It doesn't matter! NO Person has the right to occupy with any part of his (or presumably her) body, any part of another person's body who doesn't want it there,
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069well in case you didn’t know a child does have the right for its necessary needs like a uterus and breast feeding when it comes to its biological mother because of parental responsibilities and that should include inside or outside of the womb.
@@alfredomaldonado6614a child doesn’t have a right to breastfeed. It has a right to be fed, but it doesn’t have a right to breastmilk, nor the right to any particular woman’s milk.
Shannon and Trent: I was so impressed with the civility, respect and productive dialouge exercised by both of you. We need more debators like both of you!
@@irenemccann7032 If you are brain dead, you are neither. If you are with less brain than a cat, you are neither. Literally, you have to be a person to be either male or female
@@marksandsmith6778 mark please tell us why you think Trent is a shill ???? I disagree with Shannon when she claims that consciousness is and emergent property of the brain . Near death experience studies are starting to lean heavily against that view because we’ve had people report veridical perception without a functioning brain like in cardiac arrest . And Shannon has sown familiarity with the NDE scientific literature and the only reason I’d see as to why she’d take this position is her atheistic worldview
@@angelbrother1238 shill INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN noun an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others. "I used to be a shill in a Reno gambling club" verb act or work as a shill. "your husband in the crowd could shill for you" This assumes Trent' intellect so I could be wrong. M SS
@@ancestralflyingman7079 it is a human nature that makes you and I valuable. My value as a person is not dependent on something I am doing. Thinking or breathing are behaviors, and they are not restricted to humans. A mouse has some kind of consciousness and does have some sort of thoughts. But the life of a mouse is not as valuable as that of a human.
I'm surprised she didn't notice the contradiction there: 1. She says reacting to stimuli isn't a good definition of personhood because it applies to too many things. 2. She admits her definition of personhood applies potentially to rats and pigeons.
@@thesoliloquist1940 But Trent's was a challenge that revealed if one wishes to include beings which merely have consciousness at the level of a newborn baby as persons then it follows that one should also include lobsters. However, if one wishes instead to only include those animals which have higher levels of consciousness such as primates then one should exclude 1 year old babies.
@@LtDeadeye That’s why person is not made of a single thing but composed pf different things. Would u rather save ur dog or a lobster? Would you save a new born or your dog? Would you rather carry out an abortion or kill a new born ?
@@imoyabrax450 I agree. We aren’t simple. But what would I do is a much less important question than what should I do. My intuitions to save my dog over the lobster will have been influenced by my experiences and relationship with lobsters and my dog. The same goes for the other forced dichotomies.
Its funny how we can say a type of grass is alive if it is growing, and is called a living grass, and is dead if it dies and stops growing, and is called a dead grass, but a growing baby is not a growing baby person when it is growing and doesn't become a person until it can accomplish certain tasks.
I'm not quite sure if you're saying a newborn isn't a person. I think it's Carl Sagan who says that if a foetus with a certain level of frontal cervical capacity is a person, then so is a dolphin.
@@danvankouwenberg7234 grass is probably a bad example because some people would think seasonal grass is dead grass just because it stopped growing for a season.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 Cant go on brain size or even function or you could unplug someone in a temp coma. Just like a baby is only that way for a bit.
Trent, you are such a charitable and gifted conversationalist! I’d love it if you would dialogue with ex-Calvinist Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101.
Most respectfully, I suggest reading Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira article on “Dialogue”. This constant use into our lexicon is a new development and has Marxist roots. More can be read here: www.tfp.org/unperceived-ideological-transshipment-and-dialogue/
Wow! Trent Horn is an amazing speaker. I hope he continues his journey to try and save unborn children. I am amazed on how calm and collected he is. They way he makes you think.... " hmm..I've never thought about it like that before 🤔💡" is insane! Good Job Trent Horn 👍👍
Just saw there was a video version of this, I listened to the dialogue when it first came out and thought it was an excellent discussion that didn't get heated even with as big a topic as abortion. I do affirm Trent's arguments, especially as a Catholic, but I appreciate that Shannon has seriously thought about this issue and tried her best to defend her position. I do hope that she takes these arguments and is influenced by them to convert to defend the sanctity of life and personhood! :)
As a Catholic, how do you feel about the sanctity of life of the molested kids by Catholic priests that the church did nothing to make sure justice was served? Why is it pro-lifers fight so hard for the right of an unborn fetus but look the other way when children after birth suffer?
