ไม่สามารถเล่นวิดีโอนี้
ขออภัยในความไม่สะดวก
The Ethics of Abortion w/ Hosts of Triggernometry &
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ส.ค. 2024
- Watch Part 1 with @triggerpod co-hosts here: • Triggernometry Hosts K...
Triggernometry co-hosts Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster joined Peter Boghossian for Spectrum Street Epistemology (SSE) in London. The discussion was held in front of Middlesex Guildhall, the building housing the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Passers-by were welcome to join the discussion, and one did: Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, the co-director of March for Life UK. She participated in the analysis of claims regarding abortion rights.
Konstantin Kisin is a Russian-British author, satirist, and cultural critic. He is the author of “An Immigrant's Love Letter to the West,” a bestselling book about free speech and cancel culture through the perspective of an Eastern bloc immigrant.
Francis Foster is a cultural commentator, well-known comedian, and former teacher of English and drama. Before launching Triggernometry, he co-hosted the “Probably Offensive” podcast.
Konstantin and Francis co-host Triggernometry, a podcast dedicated to free speech and open discussion of controversial topics.
Triggernometry www.youtube.co...
“An Immigrants Love Letter to the West” by Konstantin Kisin www.amazon.com...
Konstantin's Substack: substack.com/@...
Konstantin on X: / konstantinkisin
Francis on X: / francisjfoster
March for Life UK: www.marchforli...
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:45 Guest joins / Trying out SSE abortion claims
2:45 Participants guest the other’s best reason for claim
4:40 What it would take to change mind
8:50 Debrief
11:40 KK and FF continue discussion
13:40 Claim about capacity for consciousness in humans
19:12 KK and FF thoughts on SSE
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.sub...
Donate | www.nationalpr...
⸺LINKS⸺
Podcast: "Conversations with Peter Boghossian": pod.link/16501...
Website | peterboghossia...
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalpr...
Resignation Letter | peterboghossia...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/pete...
__________
#abortion #thoughtexperiment #peterboghossian #womensrights
Part 1 with Konstantin and Francis ICYMI: th-cam.com/video/HpUjJL0D9Uo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=BkD0_O7cr2CB6a7G
I have two thoughts about the lack of passersby who participate:
1. People out for a walk are usually not just looking to zap 10-30 minutes out of their day. They're going to or from lunch or work. Because of this, they might be less inclined to stop and chat.
2. People are reluctant to participate in something when they don't know what it is AND when other people aren't playing. This is a bit of a feedback loop where they don't see enough people playing/watching the game and so they themselves don't play/watch.
Regarding the first point: perhaps the counter is to set up somewhere where people are going to stay. Hard to get to one of those places without needing permits, but maybe public libraries would be interested in hosting you for an event. If people were coming to play, that might get a lot of participants.
Regarding the second point: see if you can consult with stage performers, specifically those who coax audience members to participate. Clowns, magicians, stand-up comedians - lots of options. Figuring out how to put audience members at ease, draw them over to watch the "show," or framing the game slightly differently might eliminate the second hurdle and reverse the "feedback" into a positive loop of a line-up of people who want to play the game.
I think you're on to something with "come get your voice heard," even if it didn't work in this particular instance... I think it might have to do with getting people to realise the benefits for themselves.
Final thought: maybe have a "pitchman" who comes from a stage performance background who is prepared to try and wrangle guests.
EDIT: Just a quick PS: I love the street epistemology and I love your work.
the two improvements I've seen in the past couple rounds of this are excellent modifications. the position really encourages participants to engage and the dry erase board is a great idea to have a consise idea that is clearly stated. i can't sing your praises enough. i think the only thing that i would suggest is to get an assistant named Wesley so you can occasionally say "shut up, Wesley." you really embody the speech Picard makes about the first duty being to the truth.
Peter - I think this works really well because of the thoughtful questions you pose. If we tried to roll this out in Schools in the UK I don't think it would work as well as everyone could be as skilled. But these sessions are great to watch....and very thought provoking...
It is so damn refreshing to see mature adults have a debate.
It's like seeing a unicorn these days.
Other then the fact that the host is kind of amazing... I don't think that either of there points were solid. I can do a ten times better job defending pro-choice.
A thought. I'd love to see political debates during elections follow this style. Moderated by Peter, of course.
I’m game!
That's a great idea
The debates are screaming spectacles for very good reasons, its all part of maintaining a low info political environment, the least amount of questions possible, only select candidates given certain response times, its all co-ordinated ahead of time, don’t think for a second it isn’t
@@drpeterboghossian I can't wait to hear you say "You should do martial arts!" to the candidates.
First time seeing the 'write down what you believe your opponent's best argument will be' method in these games, as a means of putting yourself in their shoes and testing your own convictions - that's a pretty cool addition.
I would absolutely love to see this with the trans activists. I seriously think, in my experience of dismantling their arguments, they'd have no idea what the opposite side thinks.
I think its important to include this more. The haidt research for righteous mind displayed quite clearly that people strongly opposite each other politically, particularly the self described liberals, are really not very good at correctly imitating each others views.
