The Absolute Strongest Case Against Abortion (Dr. Tim Hsiao)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 พ.ย. 2019
- In this clip, Dr. Tim Hsiao explains the philosophical case against abortion.
Link to full interview: • A Controversial Interv...
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ MY GEAR -------------------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Rode NT1): amzn.to/32Ma4lk
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Abortion #Politics #ProLife
![BOWKYLION - เจ้านายคะ (work-life imbalance) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6bFj8G2pOi4/mqdefault.jpg)
A person is a person, no matter how small.
- Dr. Seuss
TKinfinity true
Love the quote...it's just weird to hear that coming from Suess as he and his wife were big advocates for abortion.
@@Betweentheraindrops8
Lol, that is wierd.
No one is arguing about size lol.
Clump of cells
What a great quote: "The unborn are persons with potential. They're not potential persons."
That quote hits hard. I'm gonna use this quote against all the pro-choicers
Thank you for logically telling the murderers that they are murdering beautiful baby humans. God is watching from heaven and His vengeance is soon to happen. God bless all those pregnant women who choose not to kill their babies. God bless the men for deciding to be fathers and to take care of the baby and mother. Heaven will be full of the aborted babies growing into adult humans. Those who have already had abortions can be forgiven by Yeshua and actually see their babies in heaven.
Delusional
@@vsperatos delusional is thinking murder is ok.
@@theresas2520 Then why would an all-knowing god allow them to get pregnant to begin with?
@@guitarplyr327 I don’t know if god is real but let me tell you if you have unsafe sex and didn’t get rape, then you shouldn’t get a abortion.
@@euphoric1006 who are you to say? It’s all part of gods plan.
"persons with potential, not potential persons" 👌
Why aren't they potential persons? Is there a chance they'll be armadillos?
@@mdee1634 Because they are persons now and therefore not merely potentially.
My eggs come out into my womb alive.
Then my period happens.
But they are alive.
Is it a person? Did I just commit murder naturally? Because there isn't much of a difference between that egg, and the one that's fertilized. Then you also have to consider the definition of what you consider human, because if you're still just cells, like my eggs, you aren't a human yet. Also, then do you consider only eggs that have touched sperm to be people because they hold the potential to be human? If so, then if that's the case, then my dead eggs since age twelve all technically had the potential as well. When are you not a human?
SageSeeker *_"Because there isn't much of a difference between that egg, and the one that's fertilized."_*
This statement seems to be an admission *that there is a difference between the two.*
@@sageseeker9197 A human organism is a person. An egg is not an organism. A zygote/embryo/fetus is an organism.
God tells us, that He "knew" us, before He formed us in our Mother's womb!! We were given "personhood" before flesh!! Great points!!!😊👍
That's a subjective argument...I might not believe in ur God,then wat?
@@JOHNSmith-hn1tj true. So I would like to help you know God. I don't know your specific issues with understanding God, so as a baseline I'll recommend you watch Todd White do healings and the 'Living Waters' TH-cam channel.
@@mickqQ Nope...a "Relationship"!
What are you talking about? You can't form a personality without having to live first. Not only that but we are CONSTANTLY changing.
Some kill because of the outcomes of where they are born and what they are born into. Are those people innately "killers"? No.
@@mickqQ No news....Satan has been spewing those lies from the beginning of time! Words cannot take away what I have personally experienced and continue to!😊
Since life begins at conception and all human beings are persons created in the image of God, we should be consistent and treat human abortion as murder.
Isn't the sperm alive?
I concur
@@gdolphy The sperm is alive but has not transformed into a biological bodily form
How are humans created in the image of God?
Jason Stephens that’s so so true
Ironic how "doctors"are the ones to abort when they are supposedly life savers
No different to the Nazi "doctors".
@@GrahameGould with license**
@jayaveeran the ones in clinic are doctors right?
@jayaveeran mother can do whatever she wants with her own body but not with the baby, baby is another human being. Why not father? His sperm! He has the rights as well...
@jayaveeran I'm not saying rights of sperm, I'm saying rights of the sperm owner
🙋♀️I'm a woman and I feel that men should have just as much say. You don't want your baby give it to him when its born and deuces✌
Men should have a say! A woman did not get pregnant by herself and he too is also responsible for causing the conception.
But hers should overule his, because in the end it is HER body suffering, not his.
I'm a man and I think what you just said is easier said then done. Also, I don't think anyone should be FORCED to birth a child.
@@sageseeker9197 if you mean that pregnancy is suffering, then use contraception, or dont have sex. During an abortion, the woman feels nothing, it is the unborn child who is suffering
@@sageseeker9197 It is totally not her body. Stop treating the unborn like a damn property. They have their own blood type, their own DNA and their own organs. The placenta is what keeps both the mother and the unborn separated.
There have been cases of twins who cry when they aren’t together, wouldn’t that be some sort of proof that connections can be formed in the womb
Yeah but unfortunately people don't care.
@Wesley Heartland what do you mean by that?
Wesley Heartland babies respond to their mother’s voice while they are in the womb
So all babies show some form of connection
Wesley Heartland so your experiences define your humanity? Does one experience make you more human than someone else?
Pro-aborts view the mother🤰 as the victim of the baby👶; thus, the reason pro-aborts contend an unborn (who came to be via the parents' action and whom pro-aborts assert is insentient) is intruding (as if intentionally) on the mother.
This is far from true.
What if the mother got raped? You don't know her situation. What if she does not have the money to take care of a child? you are gonna say "foster care or adoption?" Do you know how many kids are maltreated in there? Do you know how how many children do not get adopted or get a parental figure? You focus on a child's life, but what will you do to make that life better? How do you think children feel knowing they were unwanted by their own parents? That affects their mentality for ever.
@@caranasedano4265, a person's value isn't dependent on the circumstance of their coming to be: whether they were expected or conceived in rape.
It's impossible to try and rectify a terrible ordeal such as sexual assault by victimizing another innocent human (i.e. unborn child).
BOTH the mother and child deserve love and help. There are plenty of couples willing to adopt the child as their own and they deserve that chance.
@@loudnuff4u STOP STOP STOP. Don’t. Don’t even. This is a traumatic experience. Giving birth to a being created by your rapist is incredibly traumatic. The mental pressure, the physical pain, the shame and guilt; that’s awful. That’s inhumane. Any woman doesn’t deserve this. And are you not aware of the horrible living conditions of orphanages? You don’t care about the poor children and teens in orphanages, you care about a shiny newborn baby, or else that kid doesn’t matter. Have you forgotten the reality of orphanages? The deaths? The diseases? You don’t care about the woman, you care about something that doesn’t affect you the slightest.
@@holobae374 It doesn't matter. She isn't gonna die from it. If you abort, the baby loses its life. And you are arguing that the baby isn't a human simply because it could potentially have a bad life. Does potentially having a bad life mean you are less of a human? No. And I find it funny that you care about the child after it is born and not when it isn't. If the labor can kill the mother, I will allow abortion for that case only.
I know how I felt when I found out my ex-girlfriend had an abortion without my knowledge..... completely broken!!!
“Men have rights Too”
D Mac This stabbed me right in the heart!! I’m so sorry brother :(
Emily Jay Thank you 🙏
D Mac 💜💜
In the old Lab I did my bachelors thesis, the female co-workers told me stories of their old friends who aborted their babies.
In all of the cases they mentioned it turned out be bad in the long run.
One man had depression and never really recovered from that. Several women could no longer have babies even though they wanted some at a more convenient time, which also lead to depression.
Christ is Lord - Jon Son 2 It’s her body and it’s her call. You should’ve thought about it before you got her pregnant. Most of the adult women in my life I’ve had abortions at one time in their life and they’re all healthy and most of them with healthy well loved children. The only people abortion makes depressed are people who have been incessantly brainwashed by religion
"Abortion can never be medically justified" - Dr Anthony Levatino, OB/GYN and ant-abortion campaigner
Medically? What does that mean?
Its about the rights of the woman's autonomy.
@@sphumelelesijadu when the pregnancy can kill the mother or the child itself.... its not just medically justified. it's lifesaving. maternal death and birth complications, or complications during pregnancy are far more common than we think.