@@scottiemcgee3838 First, this is a red herring that has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. This isn't a case where we can't fight both issues. We could both name an endless list of injustices in the world but that doesn't mean we ignore an issue and just claim whataboutism. Second, you can bet that Catholics are mad, upset, frustrated that the abuse scandal happened, no one is okay with it. More importantly, we have not turned a blind eye. The Catholic Church has taken action such as the 2002 Dallas Charter which revamped background checks, psychological evaluation in the seminaries, procedures that make sure children are not in an improper setting (more than 1 adult with children required). You'll find a vast majority of the reported cases come from the 60's-80's and between 1960-2002 4% of global priests were *accused*. Since 2005, there have been on average about 7 substantial accusations per year in the United States compared to the several tens of thousands of minor sexual abuse cases annually. Even one single case is still horrible, but the Catholic Church is not this harbinger of hiding abusers.
@@ragelikecage4012 it's not a red herring if the outcome of your preferred result of a pregnancy is for the birth to succeed rather than an abortion. Pro-lifers demand for abortions to stop, regardless of how shitty particular children's lives would be if they were to be born. It's easy to stand outside a clinic and shout murderer, but if they got their way, are they gonna help the children that will be born into poverty, abusive/neglectful situations, drug related deformities....etc? Some might, but the reality is there would be a ton of kids in horrible situations no one should deal with. And the attack on Catholic's treatment of pedarast priests was pointing out that many of the priests never had to atone for their sins. They got away with molestation and rape.
@@scottiemcgee3838 As a catholic I stand against this however it is quite difficult to challenge it when you have politicians involved in this as well. for instance Vice-president Harris withheld key evidence to convict some clergy of molestation, preventing catholic victims from getting justice. secularism has been involved in the churches corruption. However many Catholics stand against it. But must of us still adhere to the fact that the church is infallible but not impeccable. Just read Dr taylor marshalls book on infiltration. And the catholic church teaches that the sacraments we receive isnt affected if the person giving it is a sinner. I do however disagree with the last bit of your comment. If a child in mid Africa is going to die before the age of 3 because of starvation or plague. should we decide to rather kill the child to prevent suffering. The catholic church is also the largest charitable organization in the world, they have built numerous amounts of schools, nurseries hospitals/clinics and shelters. and have supported millions of families with the problems you brought up even for the LGTQ community ( even though we disagree with homosexuality we support those we are conflicted) I just question your opinion that we should rather kill people to alleviate suffering, how is that at all moral. That in itself is so discriminatory, the world would be better off without disabled children ( this might be a strawman) but when you come down to the matter this is essentially what youre implying.
There are living persons who can be hurt by having too many siblings. It i evidence of the hypocrisy of the Vatican that if it wishes to have fewer abortions, one good way to prevent them is called contraception.
So she is saying.. the lack of value is due to lack of consciousness... But when asked if its the same to kill a non-human animal with similar consciousness to an infant as killing an infant, the value is then determined by its humanity... Alright...
Great presentation of arguments from Trent. I couldn’t stop laughing at the wtf facial expression he had on most of the time. Thanks for your work Brother. Enjoying your podcast as well. I’m a devout confessional Lutheran and find myself agreeing with you most of the time more than I do with Protestants.
From the rites that you have and the way you refer to the church fathers as an aid in reading the scriptures, you guys are basically lite catholics, you just refuse the magisterium of Christ.
Steve @Steve Human being is not a scientific “notion.” Rather, it’s a scientific fact that when 2 living human beings from the species mate, the product will be the same species as the parents. Person is different than human. Human is a biological, scientific term and person is philosophical, legal term. The term personhood has a changing definition throughout history. Check out Lia Mills’ TH-cam video called “are the unborn person” for more info (the video from 9 years ago)
@@vaskaventi6840 huh? No, nobody has the right to force somebody else to give up their bodily functions. Not a 2 year old, not a 60 year old and certainly not a unviable fetus.
@@KC-py5vq “Nobody has a right to force someone else to give up their bodily functions” > Yet if we accept that the fetus is a human person, the abortion is clearly forcing the fetus to give up his/her bodily functions as well.
Trent, you have been on fire lately. I really think you are especially good on these particular topics, relating to abortion. You are very well informed, and do an excellent job representing the Catholic position. Thanks, hope to see some more. I am loving all your debates on this particular topic, not only that the extra material you go over very specific objections regarding the more specific nuanced ethics of this.
