 1:18:30 did not stutter, felt bad for the professor
I’m not pro-life, but Trent did very well here. I can tell Nobis is new to debating and didn’t always know what to say, but Trent was super patient. And great job coming in strong on fetal personhood, since that’s Nobis’ area, whereas with Boonin you focussed more on the Good Samaritan argument which was more his area.
@Steven Grossman Because the right to life is not the same as the right to be kept alive by *another* person's internal organs
Update: Thanks to some of the comments online, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Also available off my various webpages.
@@connormccormick6298 but we have laws that force parents to use their bodies to go to work and earn money and cook dinner for their kids. A woman’s uterus provides food and shelter to her living shelter and is analogous to child support / child negligence laws that already exist. Laws force us to do things with our bodies like wearing seatbelts or even getting certain vaccines.
True. Plus it's not as though the kid just showed up and started using their parents' organs, the parents put them in that position.
If someone puts you in a coma it is only right for that person to be responsible for seeing to it that you survive that coma.
It also seems impossible to build a good world on the basis of death and departure from the proper use of our bodies.
That impairment argument goes HARDDDDD, wow
Concepts such as “rights” and “persons” I always find rather nebulous and taken for granted.
As Macintyre says regarding 'natural rights': “There are no such rights, and belief in them is one with belief in witches and unicorns.”
@@25chrishall “After Virtue” is such a good read!
Geez this debate was honestly brutal for Nathan Nobis. Nathan hardly responded to any of Trent’s arguments and when Trent cross-examined him, he basically just restated most of the questions or gave different examples without answering them and looked like he was stalling for time. Then Nathan couldn’t even respond at all for his own cross-examination after Trent stated his “Impairment” argument where depriving a fetus of its normal development is wrong. Nathan was a charitable interlocutor, but didn’t have any substance to defend his pro-choice stance, while Trent had such a depth and breadth of valid and sound arguments against pro-choice.
Hey Trent I’m currently on my endeavor to study pro-life in depth and I’m really struggling with this one analogy and I can’t find any pro-life responses and or think or any that could do it just. Okay her it goes;
Let’s say you wake up in the hospital, connected to a person. You’re then told by the doctor you have been in a car accident (your fault) because of that there is a pedestrian you hit and they are in the needy position because of you. You consent to driving everyday and you know there in an inherit risk you could die or put someone in a needy position we can argue whether it was intentional or not but should you be held liable to be connected to that person uhh give or take 9 months…? Is it fair to say it’s not so different than the pregnancy?
It’s a good analogy. But let’s make it more comparable to an abortion.
Let’s say you consent to get in your car and your purpose of driving is to intentionally run down a pedestrian. Let’s say this particular pedestrian happens to be your child. So you get in your car, spot your child in the street, and purposely crash into them.
Now let’s say you both survive and you wake up with your child in a coma connected to you. Lets say you know it’s only a 9 month coma, do you have a responsibility to let that child use your body. I would say yes. Your act caused them to be there, you have a responsibility to them as their parent, and you know for a fact that they will awaken in 9 months.
But that still not analogous. An abortion directly kills a child. If you unplug from your comatose child you are letting them die because their body can’t sustain itself because it’s in an unnatural condition. A fetus is exactly where it should be and is in its natural condition. To make it analogous to abortion, let’s say you don’t just “disconnect” from your child but you intentionally roll over and suffocate the child with a pillow. I would say you murdered your child. If you disagree that this analogy resulted in murder, I’d be curious to hear your reasoning. Good luck with the study!
Driving is not an action that is ordered towards hitting a pedestrian. Sex is ordered towards reproduction, that it’s primary function, from an evolutionary or designer perspective. Whereas the primary function of driving is to get to a new location.
In this scenario the person you are attached to is not your child, they are a stranger. This is important. Imagine a case where a parent chooses not feed their child (when they couldve, they just wanted a new car instead) and allows them to become malnourished, that’s child abuse and it’s illegal and evil. Noe imagine that same parents walks by a homeless person and doesn’t give them any food, again because they want a new car. That homeless person later becomes malnourished. I would say, and you would probably agree, that that is wrong. However should it be illegal? And is it morally as bad as the first?