@@iluvzurara2 what if the fetus is not a person yet and what about the rights of the woman to choose what happens to her body
@@sphumelelesijadu what about it? im not sure what responses youre looking for when all im saying is that "medical abortions" or not merely justified they are lifesaving. debating if a fetus is a person is irrelevant. and yea a woman has every right to choose what is the healthiest and safest way to go about her life and pregnancy.
@@iluvzurara2
Sorry about the misunderstanding. 😅
I was a little preoccupied. I think its because you told me the possible justifications beyond medical justifications instead of explaining what was meant by medically justified.
In short, being human has intrinsic value.
As a Christian, everything God has brought to existence, whether a rock, a fly, is valuable in it's own way.
@@pureone8350 true. But in the essence of the video I am talking about being human m
Can you please explain to me, why a human has intrinsic value?
Abortion is wrong. They will go to Hell. Sorry for being harsh, but shall not kill. If they ask for forgiveness and truly sorry will be forgiven by God. But if they arent honest about forgiveness have fun in Hell.
@@raven1462 thou shall not kill. Do you even live by those words yourself? If you eat animal products then you're a walking contradiction
It doesn’t take religion to understand why a baby is a human beings. Science has an answer for everything
Are you saying science gives you morals?
That is demonstrably false. Science does not have an answer for everything. Logic, mathematics, and rationality cannot be explained by science. Science presupposes Logic, math, and rationality and to try and prove them using science would be to argue in a circle. Metaphysical truths cannot be proven by science; the belief in other minds and a belief in the past. Aesthetic values and assertions cannot be answered by science. Moral values and judgments cannot be stablished scientifically; you cannot show scientifically it is wrong to harm a child rather than love a child. Even science itself is permeated with axioms and assumptions that must simply be believed if we are to do science; as an example the whole theory of Einstein’s theory rests on the assumption in the constant speed of light in a one way direction. This assumption about light must simply be accepted if the theory is going to hold. NO, SCIENCE DOES NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO EVERYTHING.
@@sheldonberg125 Science proves that fetuses are living humans
@@rithvikmuthyalapati9754 I agree. However, some people say that you are not a human until you are “born” and leave the birth canal. This is a very popular view. If you support abortion you have to beIieve this because otherwise you would have to admit abortion is murder or something like that.
One thing I would like to encourage you and everyone who reads this to think about is this:
1. If we are only biological and material beings than everything we do, say, think etc is a result of biological processes that we cannot control.
2. If premise one is true than we can never be intentional about things we do, we can make no claims of rationality, we can make no moral claims of right and wrong because all of our behaviours etc are the result of arbitrary chemical and biological processes
3. If we do have states of intentionality, if we are moral agents and can act correctly or immorally, if we can recognize the beautiful, if we can make meaningful claims and think rationally, than there must be something transcendent about human beings that goes beyond our animal self.
4. If we are transcendent beings in part and we had a beginning as in a point of conception than what brought the transcendent part of us into being? There must be something transcendent that gives us our humanity.
5. This is not a proof exactly for the existence of God (I don’t think you can make a proof for God) but for me it is a powerful line of thinking that must lead us to conclude that there is something transcendent or supernatural about us. And if there is a super nature and a transcendency to human beings it seems rational to believe that there is a transcendent God.
Science does not have an answer for everything. That is absurd.
1. Science cannot prove mathematics and logic. Science presupposes things like math, logic, and rationality and to try to prove them using science would be to argue in a circle.
2. Science cannot provide an answer for the existence of other transcendent minds, or that the external world is real, or other metaphysical truths. For all we know the world was made 5 minutes ago with an appearance of age and we were thrust into it with current state of consciousness and memory.
3. Ethical beliefs and beliefs of value cannot be answered by science. Science cannot show that the experiments done by the Nazis in the camps on innocent children and twins was wrong and that medical science practiced compassionately in the west is right.
4. Aesthetic judgments cannot be answered by science because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven.
5. Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is replete with unprovable assumptions and axioms that we must simply believe in order for science to operate. An example is the theory of special relativity that asserts the speed of light between any two points is constant and in a one way direction. The theory rests on this assumption and must be accepted as true if you are going to hold to the theory.
So science doesn’t answer everything and in truth answers a lot less than you think it does.
This man is so intelligent.it is also a man's issue, before I became a Christian I agreed to an abortion and that decision has effected me until this day
I'm sorry.
@@jeffersonbarnes3663 thank you for your support.
@Edward Russell yes. Thank you for praying for me!!
May you heal 😇
@@jeffersonbarnes3663 I appreciate you .God has taken a bad time in my life and is using it for good!!
Deepest gratitude doctor about stating truth.
God is the giver of life. He's the maker of all things. We have absolutely no business in determining when life begin as far as a category of stages for convenience. Life is life. God designs for life should not be adjusted by mans convenience.
Jesus told 2 things that line up with pro life
Let the children come to me, do not hinder them as the kingdom of heaven belong to such as these.
Man can not woship money, abortion is worshipping money
Don't ever forget this...The life is in the Blood.
Amen amen and amen
💖
We should not think of them as potential person's but instead person's with potential is the most concise way of explaining how unborn children are not just a clump of cells that I have EVER heard.
Facts hurt my feeling so they are wrong!!!
bibi green - which is the basis of rationale for the religious
@@Jared__Bowden religion isn't based on feelings.
@The Mountain Not facts? You seem to think strongly that it's not factual so there's no point in replying diligently cos it will go on for years....
Are you are for abortion or against it?
@@humble_garden5039 I'm assuming you are religious and use that to justify your position. I think your wrong but even if your right you are now saying it is ok to force your religion on others. If they are X instead of Christian well better be Christian or go to jail.
This is what your are advocating any time you try to use your religion to justify a moral standing. Especially because 95% of people (im being generous its higher) cannot vote for or support legislation that goes against their religions supposed moral tenets.
This is a secular country where I am free from being prosecuted by your religious beliefs. That means if you are going to dictate a social moral prerogative to me you gota come up with if from a secular foundation. That includes defining not only murder but why murder is bad in a completely secular way .
I somehow doubt you have a philosophical foundation that allows you to say why we shouldn't murder without resorting to logical fallacies such as appeal to emotion.
@@nocare You win! I'm sorry for speaking out on behalf of the unborn babies who doesn't have a voice. Only you are allowed to speak and your freedom to kill a baby is very important. If I spoke up about not killing babies.. I'm a forceful Christian imposing blah blah blah... I can't win.
13:30 Abortion isn't holding back what is good, it is actively applying that which is bad."
Eric Smyth abortion is murder
It her body she gets to decide who uses it
@@sphumelelesijadu It is not her body. Stop saying that
Science ITSELF has settled this issue! Human life begins at conception. Period. Great video clip!
Well sadly now the question of whether that life is a person or not is asked.
LoveYourNeighboour:
Agreed 100%
72 hours after conception, the developing zygote has brand new, individual, DNA.
DNA that has never been seen before & will never be repeated :)
@Wesley Heartland artificial wombs will make zygotes viable.
Nature eliminates fully grown adults all the time but this fact doesn't justify elective homicide.
Humans have intrinsic value; this axiom is what our entire legal system is built upon. There are no subhumans, and we have no right to assign degrees of value to humans.
Elective abortion violates human rights.
@Wesley Heartland
You proved my point in your answer :)
@@johnbuckner2828: Well said.
@11:31 You are absolutely correct! THANK YOU! We do not have a right to do anything with our body. OUR BODY IS NOT OUR OWN.
How many geniuses, inventors, surgeons, civil rights reformers, lawyers and job creating entrepreneurs have we killed through abortion? Its incalculable! We deserve the suffering we face in the world.
Very true and easy to understand. We all began life at conception!
Life begins long before conception. Unfertilized egg cells themselves are alive. Conception doesn't begin life, any more than turning your car key in the ignition initiates your car being a car.
Umm. It’s LITERALLY murder. End of story. Period.
It isn't murder. It is justifiable homicide. Self-defense against God's will.
carultch agreed.
Its her uterus. She gets to choose who uses it. If there is no where else that foetus can survive then that's unfortunate.
@Pepper well done on not understanding what I meant so let me explain what I was actually saying.
If someone is dying do I have the right to use your blood, bone marrow or parts of your liver to keep them alive? No.
But you want to force a woman to use her uterus against her consent. You pulling a trigger is not the same as you refusing to have your body used against your will.
Abortion is not about killing it's about refusing to remain pregnant.