Trent was right to say that assigning more value to someone is like you is essentially the same thing that happens in racism. And it's really not even an argument
@Peter Cho I think you are speaking to someone who doesn't believe in heaven and the heavenly brings... Doesn't seem like the best approach to reach... them bombarding them with messages they clearly reject 🤔
Shannon, as a Christian, I would like to apologize for the comments below. You are an honest, caring person who appears to value life. We value your honest search for truth and wish you peace and love in your search for love and mercy.
Trent's premise is solid so his arguments were consistent. Shannon's premise was shaky and she had to resort to a lot of ad hoc. Her position would indeed include other species and her response to that would justify racism.
Great discussion, thank you very much. One take from this for me is that it kind of proved that the debate about abortion is far from over, contrary to some people claim.
@@mewho6199 you can deny someone the use of your organs for their survival but no person has the right to deliberately kill another person without proper justification. when you deny, for instance, a fatally ill leukaemic person from using your bone marrow for his survival, you're right that he can't force you to give him your bone marrow. But at the same time, you don't also have the right to actively and deliberately kill that leukaemic person by means of suction, poisonous chemicals or dismemberment and end his life right there and then without proper justification. that's a better analogy of what actually happens in abortion. in the case of the leukaemic person, if yiu deny him your bone marrow, you're not actively responsible for his death. his own condition brings about his death. but if you deliberately kill the leukaemic person before his condition brings about his death, you ARE responsible for his death. just like that, in the case of the unborn, you don't passively let the unborn naturally die out in abortion. you choose to actively and deliberately kill it. and that too for lifestyle concerns that wouldn't justify killing any person in any another situation. and to treat an unborn child as if the child were some hostile intruder intentionally intruding into your life is just another bad analogy. you don't bring someone into your home and then treat him as if he broke into your home.
I though this was a really interesting conversation different to many of the dialogues about abortion that I have heard. I think another large difference between you two is the way you view consciousness in its relation to the brain. Loved it!
The point that should have been attacked the most was when she admitted that we don't know how to define personhood and therefore we shouldn't have laws protecting it. If we do not know with certainty when life/personhood begins, then the law should err on the side of caution to protect the possible life. The absence of certainty does not negate the existence of something.
Yes, CA answered made a similar point. They asked the caller: If you’re out hunting rabbits and you see something moving in the bush, but there is a chance that it is a child. Should you shoot?
Except that erring on the side of caution means that we must accept the possibility that we are forcing harm (pregnancies cause harm in varying degrees) on people whose personhood is NOT in question by removing their ability to protect themselves against harm. How can you justify the possibility of that outcome? If I shoot someone on the street because I was erring on the side of caution that they might try to harm me, you probably would consider that an immoral action because you understand there is the alternative possibility that they weren’t going to try to harm me and therefore they were unnecessarily killed. So square that for me. Why is it ok to err on the side of caution for X when it comes to the harm that comes to pregnant women even if that harm or kill them might have been unnecessary because it wasn’t X, but not for any other circumstance?
@@stewartcollins948 why not? You are erring on the side of forcing harm on someone because of possibilities. I don’t see why one possibility should be special pleaded. There is a possibility that the pregnancy, if the fetus develops from not person into person, harm will come to the woman. Women are people. And as people, we have the same rights that men do to protect themselves not just from actual harm but ALSO to protect themselves under the THREAT of harm before any harm actually occurs. I can shoot anyone breaking into my house in the middle of the night without stopping to assess whether or not they are just drunk and got the wrong house, or is just someone sleepwalking. They don’t have to actually mean me physical harm in order for me to protect my body from harm, nor do I have to wait until they start causing me harm before I exercise my right to defend myself. So not only are you arguing to remove a woman’s right to defend herself against harm at a time that it is a person (when in no other situation is a man prohibited from defending himself against harm) but now you want to remove her right to defend herself on the mere POSSIBILITY that the mass of cells is a person. Sounds like when it comes to women, you view them as person adjacent and more like property in that occupying the insides of their bodies without their consent doesn’t constitute a violation or harm unto itself. Reminder: rape can be physically gentle and still constitute harm because the violation of bodily integrity is - in and of itself - causes harm. (Note: I’m not talking about abortions that result from rape. I’m talking about rape because it is the only thing people seem to even partially understand about the concept of consent without the emotional baggage that comes with the abortion discussion)