The duty a parent has to their child is different from the duty a person has to a stranger.
I think the analogy is under described as well, what do you mean by connected to? Are you filtering their blood for them with your kidneys like in the violinist one?
The thing here is that the uterus of a woman exists to be a place for a child to grow and be safe till it is ready to be born. So the child has a natural right to be there. Whereas your blood exists to filter your blood, not a random strangers, that stranger does not have the same natural right to your blood. It’s an extraordinary use of your body, whereas in pregnancy that is an ordinary use of the body.
Then in this scenario you are unplugging yourself. However an abortion actively and directly kills another human being. Imagine if instead of unplugging yourself you had to hit the person with an axe several times to kill them? That changes things a lot. This is particularly important because since the unborn are alive, they should have a right to life like us (you can refute this with personhood arguments sure, but I assume you already know why those are faulty). A right to life is not a right to not be let die, if so it would be illegal to not donate all our money that we can to charities, it’s a right to not be killed. So even if the mother did have the right to stop the child from using her body, which I don’t think she does, but even if the child also has a right to not be killed. So we have a conflict of rights. So which option do we go with? I’d say that here it would be right to go with the passive option instead of the active option. As then we aren’t actively doing anything wrong. Killing the child intentionally is the active option, not intervening in the pregnancy is the passive option.
Hope this helps! I wrote this out quickly so might be some mistakes and not mentioning of important things if so my bad.
Nobis’ problem seems to be that he thinks a human being is just the highest degree of an animal, and not a categorically different type of being. This allows him to say that a dog who has longer to live loses more than a human being who only has 10 minutes of life left. He doesn’t view these lives as fundamentally different.
I guess I understand that. You would need more argument to prove that humans are categorically different type of being, because it sure doesn't seem to be the case, prima facie. But it can definitely be made, in a larger argument.
@@Kyssifrot Personally, I think the fact that there are no dogs presenting their philosophical views in the debate puts them, prima facie, in a different category than us. They aren't just lower on the scale of intellectual abilities, they aren't even on the same plane. I always find it mildly amusing that it takes years and years of studying philosophy to begin to wrestle with complex questions like "are humans qualitatively different than rats and dogs?" and "do I exist?" Probably one of the reasons philosophers generally get a bad rap.
Why is this a problem?
This was one of the less productive debates/ dialogues on the topic I've watched. Nathan was nice and polite, but didn't seem able or prepared to defend his position well.
Yes. My thoughts exactly.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
The president example was good. I think it is true, the president elect before inauguration does not yet have the rights of a president. But it still would not be ok for the people who didn’t vote for him or did vote for him but changed their minds about it to prevent the inauguration from happening.
"The dull, boring, topic of abortion?" I think we can all agree that the issue and debate are far from boring
1:51:00, 1:54:22
Child endangerment is an actual crime. Like in trent's example of not killing the child but not letting him use my house knowing he will freeze to death.
Sentience cannot be proved or disproved which is why that argument cannot be maintained.
I cringed so hard at this "philosopher". "Why is it wrong to kill human being?" Are you serious??!
well that was a quick 2 hrs. Felt sorry for Mr Nobis though as Trent kind of just trampled him as he was at a loss of what to say a great many times. Not sure why he kept bringing up animals, rats, dogs, etc, it is not about animals, its about human babies, not animals. It is pretty simple, one either believes in God and what he says.....or you don't, you think your human existence over rides Gods.
Trent's meekness is admirable.
The "this is what the people want. Not the dull boring topic of abortion" comment 💀💀💀
1:50:00
And we are supposed to be the thinking species in earth and are trying to excuse abortion with a ton of bs! He’s so empty full of it, he has been indoctrinated to think so stupid ly
Hi, what would be more interesting and positive would be any explanation for why my arguments are bad. That'd be better. Thanks!
@@NathanNobis101 I thought the debate went very well. Even though I stand on Trent’s side of the issue. You have helped me come to a better understanding. Your effort produced a benefit.