If the fetus can survive on its own then it's an early birth. The main principle is that if a woman doesn't want her uterus to be used by anyone her decision is final. This is a right that everyone has but people want to remove it from woman from some reason (the right to autonomy).
@Pepper by refusing to donate bone marrow people will die! I still don't have the right to force you. It's your body your choice.
But with pregnant women you wanna make an exception.
This is great. Thanks for explaining! Nancy Pearcey's Love Thy Body explains this topic very well if anyone would like an even more thorough version.
Great video!
The options that society has on this issue is not will there be abortions or not but rather who will do them, doctors or the hells angels.
Some people kill their kids or someone they don't like - should those killings be done by doctors so they are "safe"?
I'm pro-life 100% : Always have been, and always will be
@Eithan S The only cement, is that what is in YOUR BRAIN, making it THICK.
@Eithan S lol, that's the best you can do? Go harass someone else with your obtuse comments. I have to right to hold my beliefs and I have reasons to. Who is thick is you, placing the assumption that someone pro-life is ignorant. I could throw back similar assumptions, however, I'm not the one with cement in my brain.
@@-goldenrose-2169 you are a true woman
I am 99% pro-life. I think abortion should be allowed if the mother could die from the labor. Otherwise, I see no proper excuse to have one.
I'm pro-life for basically all cases except the ones where it's 100% neccasary to save the mother from dying.
Drop the mic. He killed it
My main response to the, “potential persons,” argument is, “If they were potential persons, they wouldn’t already be there.”
Great video 👍
Persons who are not humans? Never seen any.
Yes and I've never seen a human that's not a person.
More planets than there are grains od sand on Earth. If you seriously think we're the only planet harbouring live and intelligent life, you are delusional.
We have planets, yes, but have you got any proof of "non-human persons" out there? If not, then your argument is idiotic.
Then you should do more research because bodies have been found of half-breeds that have different eye sockets and no sagittal suture.
_(Keywords: Paracas, nephilim)_
I love this kinda science that proves details in the Bible.
@@anar3602 Care to share this evidence? We can't just take your word for it, after all.
God bless you, Tim
I think that one way to consider the personhood question is to ask: can we cease being persons? If we will cease to be persons, what can end our personhood? If we will always be persons, how could that be?
These questions help one to define their metaphysical suppositions in relation to personhood. Depending on how one answers, there are substantial implications for the matter of personhood.
On the one hand, if one answers “no” (nothing ends our personhood) and conclude that human organism (or beings) are persons, then permanently comatose human beings are still persons regardless of their mental state (which is rather unintuitive). This is also problematic for the notion of an afterlife. On the other hand, if one answers “yes” - we can cease to be persons (for example in a permanent vegetative state), then it is not merely our bodies that constitute our personhood, and in these situations it can be permissible to end a life.
Great interview. God bless.
jayaveeran the babies are with Him in paradise right now
"Your moral value depends on the kind of thing you are, not what you're able to do".
Justification, please. This whole argument starts off with a completely baseless and unjustifiable assertion that we're just expected to accept. Even if I personally value humans, there is no way to ever logically prove that I ought to have valued humans in the first place.
The truth is, I (and most people) value Joshua Trees more than Pine Trees, Old Red Woods more than Dandelions, Whales more than Salmon, Dogs more than Deer, Eagles more than Chickens, Humans more than Mosquitos, Gold more than Rocks, Oceans more than Puddles, etc. When diving down to see what is behind these values, we seem to find a bunch of basic common denominators, things like: beauty, intelligence, utility, rarity, and a few others, as well empathy (our ability to relate).
Why do most people value Dolphins getting caught in the Tuna net and never the Tuna? Because Dolphins are more beautiful, intelligent, rare, and we tend empathize more with Dolphins than most fish. We see ourselves in them, they appear to be smiling, they play with us and socialize, care for their young, commit suicide, etc.
Even if we put aside the silliness and nonsensical nature of trying to use logic to prove the value of something, to me the abortion debate is quite silly because, at its core, it really is just a 'Ship of Theseus' kind of problem. It's like arguing that a "Puddle" is just as valuable as an "Ocean", because it's made of water and other similarities. The reason we value an "Ocean" is because it's beautiful in ways a puddle just isn't, it's rare in a way that a puddle just isn't, it has utility in a way that a puddle just doesn't, etc.
If I'm honest, the reason I value most humans (from around baby to old age) is that I see myself in them (we look alike, have similar emotions, similar problems, tastes, thoughts, dreams, etc), they are intelligent, they are beautiful, they have utility in a variety of ways, etc. While, a newly fertilized egg doesn't have 2 eyes, 2 years, 4 limbs, a stomach, a brain, a nervous system, it doesn't laugh, cry, think, feel, have emotions, thoughts, dreams, ideas, it isn't very useful to me yet in a variety of ways, it isn't intelligent, it isn't very aesthetically beautiful (maybe the potential is kinda beautiful and the process?), etc. I simply don't value a "newly fertilized human egg" in the same way that I value a "human baby", just like I don't value a "Puddle" in the same way I value an "Ocean".
At the end of the day, it appears that the abortion argument boils down to feelings, the fallacy of consequence, and a bunch of baseless and unjustifiable assertions.
The best Ive heard is that murder charges for killing two people are the same. May depend on the scenario and number of people killed but not on who they were.
@Isabel Chapman "Humans are valued because they're members of our species"
That's circular reasoning. It doesn't explain why humans have intrinsic value or any value at all.
The heart is deceitful above all
Wow. Narcissist much? Your argument literally revolves around YOU, i.e., what the unborn baby offers YOU in terms of positive warm feelings, practical utility, etc. Your thoughts on the matter are positively genocidal.
This guy (Tim Hsiao) needs to host CHANGE MY MIND debate challenge episode.
Can someone educated on this subject help me out?
I've studied this issue quite a bit, and what I find is that, most reasonably intelligent people who are Pro-Choice, say something along the lines of "a fetus doesn't become a person until they have an experience, until they have their first thought." Essentially saying, that until that capacity is developed to the point where they can have an experience, they are a "potential person".
What would be your response to this argument, and how would you rationalize it?
That pro-choice argument seems to be silly to me, because in the circumstance of being born into a coma, or if that child is born with a brain deficiency, you could easily argue that those children have not had an experience, or had a rational thought. But we would never have the right to kill them, correct?
Let me know what you all think
That's exactly what he argues in the video.
@@cget I hear you on that, but the reply I've gotten when I say this is a blind reiteration/slight variation, where they'll says something along the lines of "the fetus first develops value at it's first experience, therefore any temporary comas after that it's still a person".
Is this simply mental gymnastics or am I missing something?
Simply put those who make the statement you stated, must defend it with reasoning. It cant just stand on it's own and as such must require argumentation that is capable of being falsified .
At 8 weeks gestation a baby can be seen (via 4D ultrasound) moving in response to stimuli. At 20 weeks gestation the baby responds to sound, moves, winces and recoils from sharp objects (like needles).
@@stacycz Please clearly define, what is coherent brain activity.
Is a baby born into a coma, a person?
AMEN! Good going, Dr. Tim Hsiao!
Very interesting. Seems to me that women who want abortions just don’t WANT TO THINK ABOUT the baby she’s carrying as a living thing- they’d rather lie to themselves and say it’s just lumps of flesh that are nothing, so she’d feel better about destroying it. Once it’s destroyed , her ‘problem’ is gone. Easy way out. The human heart is wicked beyond imagination : how easy is it for us to believe in the lie, and not be morally accountable to our wicked actions! Very angry about this. On a flight I saw a movie about a day of a teenage girl who just goes to an abortion clinic, from the news of pregnancy to the actual operation day. The film maker glorified her emotions - how hard it is for her to carry the burden of her news, and how determined it is for her to get an abortion, against all odds. She is to be congratulated for her strong willed determination and organisation to make this happen! It sickened me to the core!!
Do you think women who abort does it with pleasure in their heart?
Right? If it is a wanted pregnancy, they will call it a baby and throw parties for it. If it is unwanted, they will call it a clump of cells. Their hypocrisy is really showing.
There are a number of various opinions on what constitutes an immoral abortion. There is the opinion that birth control is an immoral abortion. There is the opinion that at the instant of conception any abortion thereafter is immoral. And there is the opinion that an immoral abortion is any abortion that takes place after the fetus can survive on its own outside the womb. It's good to see that Dr. Hsiao is capable of an opinion.