@@stewartcollins948 I think you might be approaching your position with the ignorance that 100% of pregnancies harm women to some degree. exhaustion, altered appetite and senses of taste and smell, nausea and vomiting, heartburn and indigestion, constipation, weight gain, dizziness and light-headedness, bloating, swelling, fluid retention, hemorrhoids, abdominal cramps, yeast infections, congested, bloody nose, acne and mild skin disorders, skin discoloration, mild to severe backache and strain, increased headaches, difficulty sleeping and discomfort while sleeping, increased urination and incontinence, bleeding gums, pica, breast pain and discharge, swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain, difficulty sitting and standing, inability to take regular medications, shortness of breath, higher blood pressure, hair loss, tendency to anemia, curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities, immunosuppression, hormonal mood changes, stretch marks, loose skin, permanent weight gain or redistribution, abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, pelvic floor disorder, changes to breasts, varicose veins, scarring, other permanent aesthetic changes to the body, increased proclivity for hemmorhoids, loss of dental and bone calcium, higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's, hyperemesis gravidarum, temporary and permanent injury to back, severe scarring requiring later surgery, prolapsed uterus, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, diabetes, placenta previa, anemia, thrombocytopenic purpura, severe cramping, embolism, medical disability requiring full bed rest, diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles, mitral valve stenosis, serious infection and disease, hormonal imbalance, broken bones, hemorrhage, refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, aggravation of pre-existing diseases and conditions, psychosis, lower breast cancer survival rates, increased risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease, cardiopulmonary arrest, magnesium toxicity, severe hypoxemia/acidosis, massive embolism, increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction, malignant arrhythmia, circulatory collapse, obstetric fistula, future infertility, permanent disability, and death.
Trent your patience amazes me as always. Oh my goodness! The relativistic, secular perspective is just beyond frustrating to me. All I can do is pray for the Holy Spirit to touch the heart of Shannon and all those who are in favor of abortion. I’m grateful to be Catholic and that God has given me the ability to see the beauty of chastity. May God help Shannon!
FEDSJ ok honestly both of you are being kinda unreasonable. “Sky fairy nonsense” is dismissive of arguments people have for the existence of a god. And “oh right, do you not believe in god then” is dismissive of arguments people have against the existence of a god. The reason it’s such an inflammatory topic is because no one knows whether a deity exists. You can’t prove it with science. But you can make an effort to not be dismissive of people for no reason.
8:40-9:30 I have to disagree with Trent on his inaccurate assessment of Star Wars. Sure, Star Trek is more blatantly philosophical but Star Wars, while following the Buck Rogers formula, is also a "heroes journey". (When its done right- this wouldn't apply to any of the sequel movies) Didn't Lucas base the foundation of Star Wars on such a philosophy?
All space travel involving star to star journeys is Fantasy. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy made this clear by replacing Star Trek's di-lithium crystals with an Infinite Improbability Drive.
For those who propose this idea that one's person-hood is defined by a level of brain development or function, and that the loss of their memories or cognitive ability due to a brain injury would render them no longer the same person, or even a person at all, how do they deal with instances in documented out-of-body experiences related to near death events where the person is able to remember facts impossible to know outside of that experience? An example would be the well known case of the person who died on the operating table, left their body and traveled around the exterior of the hospital, and after they were revived remembered the location of a shoe on a ledge. This type of event would seem to indicate that the brain is not a container for our memories, but really more of an interface to access them from the soul. If so, then it would be the soul that defined an individual's person-hood, not the relative functionality of the body.
Out of body experience is not documented. It is a claim by someone who had an experience they can't explain. It has never been proven that anyone has actually been out of body.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 The fact that we know about such claims is because they are, in fact, documented. That does not mean that the they have been adequately investigated, or scientifically explained.
@@youngbloodk right so all we have is people saying things. That is not compelling I can say anything. We would have to verify the claims before we give them any weight.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 You said they were not documented. I pointed out that they are documented, but I did not say that someone reporting something makes it true. Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens, or to have seen bigfoot. Those are documented claims. That does not mean that they are true, nor does it mean they are false. Just because a somethings seems incredible, does not mean it is false. In several of the claimed out-of-body experiences, the people in question have reported details that should have been unknowable to them. This lends a degree of credibility to them, that warrants further investigation. Just as there are many true, documented, scientifically investigated miracles, I cannot dismiss the out-body-body claims just because they seem incredible. And anyway, the point was not that out-body-experiences are proven, but that if some ultimately proved to be credible, they might shed some light on the question of personhood, as related to brain function.