@@NathanNobis101 thanks.
@@den8863 thanks! That's my goal. And there's my free book too if you are interested. Thanks!
I think catholic apologists would benefit from rejecting the flawed terms used in morality debates, "right" and "freedom". These describe exclusively the relationship between a person and the State, I don't think they are fit for describing absolute morality. Rights are the boundries the State guarantees won't be crossed by other citizens, the freedoms are the boundries the State guarantees won't cross. These are appropriate definitions that don't ooze into the moral sphere. The reason I don't go on the street and kill pedophiles is not that I don't have the freedom to do that or that the pedophiles have the rights to a trial or whatever else, these things don't apply to *me*, i don't do that because it's objectively wrong.
These terms have multiple meanings: they have moral and legal meanings.
Rights aren't a prerogative of the State.
Right, wrong, even if we say these words are only correlated to rights and obligations, that implies there's something objective within the act in the abstract that merits either protection or punishment
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Yeah because english is a flawed language. The juridical term is different from the moral one in the romance languages
@@NathanNobis101 Yeah I'm just saying that using them is not a great way to frame our point of view as catholics in my opinion.
Rights are of absolute morality, they come up in legal documents as that which the government recognizes it has no power to harm them. Check out the 10th amendment for an example
The guy that supports abortion doesn’t make sense what he’s saying and he’s not getting to the point. Trent makes more sense and he gets straight to the point in my opinion. Trent Horn wins!
Not to be mean, but this pro-abortion guy was in WAY over his head.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
As someone with ADHD i can unfortunately relate debates being a weird experience on a painful level. It's not just that i lose focus but i have so many things in my head i can't articulate them, or while i am i forget what i was talking about e.x.t. Not saying these apply to you but i can relate to finding it easier to respond through seperate videos with visuals and such. That being said i heavily disagree with you on this topic but i'll happily check them out. God bless.
@@abelj5145 thanks, yes, it sounds like a similar experience.
I loved the joke for the' microphone for ants'.😁
I think smashing the eagles' eggs is immoral and is related to the pro-human life argument. Trent dropped the ball on this one. I think both debaters grant human life is more important, however, the wrong of smashing the living eggs is beyond mere deprivation or destruction of aesthetics. God created the eagles & their reproduction and the eggs, as well. In that sense animals and their offspring have dignity too! Not the same as human dignity, but dignity nonetheless!
Depends on if the egg is fertilized.
@@mike-cc3dd Yes, of course. The scenario presented was that the eggs were fertilized & the father & mother eagles were captured on a webcam as they prepared for and took care of the eggs before hatching.
Easy dunk for our boy Trent ⛹️🏀
So that is part of the reason why "debates" can be foolish. If you think the goal of discussions is to "dunk" on people, you have a poor goal for inquiry and thinking.
@@NathanNobis101 sir relax. You are making alot of assumptions about my character and attitude twords debates off of one simple meme text. Have a beer 🍺
@@jhonayo4887 sure! The "you" here was meant to be a "one," not you personally. My apologies!
@@NathanNobis101 it's all good sir. Just expressing in a comedic way that i thought Trent did great. Many blessings to you and your family! ❤️
@@jhonayo4887 thanks! Blessings to you also!
Doctors abortions usually tell latino future parents that their children have some kind of disability so that way they can have that baby abort, in lots of cases children are ok, is that population control or racism
Heartbreaking proposition
Yes to both
What would count as a nonbiological human being, a disembodied human soul?
It's amazing that people pay money to be taught by these "professors."
🤣
everyone knows that if whatever professors say disagrees with your feelings, it means they are wrong
So here's another version of my initial presentation if you are interested:
www.abortionarguments.com/p/presentation_12.html
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
@@ajboggs1522 thank you. I appreciate your reactions!
@@NathanNobis101 thank you for agreeing to debate this important topic. I may disagree with your conclusion, but hats off to you for your courage.
@@grosty2353 thank you!