MEN ABSOLUTELY NEED TO BE A PART OF THE CONVERSATION!!!!
Even if it weren't a question of morality, it takes two to make that baby. If you make abortion legal, and a father doesn't want to keep the baby does that now absolve the father from needing to pay child support since it was the mother's choice to keep the baby? What if the father WANTED the child but the mother wanted to abort anyway out of spite, not wanting to carry the child what have you. How is that fair to thebfather?? It's his child too. Should the woman be forced to pay compensation to the man? (Like a reverse child support)
ThOU SHALL NOT KILL :….;(
How many people were killed by the flood?
@@markkinnard796 Really bad argument! The proper term in the 10 Commandments was meant as, "Thou shalt not commit murder". If killing was against the law of God, basically everyone would be in complete violation since we have all killed something at one time or another. Secondly, God cannot commit murder, because "murder", by definition, is: "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
." And since God is all holy, pure, blameless, just and entirely righteous, He cannot do anything "unlawful", and since he is the creator of all, he can also chose to end it, and in so doing, He would not be committing any wrong in the line of malice of forethought. To put it succinctly, God has the right to do what He so desires, and anything and everything He does is morally correct and perfectly righteous. We may not understand the reasons behind His actions, and furthermore He is under no obligation to explain Himself either, as if He would need to apologize or rationalize His actions in the face of our ignorance. To consider anything that God does as immoral or cruel is to reveal our limited understanding about his perfection and holiness. Whether we understand God's actions or not is immaterial. What is most important is that God cannot do anything wrong. If He were to commit some act of immorality, He would be a morally insufficient being, and would obviously not be the God who is the God of love and light. "...God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all." "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."
@M I totally agree. :-)
Looks like Jameel has left the building.
@@WienArtist
What a wall of text to basically say "Might makes right"
It should be a 50\50 decision between the mother and father. ALSO HERE SHOULD NEVER BE ABORTION.
Oak FN that’s completely impractical. If both have a 50% say, and the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep it, who makes the final decision? It has to be the mother, the one who is actually bearing the burden.
@@georgeduskalieo That's eves fault lol
No, neither the mother or father should be allowed to decide to kill their unborn child.
@@Sifo_Dyas very ture i should have thought about that
Father should decide 100% to be pro life and the woman has to go along with it regardless of what she thinks but hopefully she is pro life too!
The only case where abortion can be justified is when the pregnancy poses an imminent and deadly threat to the mother. But even in this case, most mothers would prefer to give up their lives in favor of their unborn babies. Women who openly support abortions are usually the most irresponsible and selfish ones who want only to indulge in sexual pleasure but hate the responsibilities that go with it.
It's not up to the government to tell a woman what to do with her body.
Case closed.
Yeah! I absolutely agree. What I do not agree with, however, is the murder of unborn babies due to the selfish wishes of her mother (who shouldn't have been participating in intercourse in the first place, considering she didn't want to bear a child).
@zanmirrob you stole my thunder. 👍🏻
@zanmirrob 🤗
SPOT ON. Great job Doc! 💯👏👏👏
Think about this for a minute if a man is highly in favor of abortion then what do you think the motive is he wants to do what he wants to do without any responsibility and he yippee it can be killed what kind of man would be in favor of it think about that one for a minute or for longer I sure have.
That argument works equally well for a woman. In fact it's probably the primary reason anyone is in favor or abortion-they don't want to be responsible to raise the child.
@@Sifo_Dyas To me that is a given for a woman .
Even if you had to unplug yourself from the violinist for some reason, or decided that it is justified, it should never be a decision that you *advocate* or openly celebrate. It should be one of (if not the) hardest decision in your life, and even if justified, would probably haunt you at least somewhat for the rest of your life.
Anyone else think the sound is just a bit distracting?
“If I had a mic I’d drop it right there...” lol! Awesome! Thank you for this video!
I'll SECOND that!
@@LoveYourNeighbour.: Ditto that!
Thank you, I've been looking for this!
This gentleman is lucid, intelligent, and presents data based on biology. No one who is sane could argue against his points, therefore you cannot expect a person who is for the killing of the unborn to have their opinion changed.
@Not My Real Name he's smart enough to know that sex=child, which is smarter than 100% of pro abortion folks! LMAO
Men do not have the right to discuss this, just like women do not have the right to decide if a man get's a vasectomy!!!
life
Here's another question for pro-abortion Activists: A person is in a hospital on life assistance and in a coma. The Doctor says there's a 30% chance they'll regain consciousness. Do you pull the plug? Well a fetus has a 100% chance of gaining consciousness if developing in a normal way. Do you end the fetus?
no, I wouldn't pull the plug, because the person was previously sentient and had a will to live.
Depends. My mother said if she was ever in a coma and there was a low chance of her ever waking up, then after the amount of time it is for you to wait before the person is officially brain dead, I would pull the plug to honor her wishes.
If I got pregnant and new for a fact if I had this child it would destroy my life, which at this moment, yeah, it would destroy it, yes. I would end the fetus because this is my life.
Also, have you ever heard of a stillborn? The infant mortality rate is actually surprisingly high in America so I'd drop that percentage to like... maybe 78% ish. Especially on me, my family has a history of difficult (and dangerous) pregnancies.
A P that means nothing
@@Saint_Magnapinna and the innocent little human being doesn't? How do you know? The fetus wants to live just a much as any other living person.
@@mickqQ I said developing in a normal way. Abortion is not normal. Now some don't make it due to natural causes, but then again we're all going to die someday, that's no reason to kill the innocent.
Peter singer does not concede that the unborn is a human person. This person states that there is consensus regarding whether a fetus is human being but that’s a great point of debate. It is the case that many philosophers grant that premise but that does not mean there is consensus or that they agree with the premise.
It is fascinating that the vast majority pro-choice, who tend to be athiest and wave the flag of science, completely ignore the science when it suits them.
Konsintrate what is the science?
@@alis9305 Basic biology. What is the science that refutes my statement?
Konsintrate You didn’t make any real claim in your statement but that I ignore the science. Which is why I asked what is the science you claim I ignore. If your claim is that the fetus is a human being, then basic biology doesn’t define what it is to be a human being. Does feeling pain make you a human being? Does having a heartbeat make you a human being? If a fetus is a human being, is a fertilized egg a human being?
An acorn is not an oak tree. Regardless, even if we were to empower a fetus with every single right granted to an adult human being, there is no person 70 years old, 7 years old, or even 7 weeks prenatal, who has the right to violate another humans bodily integrity without consent. The idea that a fetus' right to life usurps the mother's right to bodily autonomy is not a matter of whether or not we treat the fetus as a human endowed with rights, but whether or not we consider the human fetus with special pleading.
In a nutshell.
Is it morally right to dissect, tear apart, a living kitten? You know it has the capacity to feel pain and agony. Is it ever morally right to kill it, yes or no?
If people answer NO, then it's ridiculous for those same people to claim that killing a living moving human being by tearing him apart (abortion) is ok.
Now, if we replace the torturous type of killing with an injection where there is no pain felt, what then? Is it morally right?
It depends.
One that believes in God has to rely on how God sees the issue. If he can prove to himself that God disagrees with such a killing, then, based on that, he too in faith must disagree. If the opposite, then the opposite.
One that does not believe in the existence of a Creator God, can only, on his own, weigh the pros and cons of that baby being born. If according to him, the cons are more, then kiling the embryo is no big deal. Sure if he becomes aware of the potential in that embryo for becoming a human person, he might feel some guilt, but knowing that that embryo will die fast and without pain and self awareness, and realizing that the aftermath of it being born is no more a "threat", will most likely ease that guilt.
So the issue at the core is about:
inflicting a) torture and b) death on a living human being or just death without pain and fear.
and
if there is a God, what is His will on it.
Though shall not kill. Please remember that the last 7 commandments is about us loving other humans.
@@timh1179 That can be believed and obeyed by us born again Christians.
@@timh1179 Number 5 11:28 can be interpreted as not only allowing for abortions, but ordering them in cases of infidelity. On top of that, how many times in the Old Testament does god order the murder of children and babies? The fact that it's more than once should give you a little pause when citing the bible as why we shouldn't allow abortions.