Lots of mind changing, whether we like it or not, is emotional at base and a shock to the system tends to be the trigger. DIscovering that your understanding of the disagreement is completely wrong is a good way to shock someone out of their defensive position to start listening to their opposition.
Ditto. The exercise in perspective-taking *might* actually persuade more wokesters (those not yet fully indoctrinated) to 'buy in' to the game. And learning that you cannot guess the other side's best or strongest argument is a massive wake-up call.
@@robertmarshall2502 'Course they do. They're mind-readers. Don't you know? They would write "Because they're transphobic" on the board, drop the board, and walk off, thinking they've won the argument. And I would really like to add 'I admit that's a generalization', here, to avoid that. But, is it? I never heard any reaction from trans-activists and their "good allies" that was on any sort of level-headed, rational middle-ground. The only trans people who've shown to be able to put themselves in other people's shoes, and be critical of "their" side, are randos on the internet who don't have a high profile and the platform to be heard over the screams of the rabid activists who believe they speak in all their names.
@@MattHunX This is 100% my experience. I have random conversations with ppl with nuanced ideas (often older trans ppl or other older members of LGBTQ+ who actually know what being a victim of violence is and that it isn't words). But 99% of the time you can explicitly outline your opinion and they'll tell you that you have another one despite all evidence to the contrary. Forming an argument they can't respond to is transphobia.
There are a bunch of people who keep saying, why doesn't J K Rowling just admit she's a transphobe already? And yet can't reach the obvious conclusion that it's because she's not. I find it very bizarre because apparently the non-transphobic stance is that all the dangerous criminals saying they're trans women are true representatives of trans ppl, making them massively more likely to commit sexual violence than the general populace and that we should be sterilizing "trans kids" and making sure the male ones are anorgasmic because it's vital that trans ppl live much shorter, medicalised lives.
I was once told unironically that we should be more progressive like Saudi Arabia and Iran where there are fewer barriers to transition.
Far more thought provoking and insightful than two people screaming at each other while holding signs that read My Body My Choice and Abortion Is Murder. Thanks again, Peter, Konstantin and Francis.
I like this.
I am a teacher, and I plan to try this in one of my classes.
Excellent! Free online resources are available!
Peter is so fabulous at this. Great to watch, adults debating important and emotional issues with civility. Perfect questions and setup.
More of this! 💚
Look kids! People who sometimes don't agree can get along! It might feel scary but discussing things can actually be a learning experience.
So interesting to hear the Triggonometry guys have friendly disagreements. It usually sounds like they always agree in their podcasts.
LOVED these. I enjoy Triggernometry a lot - I've been watching Konstantin since he was "just" a comedian doing interviews for the BBC (etc.) - and it was great watching them debate. Best part: when Konstantin calls Francis out on the weak argument and they're both totally cool with working through that disagreement. It's great.
Kind off like friends - esp boy friends calling each other Dicks but none getting offended
This collaboration is beautiful. Thank you again. 🙏🏾🇺🇸❤️
That Triggernometry intro lol
These 2 episodes were so good.. to watch this with intelligent, articulate participants is so different..
This would make an excellent ethics class
i really like this series. One of the best methods to hash out opposing viewpoints I have seen
'I've never wanted to eat someone with an IQ of 25' Hilarious!
I love this whole technique. I'd have used it when teaching colle and grad school, if I'd known about it (still tried to have critical and Socratic discussions, of course.) I'm now hoping to afapt it for business consulting. Thanks so much for making it more public, Peter!
The more you know... I agree that Street Epistemology, or any form of debate like this, is a great way to flesh out one's beliefs from what they absorbed from their parents coming up and friends, colleagues, society as one ages, and what one really believes from study, discussion, debate and knowledge. A lot of stances are knee-jerk reactions from not knowing enough about the topic, yet we cling to them if they remain unquestioned, unchallenged, unexamined, not discussed, not debated.
Totally agree with Peter on the unconscious person. If the hospital is on fire and there is a conscious patient with a broken leg, a person in a vegetative state and a freezer full of embryos. You have time to save one, which do you pick?
But just because you can only save one, doesn’t mean the others don’t have moral value. If you could save them all, why wouldn’t you?
@@quel2846The point is that clearly there's a huge difference between one conscious person and a freezer full of 10,000 embryos.
If you could choose between saving one baby or 10,000 babies, you would obviously save 10,000. But most people wouldn't save the freezer over the one baby.
This illustrates that we all know "human life begins at conception" is a misleading oversimplification of human life.
Whether or not something has begun to be conscious weighs heavily on our assessment of how much it is worth protecting. One born baby deserves rights and protections that we wouldn't get a to even 1,000,000 fertilized embryos.
I don't understand how Kostantin and Francis work together. They have such different personalities 😂
That’s why they work!
@@BeingReal1just about to type that. With respect and intellectual honesty, diversity of views is great fodder for discussion.
Opposites do indeed attract and in mature situations the contrast is most certainly a positive rather than a negative.
Superb way to self reflect on your opinions. We need lots of this!
Yes we do!