He is very patient with her. When I realized that they were discussing personhood and I think she talks in circle, I find it hard to listen to the discussion. Why is there still a debate after all this time?
@@KC-py5vq Because, per your own words, there is a child involved that "wants" to live. Morality cannot be reducible to the desire(s) of the stronger party.
my wife is a molecular biologist. She notes that we are a genetically distinct humans upon fertilization. That's your blueprint for the rest of your physical life.
@Prasanth Thomas I admit that it's human I do not admit that it has the right to live if it has to live off the body of someone else. I think we're done here because you are an intellectually dishonest moron
@Prasanth Thomas Would you argue an human erythrocyte was also a member of the species h. sapiens? Or would you instead describe it as coming or taken from a member of that species? A direct yes or no answer will be appreciated.
I have no idea why there is even a discussion on personhood here, in regards to abortion. Who has ever argued human rights are derived from personhood? All men (mankind) are created equal! First, from time immemorial personhood was synonymous with 'human being'. Evidently people are trying to change this definition, therefore it has no value as a starting point. Second, personhood is descriptive of 'who' we are with an underlying presumption of 'what' we are (a human being)...ie, hence why personhood was synonymous with human being. Lastly, we can skip the whole personhood debate and go straight to identity which is where our founding American documents grounded our rights (our identity by virtue of our creator). We have human rights, not 'personhood rights'. We don't have rights because we can walk, talk, think, argue or any other reason....We have rights based on what we are, not who we are or what we can do. This means the question more properly comes down to when a human being exists and not when a human being becomes a 'person' (whatever that means now). Given that we know with certainty that a unique individual human being begins at conception (a scientific fact), and that a human being is a human being from beginning to end, the following logic follows inescapably: Premise 1: It is a moral evil to intentionally kill innocent human beings. Premise 2: Abortion always results in the intentional death of an innocent human being. Conclusion: Therefore, Abortion is always morally evil. So the question isn't when does a human being become a person. The question is do you think all human beings no matter how small have human rights?
@Qwerty Yeah I agree;. However, because rights are grounded in identity (and not personhood) and because there is now an on going debate on the Advent of personhood, it seems prudent to lead with the Advent of a human as a starting point rather than the muck of personhood. You agree?
Tyson Guess I think personhood is important because we can’t say a living single cell of our body is a “person” despite being a living component of a human being. I regard the human being, the human person, as a whole comprised of living parts. A body cell is a part with no personhood, whose telos, genetic information, is ordered and actively involved in producing tissue. A body cell grown on culture results in a slab of flesh. A sex cell is also a part, not a whole, as it is ordered toward preparing for fertilization, and does not develop if unfertilized. A fertilized sex cell has the genetic information ordered and actively involved in the development of a human being, it has the intrinsic power to acquire the emergent properties we see in a fully developed human. Therefore a fertilized sex cell, by virtue of the genetic information activated in a certain way, is a human person despite being unicellular and lacking consciousness. This is why I think personhood is important, if one considers cells, since each cell has the genetic information to produce a full human, but only one cell, a fertilized egg cell, is capable of doing so.
Well we don't have 'personhood' rights Reggie. There is no document that says we have 'personhood' rights. Furthermore, you're going to run into all kinds of issues trying to properly define 'person'. We have human rights. When a human being exists, which is at fertilization, then we have human rights. End of story. Now, I agree a zygote is a person because person is synonymous with human being. However, 'personhood' is an ambiguous legal term and standing on that term, when it is not legally defined is just foolish. If its human it has human rights. I don't care how someone defines person, thereby making that whole conversation unnecessary. Zygotes are a human being. Therefore they should enjoy all the benefits of being a human. "FullyGrown" has nothing to do with it since that is also just as ambiguous.
Qwerty what animal or insect is considered to be a person if your statement “not all persons are humans” is true. And you understand that if you are attributing personhood to an animal or insect then that means that that animal or insect is equally as morally valuable as YOU.
If you don’t consent to being pregnant, what does it matter what point a fetus is considered a person? No person in any other situation is allowed to override your ability to give or deny consent to your body.
JimAndMiscPeople accusing Shannon of avoiding the issues Trent presents, ignore the fact that she is very clear on this one. I would even amend it to "consent to continue being pregnant" as in a change of mind after a month or two.