@@bskec2177 How about I just say that the unborn are of the human species-homosapien
@@timh1179 Fine. At which point does a cell become a person? When does it move from being a human embryo to a human being? If a single cell is human, does every cell in my body count as a human being, or just a human cell? What are you using to determine this?
When you spoke about the morality of killing something, you never spoke of context. What is the reason for killing the cat? Was it already sick and dying, then killing it as painlessly as possible could be considered moral, in order to reduce suffering. Cats and dogs in shelters across the country are euthanized every day, because they have no one to care for them, and they can't be allowed to run loose. Is that moral?
I’m convinced in 100yrs we’ll look back at abortion and compare it to slavery, genocide etc. as science progresses we learn more and the pro-life case gets stronger.
Dude, you really think with the ways things are going humans are gonna be AROUND in 100 years?
SageSeeker yes. Yes they will. The planet easily has another several thousand years
@@TheRealSlimShady509
*Planet Yes.
People.... eh....
I’d enjoy if you asked Scott Klusendorf these same questions
If human rights depend on your level of consciousness, can I knock somebody out and then shoot him in the head but only face assault charges because when I shot him, he was unconscious, therefore he had no rights?
@Wesley Heartland Since the woman chose an act which creates a dependent human being, why would she be exempt from the result of that choice?
If a pregnant woman wants to take Thalidimide because she wants to have a baby with no arms or legs, would that be OK because she has bodily autonomy?
@Wesley Heartland That's the point we're making, no rights from an certain individual are above other people's rights, that logic includes the "right to body integrity" not being above the right to live
@Wesley Heartland All "Dogmas" are enforced via a country's judicial apparatus.
So, I'm unsure how "integrity and privacy" makes one exempt from responsibility for ones choices. Could you clarify? Suppose I kill someone unintentionally while driving drunk. Am I exempt from responsibility because I claim "integrity and privacy"? Why or why not?
Arguments don't have genders! Whew! I'm glad that we won't have to deal with the assumed gender pronouns of arguments! Thanks! 😇😎
Appreciate the video but 10 commercials - that’s to many!
John Bottone I only got 3.
That's on TH-cam, not the channel. The fact that this video is getting tjst kind of monetization is very good for the pro-life side.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which US is a state party, uses the term "human person".
The problem is he sees this is as an argument. Versus real pregnant people with real stories and their communities. What about listening and support?
funny how no one mentions non-binary birth givers or transpeople. It's always "man" and "woman"
@@16mquest
How do you define man and woman?
That's a red herring (off topic). We should help people who have suicidal or abortion thoughts and help people understand the fundamentals of marriage and raising kids correctly
Always great to get a man’s view on abortion. So helpful and understanding!
Yes because men are the ones who have to put their bodies through morning sickness, acid reflux and 9 months of pregnancy.
Nia888 presumably you missed the irony in my comment?
@@jeffbetts9420 How do you feel about legal paternal surrender? A man's right to abandon financial responsibility for a baby, during the same window of opportunity for legal abortion?
carultch If the women decides not to have an abortion then the man would have a legal obligation to support the child. The man has no right to force the women to abort or to deny the right to abort. It is the women’s decision alone. Any man who disagrees with that should take a good hard look at himself!
@@jeffbetts9420 Ok then don't force us men to pay for child support if we don't force you to keep the baby alive.
“Parents have special obligation to their unborn child” situation needed
I think what he is getting at are parental obligations for the wellbeing of their offspring you have created. You created that life that has arguably full moral value therefore you have obligations until others can be found to look after it.
Sorry if my point wasn’t clear. I’m not saying I don’t understand what he’s “getting at”. I’m asking for evidence to back the claim that he made that “parents” have an obligation to an unborn child. That statement carries a burden of proof. If a man gets a woman pregnant and immediately drops dead, does that mean that the unborn child has any less of a chance to survive until birth? Nope. So how do PARENTS have a special obligation to an unborn child? It is possible for a man to impregnate a woman and literally disappear off the face of the earth and that will have absolutely no effect on that fetuses ability to survive. So when someone says parentS plural have an obligation, I need to see his factual support for that statement.
@@funknelson87 Yes 'special' at the very least he needed spell that out more. But I still don't see what you are getting at in regards to general obligation.
.Why do societies make a man
pay child support? One would argue they acknowledge he was party to an
action that created something that has full moral value that at that
stage cannot look after themselves. Therefore the have obligations
towards it until either it can look after itself or an alternative
caregiver can provide care. In other words, two moral agents have made a
moral patient existentially dependent and that is in line with other
Tort /welfare considerations. Now someone might say well parents aren't
obligated to donate blood or organs to keep their child alive therefore
even if there is a Tort like obligation it doesn't extend towards one's
body where it is supererogatory.
One the one hand that is true and nowhere in legal or moral thought is
there a case of forced bodily use but on the other, the main causal
factor there is the disease whereas in non-rape cases both parties are
the causal agents. In another post I use the Toxic waste analogy but we
can alter it. In case one a mother decides to store some toxic waste in
her home to earn some extra cash but her kids get contaminated and
needs an organ transplant. She is the only match and is guilty of
causing the harm but the law won't force her to donate the kidney she
will just be jailed and the kid will die. In case two the kid gets a
naturally occurring disease the mother can still refuse to donate the
kidney but she won't go to jail for not doing so. Now it is at least to
me debatable whether tort welfare obligation extends to organs etc and
though I'd expect many people would condemn a parent for not saving the
life of a child when it was caused by a disease, nonetheless I think
many wouldn't jail her for it.
BTW what people like him forget that the child can be a moral stranger
to the mother in cases of rape so sat least in that case she has no
obligation.
Cy5208 my comment was specifically regarding his statement that parents have a special obligation to an unborn child. The mother only has an obligation if she decides to keep the child. What obligation could a father possibly have to an unborn child?
@@funknelson87 As I said it is unclear as to what he means by special obligation. But if we apply moral reasoning as we do with other Tort like situations the mother has an obligation until that life can care for itself or another can care for it. Same obligation for the male if it was outside the womb, providing resources so the child is healthy.
Ok so we have a baby-making machine; if you push a button egg and sperm will be combined that human life will grow and in the end, you will have a baby able to survive outside the machine. But if left there will eventually die. Could you push the button and walk away allowing it to die?
Like they say it takes two to tango.
The value of a life should not change based on their location... inside the womb vs outside the womb
Oof! He struggled with that bodily autonomy argument. Its still one of the best arguments for the pro-choice movement.
He struggled against Warren's personhood.
Suggesting that when you're unconscious, in a coma etc., you're no longer a person may sound clever... Warren's argument is that a fetus has never been part of the moral community, achieved personhood; those knocked out etc. have and would be wronged if mistreated.
@@dyingconfessionjames uhhmmm i don't really get what it is you're trying to say...
but I would say that we protect people who were one sentient and conscious not because they once had that capability but because it would be in the interest of their family and friends which are persons to preserve their life.
@@sphumelelesijadu Warren suggests a fetus is never a person and has no personhood to lose, therefore cannot be wronged.
Arguing she was wrong because someone in a coma may appear to lose the criteria for personhood, consciousness etc., fails because you're talking about someone who did fulfil criteria for personhood. You're talking about a person who needs support.
He hasn't disproved Warren's argument.
@@dyingconfessionjames okay but would you not agree that if someone loses the capacities or criteria that make them a person they cannot be granted the rights of personhood?
@@sphumelelesijadu I think if it were a temporary state there's no reason to think of them as no longer being a person.
If it were a case of brain death, then I think that the person has left is and I would support allowing that human to die or indeed euthanasia.
So I still think the argument against Warren wasn't put to bed.
He does not have a PhD yet, he is currently working towards one. Hence he is not a "Dr." I suggest correcting the title of the video accordingly.
Why do you need to justify yourself before you call a murderer, A murderer.
People here are forgetting bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy is a basic human right. This is why we don't harvest the organs of corpses who didn't consent to donating organs - even the dead have bodily autonomy. The whole pro-life vs pro-choice debate basically boils down to whose bodily autonomy is more important, the mother's or the child's (it goes without saying that that's greatly oversimplifying it, but that's the jist of it). I'd argue that the bodily autonomy of a fully developed human woman is more important than that of what is (in 99% of cases) essentially a useless cluster of cells.
Suppose a pregnant woman intentionally takes Thalidomide because she wants to give birth to a baby with no arms or legs. Would you say that's OK because she has bodily autonomy?