Good to see this particular lady (if it is her) involved
Excellent. Good to see the channels of 'sanity' (or at least nuance and good natured debate) coalescing in this way.
I like this new layout of the spectrum spots. That way everyone can see each other when speaking. 👍
I would foundationally challenge the notion that life begins at conception.
Where is the scientific/medical proof to support this claim?
Most of the people I hear making this argument are doing it from a religious/faith-based position, not a scientific/evidence-based position.
There is simply NO consensus on that notion...is just an opinion of a part of society...others may think differently...
@@CH-qc1zt That is completely FALSE...DEBUNKED many times
The study you are referring to (made by a person named Steven Andrew Jacobs, who clearly knows nothing about statistic methodology) was made with a VERY BAD technique and gave completely bogus results (is usually cited by ppl that dont know how to verify facts...like you in this case)
The actual population interviewed was 65000 scientists...so ONLY LESS than 10 percent responded and gave that answer...so your 96% apparent consensus is actually just around 8-9% of the whole population...LEARN STATISTICS! (and how NOT to do it) :DDD
@@dimercampariniothers say that life starts after being born if the child is not viable then.
In Australia babies can be birthed and left to die. It happens rarely but it does happen.
@@naughtynat82 What??
1) "life" certainly starts SOMETIMES during the 9 months of pregnancy (not after)...a baby that is still in the womb of the mother 1 day before being taken out, is still a baby (and a person with rights), same as he is 1 day after, when he is out...actually being "born" changes basically nothing...
2) I didnt know that modern Australia was comparable to ancient SPARTA...that's new! :DDDDD
3) anyone that advocates for abortion (at will) up to the last week (or day) before delivery is just a psychopath
@@CH-qc1zt I'm familiar with this abstract. I notice you conveniently left out the very next statement below the one you quoted:
"However, Americans are split on whether the fertilization view is a "philosophical or religious belief" (45%) or a "biological and scientific fact" (46%), and only 38% of Americans view fertilization as the starting point of a human's life."
thank you to Isabel.
My question with these is always: What happens when the question involves a topic in which the moderator doesnt have the facts themselves? If the contestants are trying to persuade one another based on false information- do you step in with data and what if you the moderator also don't know?
I've never seen him correct the contestants, regardless of how obvious the truth is, aside from suggesting a replacement word when he thinks they perhaps misspoke. and i have seen him talk about topics and evidence in separate videos where he clearly knows when the contestants state falsehoods. he would gain nothing by having them feel singled out for thinking the wrong thing and teaching them, this shows actual insight on the basis of concepts that are commonly held
While correct facts is ultimately a trait of a honest exchange, that is not the core of this exercise. Rather, it's practicing understanding the subject and reflecting on your assumptions. It'll stick out like a sore thumb if someone joins with an agenda in mind because their flaws are very likely to mirror back on them much quicker and more surely in this format.
Isabel is a case in point, at least partially. Her unwillingness to even entertain possibilities, or to expand on her arguments signals that she was unwilling to accept such flaws. I do realize she was under some time pressure given her partaking in another ongoing activity, but none the less.
I have a special needs daughter. Her IQ isn’t under 20 , but she is seriously delayed. Because of her I’ve spent many years around others with developmental issues. They are just as worthy of every good thing as those with high IQ’s.
I’ve met some with higher than average intelligence who were the worst humans. I’d prefer my chances with the lower IQ ones. I’ve heard Singers argument and quite frankly it’s disgusting. And it’s only a short hop from 20 IQ to 40, then 50, then 60 and above. Until you hit a spot that the “smart” people find acceptable.
Letting IQ dictate the moral worth of a person is a slippery slope. There are infinite examples of human beings dehumanizing each other throughout history, and that dehumanization leading to violence; we should avoid coming up with reasons to dehumanize people. Also, compassion and care for those who can't care for themselves is one of the best things about humanity.
Isn’t it interesting that a debate about abortion turns into a debate about what human life is valuable? I mean, dehumanizing a “fetus” is what allows abortion to take place. It’s the same idea in a different package.
@@nicolelawrence5177 Peter Boghossian totally misrepresents Singer's argument. Singer's argument, as detailed in his article Speciesism and Moral Status, never says "people with an IQ under 25 should be treated like pigs and cows" (~18:45). I'll admit the article is poorly structured and I'm not comfortable with the IQ framework. However, Singer is writing a critique of human moral superiority on the basis of higher levels of cognition he isn't saying some people deserve to be treated like animals. Singer is arguing that under a moral system based off cognition low IQ humans ought to have the same moral value as animals of a similar cognitive capacity. In terms of actual treatment this means one of two things: 1) behaviour towards animals is improved so that animals are treated like humans, or 2) behaviour towards people with low IQs should be worsened to the level that we treat animals. The fact is society does neither of these, and right-minded people wouldn't be comfortable with option 2. There's two ways to reconcile this problem, give animals more rights or drop the assumption that human moral superiority is a result of higher levels of cognition. Knowing that Peter Singer is an animals rights advocate, it's pretty clear he is arguing that animals deserve more rights than we currently give them not that some humans deserve less.