22:00--shannon's objection to the language analogy falls flat when placed in the larger context of premise, ie particulars associated with potential/capacity of kind. I see an abortionist 2-step coming soon...
This discussion was more oriented toward putting forth arguments and dissecting them, and less oriented toward communicating and covering distance. I think a lot of time was wasted forcing the other person to defend what they were saying, rather than quickly putting everything on the table and then discussing and arguing the core of the issue. Seems to me they could both have let each other put it all on the table before starting to discuss objections. I do appreciate the discourse, but I also think it didn't get very far.
I was going to add, when the Spanish were conquering S. America and the Islands they had some of the same discussion about whether indigenous people constituted true persons. It didn't end well. The question may not be how we should define personhood but whether we have the right to define the personhood of another human.
i'd even suggest posting comments on Shannons channel for anyone that agrees with Trent because on Shannons channel that's where all those that disagree with Trent will be reading
Trent made a very strong counter-argument on the criteria laid down by Shannon on what constitute personhood which is consciousness then we will have to consider certain animals such as a rat who can navigate through a maze as person more than an infant on the ground that it seems that the rat is more conscious of its environment than an infant.
Shannon's ideas a contradictory mess, Trent is the only one in this conversation with a consistent and moral view and seeking clarification instead of obfuscation.
I've seen Shannon take over from two men discussing abortion, at least one of them an atheist friend. She was Very Clear about whether any person threatened even with death from kidney disease, has any RIGHT to demand that a relative with two kidneys provide one of them. Oh, by the way, my late wife's mother, and that woman's mother, both died in childbirth.
43:08 - 43:38 That's literally one of the reasons why ppl dont agree with abortion Thanks for making all these interviews, I never took debate but i'm totally gonna go for it next year.
47:34 I wouldn't argue that, i think they have an obligation to *someone* available so that they may survive. Before birth, that can only be the person pregnant. This is logically founded because we know under contexts of rape there was 0 responsibility of the victim for the birth, but sadly they are the only person who can provide the positive right to life. I'm NOT against child support, but it's ultimately more about financial equity, which IS an aspect of survival in this society but it's quite different from pregnancy on an actions required level.
So here is how her logic backfired. She said “it’s not a picture of the picture never developed. And that it had the “potential to be a full developed picture” meaning the ending result of the pictures FULL capabilities. Here is how the EXACT same logic would work.... we can kill the baby before they’re a teenager because they have NOT YET reached there FULLY developed potential to adult hood. Remember she’s devaluing someone based diff what stage they’re in. She will agree we exist from conception meaning we exist right? So she then won’t consider us worthy until we develop more and more to HER standard.
There are records of teen-age crime rates that have gone down between ten and twenty years after the passage of laws in various US states, making abortion available. This suggests that some babies whose mother bore them, against her will, do not have a childhood beneficial to themselves or society.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 true. So this would lead me to ask. Does this justify killing humans ? If so why stop it just before birth from this logic we would allow it for criminal who commit crime if to prevent more crime.
Sigh. No, mate. You aren’t even remotely following the logic. Trent is arguing that it’s a person because it will develop into a person. That’s an admission that it’s not a person YET. It’s not about value. It’s about how we consider things as they are, and not what they may, if allowed, become later on.
If I drop my cake batter on the floor I don't say "I ruined my potential cake" but rather I say "I ruined my cake" because everything that the cake is comprised of is in the batter before it's even baked in the oven
Absolutely it is, all humans are persons. There's no adult without childhood, as well as there's no childhood without babyhood and then foetushood. A person is a living human. Once the sperm successfuly fertilizes the egg, the product the zygote and foetus is a human person that continues to grow and learn
I've just made an apple pie, and was careful not to include seeds. But I'm quite keen on grape seed oil, which seems to me a remarkable byproduct (I presume) of winemaking.
Her arguments are quite circular. It's always sort of the same from the pro-choice side. They cannot properly keep their categories straight. They don't think in sets of things, in classes.
If your hunting and see activity in a bush but have not identified what it is do you fire the shot? Of course not! So if you don't know if the fetus is a person why kill it? What if your wrong?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 explain how a fetus is a parasite? Please include the scientific definition of a parasite in you explanation. You made a claim so the burden of proof is in you.