Also, if a woman freely chooses to engage in an act that creates a dependent human, why would you say she is not responsible for the outcome of her choice?
Imagine God is real, and you have intrinsic value, and so does every child being conceived. We live in a fallen world right now through, so there is a spiritual disconnect in understanding that. But every day God is calling to each of us in different ways to understand what is true..... We may ignore that call year after year, but hopefully one day it does come through, even if it came only after we had to suffer deeply to finally look up and start with a speck of faith and build upon it with more understanding and spiritual discernment that can only come from relationship with God.
We also have the ability to harden our heart and not see things from this perspective, but only want to see things our disconnected way and fight to the death for that view. But in the end, that really will only end in death.
Neither I or anyone else can convince you to believe in God. The abundant evidence is there, because God never asked for blind faith. I used to be blind and lived most of my life never caring about Jesus ( God in the flesh ) who came to Earth, and suffered for our sake so that we might believe and be saved for eternity restored.
There are a lot of things I used to agree with before, but now I see it for what it is.
So, all I can do is encourage you to consider a different possibility, but if you don't, that is your freedom.
I personally cannot force anyone to have a child they want to blindly murder. I do not view them as evil, but the act is still a murder of an unborn child, even if they do not currently view it that way. I can only vote and hope laws are passed to encourage a different pathway, and encourage others to avoid mistakes that they will deeply regret later on.
There is a spiritual battle we are in... The spirit of the world that leads us in many wrong ways, and the Spirit of God,... And we've already told that many will choose the broad path to destruction.
But I have faith in God, and he will forgive every person who repents ( as many have and now advocate against abortion too ), and any child that is killed is with God, so I leave that in God's hands... In the meantime though, it is painful and tragic to witness these things, this time is a testimony, a witness of what destruction sin causes, but also a time of what truth and the love of God can do to redeem us from the darkness that we thought was light. Call it crazy or delusional if you fear the idea... But life itself is crazy, an amazing phenomenon I never asked for, and I am thankful to be saved for eternity, to see everything restored and made right, and will share about it as long as I have the energy to do so.
Tracey M
I am open to God’s call but I’m not going to pretend to hear it if I don’t. In the Bible, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. So who caused God to kill the Egyptians? I would say God himself did. If God exists he just needs to show himself. I am not hiding, denying, or hardening my heart. I would like to make abortions rare too but won’t trample on your right to behave differently if you act ethically and legally. According to you, all those aborted fetuses are in heaven. That then would be a good thing, no?
@@evidencebased1 If you're open to God's call. that is great, but, what steps are you taking to learn to be able to hear it? Are you studying his word? Are you wanting to understand things beyond what you think is right with human understanding? Are you asking to understand? Are you repenting of what you learn is wrong?
If you want to bring up the idea that God hardened Pharoah's heart, are you making a case that God hardened your heart and you give up?
Some say that the language speaks of God hardening pharoah's heart, but the reality is that he hardened his own heart to many signs and warnings...
Maybe at a certain point God did give him over to his desires, because he already made his choice not to even respect God as his Creator, but defy him and do evil, rather than good. He did what was good in his own sight.
God exists, and he already did show himself, as Jesus in the flesh, and humans who rejected him killed him only in the flesh, but not the Spirit, because God id Spirit, so obviously he could not be literally killed. But he experienced the pain and suffering of torment and death.
You have the benefit beyond many others to study and learn, looking back in history and seeing what is true...If you want to believe the opposite narrative, blinded by the spirit of this world of unbelief, then you can. Or you must cry out to God for his understanding. God resists the proud, and spiritual things are spiritually discerned. There will not be much excuse if you are determined to say God does not exist, doesn't love you, etc, if you aren't learning to understand what he says about what is happening in this world and why...
Also, according to me, no those aborted CHILDREN are not in heaven. Because the dead sleep, if you read many scriptures, it will teach you that truth. No on is in heaven looking down on loved ones...But their soul is with God, but it is asleep.... The dead will not be raised until Jesus, Emmanuel, The Messiah, our Savior, whatever multitude of titles or languages, he will return soon according to prophecy fulfilling very quickly these days... It may be only a matter of a few more years for all prophecy to be completely fulfilled.
Even in 1948, the prophecy of Jerusalem being born came true... God brings back his people scattered accross the Earth... He proves himself again and again. But the spirit of unbelief is dark and can hold you captive. Your only hope is to ask God for help, you cannot overcome it by yourself.
Tracey M
This is a red herring. I’ve read the Bible but have I “studied” it? I don’t know what YOU mean by “study” and why should I need to become an expert in dead languages and multiple versions? God should certainly recognize that written documents have this inherent problem and has done nothing to correct it.
It says in Exodus: “You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you.” Sounds like Pharoah had his free will taken away by God, who wanted to show off his powers!
Sorry, when you said the fetus’ were with God I assumed in heaven, since God is in heaven.
How does the reappearance of Jerusalem count as prophesy when people who believe the Bible are actively working to make this happen. I don’t know your religion but when sects like the Jehovah’s Witness folks stop by and describe their latest prophesy, I remember how many times they have failed in in their past prophesies.
@@evidencebased1 Well, plenty of people understand enough of what God needs us to know to be saved, there are plenty of types of evidence... Further information, the more we can learn is just something that can build our faith deeper. it's not my job to convince someone who is determined not to believe, right? Would be a waste of my time right? Even in the way you're replying, you make an effort to be antagonistic, so that is your choice really, I understand.
But I hope one day you will reconsider your idea of whether God has done enough, because our pride gets in the way and we make false assumptions.
So, doesn't it make more sense for me to speak to someone who is interested to understand what God intends for us who trust the things we do understand and have faith about the things we don't yet have all the answers for.
Tracey M
I don’t mean to appear antagonistic. I just wanted to point out another view. If God exists and wants to have a relationship I am ready. Also, the Bible says you aren’t wasting your time talking to me, if you can save me from being condemned.
Mark16:15-16
And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
If you are wrong, however, and I can help make the world more rational and less dogmatic, perhaps I can hope for a better world.
Solid case!
Yes, it's pretty CLEAR CUT!
@Skeptic Psychologist ok, you got it...
The value of a person doesn't go away when that person falls asleep. It doesn't even go away when that person dies and decomposes. A rotting corpse doesn't have value, but the person it used to be still has exactly as much value, and so if we could bring that person back to life then we would. This is why we try to help and protect people in comas, because we hope for them to wake and bring back the person that we value. That hope is the only reason we care about an unconscious body, and that doesn't apply to an unborn fetus.
Since a fetus has never been awake, we're not hoping for anyone to return, but instead we may hope for a new person to arrive when the baby is born. People acquire value over their lives in the form of memories, skills, relationships, and hopes for the future, and these things are worth preserving, but a fetus has none of these things. A fetus may acquire these things in the future, but so could any fetus, and there is no shortage of fetuses. The precious memories of a person can never be replaced or recreated once that person dies, but a fetus is like a blank slate, and so a fetus is easily replaceable. Unless there is some person who wants a child, a fetus has no value, and abortions only ever happen when the fetus is unwanted.
Ansatz66 by your logic that would be if someone with no family woke up from a coma with memory problems. I guess they aren’t valuable either.
@@kingorange7739
No, but it would mean the tragic loss of who that person was before. If she never gets her memories back, then it's much like she died. Even so, once she's awake she immediately starts forming new memories and all the other things that make a person valuable. Just like when a baby is born, a person who loses her memories can start a fresh life as a new person with all the value of any other person.
Ansatz66 first off babies do not form long term memories from the moment it’s born. Unless u count recognizing the mother and father which it can do even before it is born. Also no losing ur memories does not make u dead.
Ansatz66 also a baby can start a new life, it’s first life.
That all depends on perspective. You could die tomorrow and I wouldn't know or care. That human life is valuable even without someone else's desire for them to be alive. Your comment doest even make sense
If they claim that's its their body and they can do what they want with it then why would suicide be viewed as a negative thing to them
One person rights can't over ride the rights of other's
Michael Blair what are u referring to by saying that?
Depends on which rights.My right to happiness doesn't mean I can kill you just because you made me sad. i.e. your right to life trumps my right to happiness in this case.
The abortion question is far easier to sum up than watching this video all the way to the end. Are you pro-life? If yes, then you are the moral side. That's it.