I've worked with people with disabilities in the past, and one of the individuals did not develop mentally even to the toddler stage. That individual had some consciousness and definitely had worth, and was human. Something that has the same DNA as a human, a body, but no consciousness, then they are not human. There s no way for anyone who wasn't born completely brain dead to not have consciousness, and therefore all humans have moral worth. All humans have the moral imperative to treat all others as if they have worth, and those that don't lose some of their worth to society. My time working with people with disabilities got me to change my opinion and believe that those who are cognitively impaired tend to live better lives than those who are not.
To play complete devils advocate and put a line at where people don't have worth based on IQ, it is below 83 IQ. This is the IQ level where the military has found an individual is incapable of following instructions. That view is wrong and abhorrent on all levels. A person's worth should not be measured by what they can do, but instead by the joy and happiness they bring to others lives, and can experience in their own.
That was excellent, a peaceful way of expressing differences in opinions
Always fascinating. In this instance, they knew the arguments of the opposition. In some cases, it's not known. The woman involved and the Triggernometry guys have done some thinking on this issue. What would it take to get the people who have not grappled with this issue to join in?
It's a real mind twist to live in a time when people believe that it is ok to cut genitals off of children and render them infertile for life because of "beliefs"; while at the same time wanting to force young women to have children they are not ready or able to have because of "beliefs".
I think cutting healthy, normal things off of kids and cutting up healthy, normal fetuses and cutting healthy, normal things out of women are all pretty similar. There's not *that* much of a twist.
Who is 'forcing' them? The men who got them pregnant? The women who decided to take a risk?
@@liberality if you ban abortion entirely and without exceptions is the LAW and the STATE that is forcing them...seems quiet obvious to me...
@@dimercampariniforcing them to make smart decisions! Oh the humanity!!!
@@AndreComtois When someone unilaterally decides that HIS decision is "more smart" than mine, and wants to FORCE it upon me...I start to worry...
Sorry to disappoint you but we are still living in a relatively "free" world...if you want to move to IRAN, be my guest...with your mindset you will feel at home there! :DDD
Part two was wonderful as well.
Another incredible discussion 👏
This was very good.
I wish I could jump in on this. So many things unsaid
I do appreciate Pete’s efforts in getting them passed the initial talking points without blowing up.
There's a bit of a problem with the phrasing of the question here that is a bit confusing. "Should abortion be allowed for any reason" could mean "abortion should be allowed for all reasons" or it could mean "there is a at least one reason for which it should be allowed". I'm not sure if the boys are talking about the same thing here.
Was clear enough that they were talking about abortion "at will"...based on the desire of the mother and not on particular external factors...
It's clear that's what KK was talking about but not FF because when it was clarified he said something like "oh, even then I would stay on strongly agree though". So it didn't change the outcome, but they were talking at cross purposes for a while and I wasn't sure exactly what the question meant either.
@@JoshWiniberg Agreed...but they quickly corrected and clarified...after the initial confusion the following discussion was quiet clear IMO.
BTW I often think that the statements made in these excercises are NOT clear enough...sure they must be brief and concise, but many times single words are not self-explanatory enough (can be interpreted differently by different ppl) and need more clarifications and/or context before the discussion.
@@dimercamparini agreed, maybe best to start with a "tell me what you understand the question to mean" paraphrasing exercise before embarking on the rest.
Love the video though and would love to see this kind of thing taught in schools.
Any person should be open to changing their mind on any issue with a new argument or piece of evidence. This is the definition of a reasonable person.
You sure about that?
@@johnlocke6800 yep
Kudos to the pro-life lady. She did a great job of standing up for the right to life. I wish she had stayed for the whole video. Also, kudos to all of them for discussing this issue calmly, rationally, and respectfully.
The co-director of March for Life? Yeah, I suspect she's comfortable expressing her views. She was the living embodiment of bigotry, though.
"What evidence could you be presented with that might change your mind?"
"None. I've studied this thoroughly, and I know I'm right." (I'm paraphrasing.)
One great thing about street epistemology is that it's really good for identifying those people who are just a waste of time engaging with, such as silent prayer lady...
Peter then gives her the hypothetical situation 'what if someone could show you that life didn't begin at conception?' Her answer is 'but it does' She is not capable of accepting anything contrary to her steadfast viewpoint.
@@triumphstagdriver Yes, but I can understand her point of view (in fact I share her point of view). It's a bit like saying, "what if someone could demonstrate to you that gravity causes objects to fall away from earth rather than toward earth?" It's hard to imagine how someone could demonstrate such a thing, just as it's hard for her (and for me) to imagine how someone could demonstrate that human life doesn't begin at conception, given all that modern science has discovered about embryology and genetics.
@@gtrdavegwhy have you gone down the ad hominem path by calling someone a bigot? How do you define bigot?
@@triumphstagdriver surely you have views that you are v definite about and thought deeply about and v unlikely to change your mind about? I think it’s more about the fact you strongly disagree with her views?
The bottom line is that it is a privacy issue. The woman’s right to choose what happens to her body within that first trimester is entirely hers and no one else’s. So yes any reason is valid even if that reason is demonstrably horrible. The first trimester is a wishy-washy blurred line, but that line has to be somewhere.