If we wanted to read the ramblings of a philosopher. We would have. But you came to the debate and performed poorly. We learned enough about the strength of your arguments by hearing them in this format.
@@mike-cc3dd You remind me of a lot of the New Atheists who think debate is everything and don't take the time to study the nuance and complex philosophical questions these issues bring. I'd encourage you to perhaps be more charitable in your approach.
If this is the best of modern philosophy it's no wonder the world is lost. I'm not even referring to his debate skills, as that is something difficult. Rather, his arguments are so shallow in nature that they're borderline elementary.
Destroying eagle’s eggs is also wrong because it is unnecessary (if it indeed is), and not just because the eagle’s endangered status. So you can replace it in the example with whatever animal’s egg, if they are destroyed without a just cause it is not right. But for example, if you need to destroy the eggs to decrease the animal population in order to make humans’ life more comfortable, it is ok. If you kill babies to do the same, it is definitely not ok.
Trent Horn, Ora Pro Nathan Nobis.
It seems like Nathan couldn't think of any rebuttals to Trent's arguments. I feel like Nathan was overall stumped throughout the majority of the discussion/debate and simply didn't know how to interact with Trent's thinking. Either he was unprepared or stumped
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
There is no excuse for abortion, killing of a baby inside a mothers womb. It is impossible to argue for abortion. It is unnatural, mothers protect their babies, God looks at abortion in disgust and with a feeling of nausea.
Once a child is conceived, if you leave it alone, it WILL become a baby. It's not complicated.
But if you kill it and it’s not a baby, then you’re not killing a baby.
@@butterscotchwm that's some top tier mental gymnastics right there.
Ora pro Nobis
Double meaning. I like it
You should debate Arden of Eden on transgenderism.
39 min mark. Ummm I have some notes I scribbled not sure how to debate. This Guy is a Goober.
Life will keep being redefined. It is just a matter of convenience, and comfort. And having a hitman do the job. These murder apologists will keep saying stuff like... Uhh depends how you define life. Read my Salon article or something. If that is the case and we are just debating the whims of someone's unethical and godless philosophy I don't see how the debates would ever convince them. All I can hope for is a society that defines life for everyone except those who promote the murder of the most vulnerable. We should all hope for a society where these abortions are legal- The abortion of murder advocates. Why?... Well I should probably write an article on Salon for my reasons.
My perspective is that Mr. Nathan has no idea about what his talking about, also I will like to know his response about what a person is or who a person is.
I was waiting for him to say that a Dog is a person 🙄🫣🤪
Bruh this nathan guy needs to debate easier opponents. He was so inexperienced. And did he imply he's a philosopher when he mentioned his TikTok videos.....I mean that's total cap.
Is this really the best guy you could have had for the pro-choice side? He is awful at debating.
hes new to debating but watch david boonin vs trent. Even tho trent did a better job imo, its a really good debate.
Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Trent clearly feels more comfortable going after easy low hanging fruit 😂
@@melchior2678 Update: Thanks to some of the comments here, I realized that a few things prevented me from responding to Trent in an ideal way here. So I made some videos and a text that better engage Trent's initial talk. I hope people find them helpful for better understanding the issues! Thanks!
th-cam.com/play/PLlBWIKj9Hh0YEdOoRydM_fe7fTCy0zGND.html
Nathan has a future in yoga.
When the materialist can't come up with a question, he betray the pathetic shallowness of his thinking.
Plan Parenthood lists over 10 different contraceptives and ways to prevent getting pregnant on their web page. At what number are these folks going to accept their responsibility and use them?
Prof. Nobis should stop saying how new he is to this, he's not sure how exactly to respond, he's just going to ramble randomly... Geeesh! Do you want your students to imitate that? Be an example
The rats are really catching strays in this one
Everybody is pro-choice....one side just wants it to be a privilege of well-to-do women. Think about it. Name ANY restriction dreamed up by "pro-lifers" and enacted by Republicans, that would stop or even inconvenience a middle class or wealthy woman from getting a safe abortion? "Well, it'll stop a lot of them". 1st, you have to prove that. 2nd, doesn't refute my point.