What simplistic and unsubstantiated twaddle. 😫🥱
@@Dhorpatan It's neither. Look, plenty of arguments can be made for logical and intelligent reasons to abort. But no moral one. Leftist have to recognize that you can't win em all. If you're killing a human being, you're not doing the moral choice. It doesn't need to be complex.. but I get that it's hard for leftist to accept that they cannot sanctimoniously look down at people because they're so convinced that they're always the side of good.
Angelo Maldini One word: Antinatalism. The idea that life is suffering.
Flips your entire pro-life morality on its head. 😉
@@metalvisionsongcontest7055 Antinatalism?! Really? It doesn't flip morality on pro-life on account of how stupid it is. Anyone that feels that way, that death is better than life, is a hypocrite. Because they choose to live.
Angelo Maldini Antinatalists do not choose to live. 😉 They would actually prefer to never have been born. And anyone who believes that people who would prefer not to live could "just kill themselves" obviously does not understand how human survival instincts work, and how difficult they are to overcome, even when it would be the rational thing to do. Life is procrastination of death, basically.
Saying men don't have a say is saying a father they have no rights over the mother in regards to her decisions concerning the child after birth.
Men don't have any rights when it comes to abortion. It is impossible to enforce a father's right to veto abortion. All she has to do is deny even knowing who the father is, or get some other guy to pretend to be the father.
A LIFE IS A LIFE
Egg cells are life even before conception.
Yup, doesn’t mean you aren’t allowed to kill it, or at least deny it the opportunity to live.
The jurors on Roe v. Wade were all men? You can't make this stuff up.
Roe v wade was unconstitutional btw
Yep, and here we have 2 men discussing it. You can't make it up.
@@johnwescott1500 this is an issue that effects men too because probably half the fetuses are boys so abortion is a threat to the lives of men in a tremendous way especially if we don't have a right as men to protect the most vulnerable among us.
The supreme court doesn't have jurors. It has judges.
We don't have jurors you dummy. We have justices
This is a Womens right. It’s her body. Her choice. No one has a right to make that decision.
Still not her body she's killing.
What about the little woman, the one trying to be born? Stop saying it's her body. It is not her body.
Not her DNA. Not her body. Why do you support violating another human being's right to life and bodily rights?
Also, when do women's rights begin?
If we're talking legally, I think the best argument for abortion to be legal is that people who don't see why they shouldn't do it are going to do it anyway, and it being illegal will result in both medical issues for these poor souls. It being illegal might also distract from the moral reasoning, such that the situation we are in now where many people are really irresponsible might be caused by the fact that society has had these rails for quite some time, where regular people wouldn't really feel a need for abortions or self-serving love lifes, and then suddenly like a bomb there is a thought that the law can be changed, and there is no moral foundation beneath. Christian faith itself really fundamentally is based on the idea that one does not act because of law, but of gratitude and love and walking with God in ones heart. Having laws for moral reasons might not be the best idea. One should perhaps accept that one can fundamentally not make people moral beings by legislation. That does not mean have no laws, of course not, it means as a Christian one should follow law, and be careful about making law, especially laws about controversial issues. If an issue is controversial, a law will most likely only serve as a distraction for people, and the argument will become about wether or not the law is tyrannical or not, and peoples hearts will be hardened.
Ok so by ur logic we wouldn’t want theft or murder illegal either
yessss!1
Ben Shapiro: think of a person in coma, who probably will wake up in 9 months. Do you end that life?
If that person was hooked up to my body for life support against my will, damn straight I will end that life.
If someone you know is in a coma and doctors find out he'll never regain consciousness, something happened to his brain so that his consciousness is essentially dead, is it wrong to pull the plug that's keeping him alive? I mean, he has no consciousness but he's just as alive as an embryo
@M My main point was addressing that no one really cares about being "biologically alive" since the person in the coma i presented is biologically alive, it just doesnt have the potential for conscousness.
Answering your other question, sperm cells also have the potential to gain consciousness, should masturbation be illegal?
@M Many people i argue with use this argument that "living biologically" is what matters, i cant really say its the majority of pro-lifers but i do believe thats the case.
Ok, so the sperm cells becomes an embryo, so what? The sperm cell still has a potential to become conscious, it will have to go into a phase of embryo, the same way an embryo will have to go through morula, morula will have to go through blastula,... The point remains, should masturbating be illegal?
@M You argue it is wrong to kill someone iff those 3 conditions are met:
(1) define alive
(2) ia it ok for me to go across the street and kill a dog then? What about torture one?
(3) define organism
Also, again, having the potential to X means literally there is the possibility of X. Sperm cells have the potential to become human literally means they can become a human, you cannot get away saying " they become another organism along the way ", sure, so what? They still become a human in the end. What you're saying is similar to claimig " galactic dust doesnt have the potential to become a planet because they will cease to be galactic dust at one point ", i dont know how you cant see it.
@M (1) ok, so you seem to be define "alive" as "biologically alive", i'll make my analogy again then: if you knew someone in a coma and somehow the doctor proves he's never gonna recover from it, would you unplug him? Or would you let him stay in the coma forever (knowing he's never gonna wake up).
(2) In the answer where you proposed (1),(2),(3) it can be seen you were thinking of them as being a necessary condition by the way you phrased it, but im ok with you changing your mind. As a side note, which animals do you think it is wrong to kill or torture, is it wrong to kill/torture a cat, pig, cow,...?
@M (1) All of those things, would you seriously keep him alive if the doctors had proved he is never gonna regain consciousness? Im gonna clarify that a person in a coma is not conscious, so he's not experiencing anything in the hospital bed nor is aware of anything, and ( by what i assumed ) he's never gonna regain it back, he's an empty shell.
(2) wow, this is an extremely absurd view, "it is only wrong to kill an animal because you will become insensible to humans". It is wrong to torture animals by itself, animals feel pain therefore causing pain to them should not be done, only enlarging your moral circle to humans is a ridiculous choice and i truly hope you dont have a pet if you seriously believe those things.
The counter argument would be - even if I buy his premise that we should care about the kind of being you are. I say we should value the kind of beings that are:
1. Part of the human species
2. A person under the definition 2.a
2.a A person is anyone who either is capable, or has been capable of exercising the unique characteristics found in the human species. (reasoning, high capacity for feeling a wide range of emotion, bodily autonomy & viability etc. (The latter two being essential for them to be able to in practice live out the former two.))
The reason an embryo does not fit the criteria of a person, but someone in a coma does, is exactly because they once fit into the definition in 2.a. Only at that point do we have a moral obligation towards those human beings, because they either do have currently, or used to have a tangible positive impact on people's lives.
You have to explain the relevance of the statement that one "used to" have those characteristics. By that logic, someone who's braindesd with no hope of regaining consciousness has the same value as a conscious person. Why? How can someone who only "used to" be conscious have the same intrinsic or extrinsic value?
That doesn't answer the question. I get that the unconscious individual likely had a positive impact on someone, but killing that person doesn't erase that past. You're also assuming that the person had a significant positive impact on someone and/or has loved ones, and that's not necessarily true.
As for why you should value the "clump of cells", it's because of their potential for consciousness. Potential is what ultimately gives life intrinsic value.
(Btw, your post disappeared for some reason).
@@TonyMishima92 You're the one who has to defend the claim that life has intrinsic value then, because I don't agree. I am simply stating that I care about the human species, and specifically members of it that used to be or currently are conscious. The fact that humans are alive is not really of great concern to me.
The reason I don't include those who potentially could be conscious in the future, is very simply because they aren't currently, and haven't been conscious in the past.
I do not care about the quantity or the length of the conscious experience, only the quality of it. Whether that conscious person is experiencing pleasure or pain. If you are not conscient, guess what, you're no longer an issue to me morally speaking. Are you going to be in the future? Okay, once you are, we can talk about which rights you should have. That's why I'm not for abortion past 21 weeks.
Until then, I do not care. I only care for the mother's needs.
Sure, it might be conscious in the future, but so what? Each individual sperm cell in my ball sack might be conscious should I happen to impregnate a woman with them. The potential is meaningless.
I also have a potential to murder someone. No one would doubt the subject of murder is a moral question, but until there's even a hint of a reason to think I might be about to murder someone, you should not care about it. My "potential" for the action is irrelevant. You're not going to judge someone for moral wrongdoing without evidence. And as it stands, there is no evidence a human embryo is conscious.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter
Oh. So you deny the fact that people generally value their own lives? Society as we know it can't cohesively function without that concept.