It's another person body.
And how is it a privacy issue?
@@naughtynat82 so you know nothing about Roe versus Wade?
@@vfta7906yeah.
It's overturned.
And the world is more than USA, have you heard of countries outside Merica?
@@naughtynat82 well considering I live in U.K. yes. And let’s not forget it only got overturned because of a Republican packed Supreme Court hell bent on abolishing women’s rights. However, the fact you didn’t know the basis for the ruling of Roe versus Wade shows you actually haven’t reviewed the argument at all. I’ll make it simple for you, why don’t you mind your own fucking business?
I really enjoyed watching this game and agree with the Triggernometry guys that this should be a regular game in universities in order to see the depth of people's beliefs. A debate may just be filled with talking points but forcing people into a spectrum of slots will show the nuance of their beliefs. I only wished they explored these topics a bit deeper to arrive at conclusions they were satisfied with.
Man I would thoroughly enjoy participating in something like this. In high school we had a debate and government class and it did a decent job in drumming up good discussions but I'd love to see this become more mainstream.
I'd love to be walking down the street and come upon this. I dont in any way consider myself to be a smart person but I love learning and open civil discussion. I would thoroughly enjoy participating.
This assumes making abortion illegal will stop it.
It doesn’t it just puts women at risk in untrained hands, many of whom would leave children motherless.
A major mover for legalising abortion here in the 60’s was the number of women ending up in hospital following illegal procedures.
It could be useful to compare the number of young women ending up in hospital for all reasons between the 1960's and today. If a home abortion goes wrong, it still requires a hospital visit. And I'd be willing to bet there are more drink and drug related admissions now, including emergency contraception after binging.
@@liberality I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. I don’t see how abortion being illegal would impact drink or drug admissions? Also if you are trying to say home abortion is bad now then how would illegal home abortion be better?
@@juicylouisey I'm suggesting that if we want to consider the effect of cultural changes in society, then we have to look at all the impacts, not just one statistic in isolation. For example, if medical abortion is 100 times safer than illegal abortion, but legalisation means the number of abortions has increased 200 times, then women have not benefited overall, and might be harmed more often.
If one hundred women die from post-abortion complications following procedures which are legal in their country, the rate of death from illegal abortions is counted as zero, but the statistic makes no difference to the outcome.
Supposing 10,000 women a year require emergency contraception or abortion because they have lost consciousness and therefore the ability to consent during a drug or alcohol binge. Has decriminalisation benefitted them overall?
The added complication is that normalised abortion could be associated with an increase in the exploitation of women, as pregnancy risk is no longer an impediment to men's behaviour.
I'm not in favour of making abortion illegal. I am against the withdrawal of routine medical supervision from abortion, which has happened in my country since 'emergency' pandemic legislation permitted home abortion. Abortion under conditions such as ectopic pregnancy is near impossible for a woman to self-diagnose but still requires emergency hospital treatment.
I believe we should stop assuming that abortion provides social benefit, and ask instead why technologically advanced societies are experiencing millions of unwanted pregnancies every year.
@@liberality
There is no reliable way of comparing pre- and post legalisation statistics on abortion because illegal abortions are by necessity hidden whenever possible.
A legal framework for abortion does not guarantee safety but does make it far more likely than without a framework.
If a woman becomes unconscious through whatever means and is sexually assaulted it was not because of legal abortion. She may not realise she was assaulted and not take emergency contraception. If she does take emergency contraception it may not work. How would denying that woman a legal abortion help her?
Since when has a woman’s ability to conceive effectively impeded men’s sexual behaviour?
@@juicylouisey I agree with you on the statistics, which also means any claim of social benefit from legal abortion cannot be assumed to be correct.
The legal framework exists to protect doctors, and now other healthcare staff, from prosecution for the procedures which some of them were already carrying out before legalisation. Medical malpractice still exists, even when procedures are legal.
Legalisation also represents a monopoly for medical and surgical professions over procedures that were previously carried out by women in the community also. If it was the case that professionalising these procedures made them safer, we could not determine this using statistics, for the reason you mentioned. The only certainty is that the recorded abortion rate has grown significantly.
As I mentioned, I'm not in favour of making abortion illegal. Drug and alcohol abuse by women seems likely to have a role in the demand for abortion, and exploitation more generally.
I think the abortion industry's call for complete decriminalisation has more to do with its routinely breaking the remaining criminal law than any social benefit. Did you know that almost all abortions in the UK are carried out under the insanity clause of the Abortion Act 1967?
This is what it sounds like when ADULTS are in the room talking about tough topics!!!!!
Agreed!
@@DM-ur8vcThat would mean that adults can't have an adult discussion because there are not always professionals with professional opinions available, nor do we have case studies etc at our disposal.
These are fundamental philosophical questions and every adult can think about them. And frankly I think we should.
Hey Peter, I have a suggestion for a couple of statements to add: “it’s ok to abort one day after conception” and “it’s ok to abort one day before giving birth”. I think these questions can clearly spot religion or ideology underlying in this issue.