You still haven't fully fleshed out the relevance of "past" consciousness. Again, it's incorrect to automatically assume they such individuals were of significant value to others, and taking their lives "now" has absolutely no consequence on the past. And "currently" conscious has no meaning since that dependent on the immediate future.
Sperm cells do not have potential for consciousness. Sperm is one of multiple ingredients to create such an individual. Your own sperm cells aren't separate entities. But once that embryo is created, there's no point in drawing some arbitrary line in the development of when the individual matters.
Moral judgment is a false equivalence to the value of life. I'm not referring to judging people for potential action, it's about valuing life based on potential consciousness. Again, life is meaningless without a potential for experience.
@@TonyMishima92 *"Oh. So you deny the fact that people generally value their own lives? Society as we know it can't cohesively function without that concept."*
Yes I do deny that. What they value is maintaining their consciousness.
Plants are alive, but people don't care about stepping on grass as much as they do other people, for exactly the reasons 1 - 2.a I described earlier.
But hey, if you wanna argue it's all about life, and not consciousness, then good luck making an argument for why a sperm cell and an embryo are not on equal grounds. None are conscious, both have the potential to be. An embryo still needs the mother's nutrients and body at large to develop, much like the sperm cell needs her body + an egg to fertilize. The difference is neglible.
I love doctors who bring their Christianity into their work
That’s may sound ironic but, it’s not
If any doctor of mine starts going on about how angels are persons without being humans, I'm running for another doctor.
@@bskec2177
Yeah really. Im not having a YEC doctor having that much control over my health. For all I know hed recommended mercury therapy
This same simplistic argument can be used against capital punishment or self defense if a person can't be killed simply because it's a person.
How so?
Stephen Taylor
How so? Well if a prisoner is a person, and persons can’t be killed because they are persons, as per this argument, then a prisoner can’t be executed. Or a police officer can’t use lethal force against a suspect, because he’s a person. This shows that an anti-abortion argument like this one is flawed.
ConservativeMirror we are against the murder of innocent human beings. we are against the murder of children.
No one makes that argument.
@@kingorange7739
"Innocent" isn't part of the argument presented in the video! "Murder" isn't part of the argument presented in the video. The argument presented is much more general than this.
Im not against or for abortion, but I am against flawed reasoning. Here the word “human being” is equivocated and maybe even used to straw man. A human zygote is by definition “human”, meaning it has human DNA, but more specifically and correctly it is a Human Zygote. There are many differences between a baby human or even a fetus to a zygote. Im not sure if scientist are using the term “human being” or just using the word “human” and then being straw maned to “human being”, but either way they definitely don’t mean that anything that has the label human or human being are all the same and have the same “value”, they just mean they have human DNA. After all a dead human is still a human with human DNA and even if we call it a “human being” like we would a 20 yr old living human, that doesn’t make them equal in “value”.
His argument is irrelevant, human or not the unborn child doesn’t get additional rights that we don’t get.
So I completely agree, a embryo as a potential human being should get exactly same rights as a person.
My bodily autonomy trumps other people’s rights to life.
Cy5208 your example lacks a few things.
Did you consent to the process?
@@Gumpmachine1 You didn't stipulate that things like others people's rights or consent matter. You just stated your bodily autonomy trumps other people's right to life.
So you now seem to be saying that it doesn't trump in all cases which is my point. So it isn't a matter of extra rights.
Could I shrink a baby or infant and do it? They cannot consent to anything like a fetus so would that make it OK? Don't raise oh but the parents didn't consent, I can just think up an example of an orphan Blah blah.
This should make it clear abortion isn't primarily about bodily sovereignty rather it's about the moral obligations we have to moral patients we create with full moral worth.
If it's wrong for a person to push a button and five seconds later a baby would appear in the vacuum of space, or a woman pushing a button and it appears in her womb to then die in both cases - via an abortion - there is fundamentally no difference in those instances being wrong and a embryo being created in a womb via consenting sex only to be killed later.
Cy5208 what?!, bodily autonomy always includes consent. They’re intertwined, you’re getting confused. Giving consent determines whether the “ant man” gets to stay there.
Your right to life does not supersede my bodily autonomy, meaning I get to choose whether I violate my own autonomy to help you.
This is a well accepted standard that we already use, I’m just applying it to foetuses to keep things equal.
Are you saying right to life should be more important that bodily autonomy?.
Cy5208 so you agree that consent must be given to violate someone’s bodily autonomy if imposed?.
@@Gumpmachine1 I've already said in cases where other people impose on you yes. But if you make another person transgress your bodily autonomy lack of consent is hardly a justification by itself to kill them. It would be similar to a kidnapper arguing he had a right to kill the victim because she was trespassing on his property.
Atheist here. Nobody is saying That human embryos are not the same species are humans. But just in the same way nobody should then go on to declare them "persons". According to your assumptions, a being HAS to have moral value in order to have the right to live and therefore this moral value has to COME from somewhere. Both of these are wrong. Moral value is a construct of the mind - your brain is weighing the outcomes and is deciding where to attribute moral value and where not to. From an evolutionary stand point if a hunter gatherer's brain was attributing high moral value to animals then they're more likely to NOT reproduce due to malnutrition. Nowadays that humans have time to THINK we can see that it is perhaps somewhat arbitrary that we put other species below ourselves. There is no definitive way in which you can prove why YOU are more morally valuable than a pig because moral value is a subjective human construct. In a system where morality is objective (like religion) this is problematic and therefore axioms are placed without justification and people are forced to think in absolutes ("ABORTION IS ALWAYS WRONG"). In what I'd say is my coherent atheistic view, morality is subjective and therefore I don't have to make such claims. I can examine each individual situation within its context and make a moral value judgement that may differ from embryo to embryo (or fetus
to fetus) depending on the immediate situation. Please stop spreading dogma. Thanks for reading.
TL:DR
Atheist me is salty about this video and its comment section.
peTZspeTZ Ima be completely honest I’m too lazy to read but I disagree. 😂
You do have people who think that embryos are not human. You have atheist on YT saying that if embryo is not sentient, it is not human (Rachel Oates and Holy Koolaid, to list a few).
You're confusing objective with "absolute." Not every pro-lifer believes abortion is absolutely wrong. The majority of them support it for medical reasons. So there can be a case-by-case deliberation.
If our value is generated by our brains then or value is imaginary.
Stacy Cubillos Because generating something in your brain is that’s exactly what it means to imagine something.
A good description of reality is *reality is that which when you stop believing doesn’t go away.* So if it can go away when you stop believing it, it isn’t reality.
"The best cure for Christianity is reading the Bible."
Mark Twain
I've found that only born-again redeemed believers can actually understand the bible and its message for humanity. Everyone can know what it says, but to understand it is something more deep and different.This is a hard pill to swallow. No-one is truly a christian until they become born-again. This is a spiritual regeneration that happens by the grace of God, and not by any mans doing. This gives spiritual discernment. Those who call themselves christians and leave the faith, were never really Christians to begin with, and thus tarnish the name. Those who use religion for acquiring money, control or fame are not really Christians, and thus tarnish the name. The term has been so washed and diluted today that I don't much care for the term. I didn't find God in church, he found me on my couch having never gone to church. I did however read it, and my faith grew because of it. Now I'm sober and free from the anxieties and worries this world has to offer. Death is only gain, and life is more abundant than ever. Now I have a family larger than I can comprehend, and always something to look forward to. I now understand what it means to have hope. God is good, and Jesus saves. I am witness, as is He.
@@coryanderson5210 *FACT1-* The Bible approves eating meat & it even suggests what animals to slaughter & eat. *FACT2-* You thank God for your life & also for the life of the animals you eat. *FACT3-* You thank God for choosing you out of many patients to recover from illness. *QUESTION-* Are you able or unable to see how religion has fooled you to believe in its imaginary God by exploiting your hypocrisy, narcissism, gullibility, ignorance & arrogance?
This is excellently said. Really helpful to have these solidified arguments all in one video.
This is excellent, but the number of advertisements really interrupts and detracts from it.
uBlock origin is your friend
This is the best according to Christianity, not from a factual standpoint
Edit: not tryna sound toxic, good video nonetheless