Noted! Thank you!
@@drpeterboghossian thank you for the amazing work!
Why is that important? Does that make one’s views less or more valid?
He was asking about aborting in the first/second/third trimester. I think considering more extreme examples can help in understanding the underlying reasons someone could be pro-choice or pro-life. Also I cannot think of a non religious or ideological reason to be antiabortion of a microscopic cell or pro abortion of a baby ready to born.
Very nice handwriting, Francis.
this is brilliant. 10x better than question time.
Great conversation, everyone should practice this kind of communication.
Instead of debates, people should enter the discussion with their opinion which is derived from other opinions which are ultimately derived from axioms or intuitive heuristics. Both communicators should lay out their corresponding trees of deduction and brainstorm together the validity of the inferences until you are familiar and agree with other person's logical path from the axiom to the opinion.
Then the discussion can be separated in a more clear new topic discussing the axioms.
This is why freedom of speech needs to be defended vigorously. The turmoil in current society isn't because of either the "left's" or "right's" ideas it's because people who don't want disagreement and discussion to the extent that they will punish other's for this have gotten into power, and are convincing a significant number of people to go along by any means necessary.
Amazing street epistemology! Keep it up!
Thank you!
I would love to find him in my area and play that game.
I would love to participate if there was ever a digital version. It's such a great thought game/exercise when done with people acting honestly, in good faith, respectfully and especially with a diversity of original positions/views on topics.
As a classical liberal I find my views on things like abortion vary quite a bit from those who I typically share viewpoints with.
i would be sincerely happy to engage with you here in a civil way. for the first question, i strongly agree.
I've never been able to get someone to engage without malice in this conversation, i would ask for people who would like to step in to just be respectful and keep pejoratives out of the discussion.
13:06 genuine question: by what mechanism is that trauma induced? is it not a twist of irony or a self-fulfilling prophecy that a lobby constantly telling someone they are a bad person and that they are taking a life at least partially responsible for that trauma?
If you want to have a free society, you have to let people make their own decisions. 🤷
And face the consequences of their decisions, right?
Except those that intrude on the freedom of others?
@@CH-qc1zt I agree wholeheartedly. For instance, if you ended someone’s inalienable right to life your freedom would be limited to prison or the chair.
but that in itself is a slippery slope, like for instance, making their own decisions could mean getting to shoot that guy at a bar without consequences because they are upset.
What if their decisions and consequent actions impact badly on others? It’s ok to drive while drunk? To assault another person?
I wish that these street discussions would be shown in pubs and other public places just like sports or news. So people could be more informed.
Time spent on at an airport layover could be very wellspent.
Peter, you’re a hero to critical thinking by asking, “What would it take to get you to change your position?”
That is a very important question we should be asking ourselves. It reveals a lot.
With that said, logic really delivers us to be anti-abortion. If I was asked what it would take to change my position, I would say that you’d have to prove to me that a human fetus is not human, and that it is not living, and that it is not made in God’s image. If anyone could convince me of those things, I would be willing to support a “woman’s right to choose.”
It's frustrating that the woman wasnt pushed on her reasoning. Does she think that all human life should be kept alive irrespective of the quality of life? Irrespective of whether a degree of capacity to actually experience life has been attained or irrecoverably lost? If so, why? Even the monotheistic religions have always had mixed opinions on that.
It seems like the pro-abortion arguments often rest of stories of what "could" possibly be, instead of what is. If a zygote is a human being, where is its "being" distinquished from the mothers being that would give it rights separate from her rights over her body? Some (including Christians) could argue that you are not what you havent yet become. Potentiality (as a theory) is not actuality (as a fact).
I'm looking forward to this. From what I've seen of this guy (and the other two) so far, they appear to have a clear understanding of this out of control "New Left" woke-ism aka intolerance, self righeousness etc. that's dividing us. 👍
Great to see a bit more of Isabel, would love to see her interviewed.
Yes, Isabel is a fearless figure in the pro-life movement, and it's a shame that they didn't dig further into her expertise.
Oh, my. The ending discussion. A civilization is only as good as how they treat their weakest members.
I'm a senior and the impact of abortion on women has been well known to me for decades. Abortion solves many problems for women and also, I am convinced, the potential children they opt to say no to bringing into this world. My own mother told me of having an abortion when she was 17 which would have been in 1928. She did not tell me that out of deep regret or shame or loss or grief - she told me that when I was opting to have my own abortion in 1960. Women and girls lives have been ruined by unwanted pregnancies, and children brought into the world unwanted often live hellish lives. To insist that a human is created the moment of conception strikes me as something one uses to further their radical belief that all abortions are murder. The urban legends anti abortion people love to revel in that doctors perform abortions up to the moment of birth and even after is nonsensical hysteria and an insult to women everywhere. It's just stupid. Bottom line, it is NO ONE'S business but the woman and whoever it is that aids her in terminating a pregnancy, even if she does it with a tube and a coat hanger and I've known women who have done just that. IMHO men have no right to comment on the issue - God imbued women with the power to become pregnant and thus it's our province from there. Don't like us having that power? Then work on implanting uteruses in men and have the babies yourselves. It's fine for those who live in their comfortable, secure little bubble to judge and get into religious philosophies and wax philosophical about the sanctity of human life while disregarding so many tragedies around the globe and in our own backyards, but there are lived realities of which most people know little and care nothing. Bottom line for me will always be for anti abortionists to mind their own business and leave women alone. We'll do it anyway. Legal or not.
18:38 Would you say the same for people with advanced dementia or those with some other severely debilitating disease that robs them of independence? To say they have less moral worth is truly horrific.
Thoughtful conversation
What i would like to know from the likes of Isabelle is: how do they determine what life means and how do they determine when life begins?
I find the bodily autonomy argument totally perplexing in terms of how much traction it has. This is like the dominant argument you will hear. Yet the woman does have bodily autonomy -- when she is conceiving a child. If you partake in sex then that is.... what happens. So you need to be aware of that. By taking part in the act, you are accepting some small chance that you may create a human life. I think in the case of r*pe it is different, but when you willingly engage in intercourse you have to take the responsibility for that action, particularly when it concerns another life being created.
An analogy would be this... I agree with bodily autonomy, the same way that I agree with someone's right not to be subject to physical violence. However, there are certain actions you take wherein you forfeit that right to not be harmed, such a pointing a gun in someone's face and threatening them with violence. Calling back to bodily autonomy is a bit like calling back to the fact nobody should be subject to violence. Well no, you took an action for which this was always a possibility. That is the harsh reality of the situation.
Peter is a weird guy. But I'm glad he talks about the difficult topics 😂
There are people who are unaware that they are pregnanet until a month later. People should be able to decide at least in the first trimester.
Mike Reed's Runaround - They should be all holding cabbages.
How can men deside what women do with their body? (They can't)
This is fantastic guys. You should definitely try and interview Isobel, not just for her views on abortion, but also for her story of being prosecuted for silent prayer. I admire her very much, though I think she may have missed Peter's 'IF the other side had a persuasive argument'. From experience people can be persuaded if their argument is good, though I agree with her that in this instance the argument is not good, in fact it is terrible. I do think we need nuance about when abortion is acceptable and also that those thinking of it need to understand the consequences it could have on their psychology and bodies.
The pro life argument fall apart with the notion that life begins at conception. Life does not begin there. Life exists in both the seed and the egg prior to conception. Conception is just a first step of the project of human reproduction.
💯
*Human* life begins at conception….
This is implicit in all the discussion and debate.
@@peterjohnson988 "Human life begins at conception…."
That is an OPINION...valid...but still an OPINION, and other ppl may think differently...there is no consensus on that and no scientific notion to support the idea that that is the only "truth"...
@@dimercamparini of course it's the only truth with regards to the origins of life.
Mothers and fathers, and their respective seeds and eggs within, were alive before conception occurred.
That is not opinion. That is fact.
Life beginning at conception is simply a device the bolster the position of religious people to force their ethics on the rest of humanity
@@D1it4FN 1) stating that "a thing is not an opinion, it's a fact" dont automatically creates a fact
2) technically every cell in our body is "alive"...that doesnt mean that any single cell in our body is a LIFE of his own and deserves "human rights" of his own...
3) I dont think you correctly understood my position on the matter...but anyway...whatever...
Interesting and Entertaining.
All of a sudden I wish triggernometry podcasts were more often 3 cornered 😅
Also, (a) super disappointed that lady didn’t stick around to put Francis through the wringer; (b) super impressed with Peter letting her go even though I’m sure he was thinking the same as me at (a)
My honors HS English class would alwaaaaays do this! It was could "opposing viewpoints" or "controversial topics". Abortion, gay rights, the war... One class we would do anonymous discussion boards.. another class- every Friday had to study and present a *controversial topic and be ready for rebuttal.
It was soooo good. Critical thinking.
It was all facts. No feelings
I dont understand schooling now... No chance to build the students so they can think for themselves- just pushing agendas on them :(
&Yes it got heated at times😂 the unbiased teacher would stop it when appropriate and move on to the next students😂
Adult life often consists in a forced choice or series of forced choices between undesirable alternatives. The problem is to decide which is the least undesirable.
7:46 do you know the difference between believing and knowing? Facts and feelings?
She clearly dont...that woman is the example of the usual dogmatic person that you can find litterally everywhere these days...
5:37 but is it negative or positive “value”? What do you even mean by “value”? Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Jim Jones, Ted Bundy, all had potential “value”. 🤷
These type of debates are a good concept but the one argument that should be left to women alone is abortion.
They're making this much harder than it needs to be.
The rights for the women to choose whether to go through the bodily trauma of pregnancy to birth outweigh the rights of the collection of cells at the point of conception.
If someone disagrees with the above I can't help them.
The debate is WHEN do the rights of the fetus outweigh the right for the women to choose not take the pregnancy to birth. That will ALWAYS be a GREY AREA and completely subjective.
Great work Peter!
Thank you!
I am an Orthodox Jew in NY and even though I don’t agree with everything I really enjoy your interviews and the street epistemology. Excellent work - thank you.
That's a great question, the, "for ANY reason".
FF has, (understandably) gone to an extreme example.
But ANY reason goes from FF's, to,
"Cos I don't want this kid, same as I didn't want the other 3 that I aborted & I'd do it again"
Love watching these, street epistemologies
It would have been interesting to ask the lady if she thought removing a 5 day old blastocyst should be chargeable as murder (or manslaughter or similar charge in the UK).
And it would’ve been interesting to ask Francis if he would support abortion in the first trimester because the woman told him a “free” (subsidized) abortion was cheaper than buying contraception.
Sad that this has to happen. Why do Americans/religious people not want women to have a choice? 😢
The majority of women do not use abortion as a contraceptive, most abortions are before the 3rd trimester and in agreement with both parents, (rapist need or should not even apply), 4th trimester abortions are extremely rare and for dire situations after much medical advice.
Why does the government, men and/or/all church care about these issues so much so that they get to decide over the health and/or wellbeing of a female citizen?
Wish I were in this one. I'd be "Strongly Agree" for everything, based purely on a eugenics argument.
16:10 this doesn’t consider the consciousness of the one judging the situation and how it may affect them
This is how to think!!
Oh. I wouln't expect that position from Peter Singer. Interesting.
Why are we conflating legality with morality? Why should a state have any control over a woman's body at all? But still, an abortion is still immoral if we value life. What is the argument that we should empower the state?
What is crazy is that the sexual revolution in the sixties came about because of the availability of the pill and other forms of contraception.
So how come so many women are getting pregnant when they don't want to and can avoid it?
10:55 That stance is the stance that a 'weak man' takes.
"I don't want to do x because the outcome might be scary or bad even if I think it's the right thing to do" is the very reason why the long march has been so effective.
But what if the life in question is their own? All things being equal as in life for life regardless of how it was conceived or where etc...
Overall I enjoyed the episode. The participants exemplified the process of civil disagreement. It was interesting to get opinions from KK and FF, as their show if often to highlight other people's opinions rather than their own.
I personally thought the consciousness question could be rephrased to make it easier to understand the intent. Do you mean dead humans? Humans in a permanent coma or vegetative state? You later moved to talking about humans with extremely low intelligence, but I believe this is then a different question entirely.
30 seconds in, that's a shit argument and I agree with you. Love the triggernometry guys
Isn't Isobel the lady who was arrested for silently praying outside an abortion clinic?
I eat meat and drink milk. BUT I think everyone who wants to do so should have to slaughter a steer and separate a cow from its calf before doing so.
I hear the derisive remarks directed at vegetarians, and the flippancy with which the decision to eat meat is accompanied with such pride and I can't help but think it is pride without compassion.
Cows are normally docile and compliant. I walked across a field once. The farmer had separated the cows in my field, from their calves in an adjacent field. That was a VERY dangerous thing to do.
The cows were deranged with anger and frustration and as I approached the field with their calves in, the cows became increasingly belligerent and aggressive. They were dangerous and distraught.
Once you see what happens every year to a milk cow, it changes your view about the superficially innocent act of drinking a glass of cows milk conceals.
I don't think I need to explain why I think everyone who eats meat should be required to attend a slaughterhouse and apply that bolt to the animal, between its eyes, as it looks at you.
Meat and milk need to be regarded with far more reverence. It degrades both the animals and the people that eat them if understanding and respect does not accompany eating animal products.
I don't understand how some people can be so confident that there even is any value to human life to begin with (or any other life for that matter).
This is so true. It’s the religiousness that makes this argument. We don’t value human life above everything during war or punishment.
Notes I take from this is that both sides have a fair idea what the other side has as an argument. When prompted on would they change their minds if there is sufficient evidence provided, both say they would, however when Isabel is given the hypothetical situation of sufficient evidence, she disregards it. You can see him think for a second and not pursue it further - she is incapable of doing what she claimed she could.
I think if he pushed it she might have budged. Sometimes people are not used to dealing with hypotheticals and I had to pause and go back to understand Peter's question, a benefit she did not have. What Konstantin said a little later about if it could be proved.... xyzzy shows that there is possibility of movement, but knowing Isobel, it would require an extra dimension - namely proving that the zygote does not have a soul.
100% agree that the moral value goes down when consciousness goes down. This is based on my belief that consciousness is required to have an experience of suffering.
Therefore perpetual maniacs (let's say, if you were incapable of suffering and just only constantly experienced positive emotion) are worthless morally?
@@jatnarivas8741 no, not worthless but worth less
What about a person in a dreamless sleep or a person in a coma (for six months) - are they less valuable?
@@richardyates7280 Good point! I would not count people in sleep or any other normal temporary fluctuations of consciousness. I would say someone in coma is less valuable during that time.
Moral worth is not determined by the person at the disadvantage (low or no consciousness), but it must be considered independent or objective so it can be applied equally. If it is left open to subjectivity, then it will be abused. Because humans are not perfect moral agents even if we’re fully conscious
Is Bournemouth a big enough town for you to visit whilst on your tour here?