@@forgednotcast612 a parasite is an organism that needs a host to further its development. If a women is pregnant and doesn't want to be she has a parasite. So simple even a theist can understand.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 you do follow science right? Good, a parasite is > an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense. "the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes" Last I checked, a human is the same Species as a fetus! You are able to comprehend an English sentence correct? Please reread the definition before making an argument. Do you believe a mother and fetus are of the same Species? Yes or no?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 dude you just got destroyed lol. So simple even an atheist can understand. this is exactly what Nietzche meant when he alluded to atheists reducing humans to parasites... Atheists have become really predictable these days...
Abortion is also natural In all species, the parents can be observed terminating the life of the offspring if they judge that the environment cant support any more of their species..
@@joeytavez7055 really, everything you wrote was pedantic and hardly distinctive from my comment.. You were basically only more descriptive of what my input encapsulates.. Also i truly dont see how 'after theyre born' is less worse than terminating the offspring in utero.. Bc at least we can arrest their development before their sympathetic nervous system renders them the ability to actually feel being ended.. But 'im' the 'moron' right 😒.. Yours is what we call an 'irrational emotional response'.. Bc if you knew what you were saying, you would recognize that you are admonishing a procedure which is comparatively merciful opposed to the old fashioned method of population control practiced by all species.. Plus multiple instances of parent species ending the lives of their offspring have been documented in enclosures such as zoos for no other reason than them being future competition.. This being bc the enclosure is only known by the orginal specimen (it was built for) to be only supporting of them.. All species of cats kill off their male heirs bc they could mate with their females.. The examples of 'abortion' (or more technically 'filial infanticide') being a totally natural phenomenon could go on..
@@joeytavez7055 google 'ancient abortion' and this ought to clear up your confusion.. This practice wasnt created out of the 20th century.. Abortion is ancient and is evolutionarily ingrained in us as the urge to copulate.. We are animals with high intelligence, such like whales or primates..
The argument of potentiality takes you much farther than I think you realize. If you denounce the validity of potentiality or essence, then a being must fully possess what it is to be truly a human person because anything before reaching full personhood is still in the stage of being potential. But here’s the deal, if they must fully posses what distinguishes a HUMAN person specifically, and not a pig person, horse person, then logically full personhood can’t be truly reached until outside of the womb. Human persons are rational choice-making beings, but a new born human baby is not this. A full grown pig has much higher cognitive abilities than a new born baby, so surely we couldn’t ascribe full human personhood to the new born baby since he doesn’t fully possess what would differentiate himself from the pig. Therefore, post birth abortions should be morally permissible since the new born baby is not truly a person yet.
@ I don’t think that the species or organism is essential for personhood. Personally, I don’t think that even rationality and morality on the level of Homo sapiens is necessary for personhood. I think that sentience and brain development is essential for personhood…not the ”capacity to have the capacity” as Trent defines it. I admit that the distinction between human organism and human person is gradual and that a clear distinction is difficult to make (although ”moment of conception” is not without its own problems). Where we as a society draw a distinction depends on a number of factors (one of which happens to be species - not a coincidence). I also think that we as a society can draw an additional distinction between moral personhood (based on the conditions stipulated - and will include many animals and a fetus later on in its development) and legal personhood. Legal personhood kicks in after birth, and currently excludes most non-human animals. So no…intentional infanticide is not permissible. Potentiality can be a slippery slope. For example, if an embryo WILL turn into person if it is developed in a womb, and a human sperm or egg cells WILL also develop into a person if they fertilize or are fertilized (respectively) and are then developed in a womb, why draw the line at embryo and not gamete? How much external support do we as a society require?
@@kimmyswan I think what Trent and other people try to point out is if we are using a strictly materialistic frame work, if we don’t stop at the creation of the essence of something being the point of personhood, we are forced to draw the demarcation of personhood much farther past the point that most people would be comfortable. If we draw it at sentience or meaningful brain activity, then any species on earth that attains that level would also gain full personhood like you and I. Killing a pig would become not only animal abuse but murder. Most people can’t stomach that, so we must go further to find full HUMAN personhood. I think the moment the zygote or embryo is created, it creates its own future or individual stream of time in and of itself. It is in the mother, but it is also a completely individual biological life form. That’s why murder is wrong outside of any religious idea like killing something with imago dei. It’s not that you killed someone’s present, you stole their future. Any chance of memories and love that should have existed. So with an embryo, to end their life directly is to step into their stream of time and cut it short. To delete the future that existed.
@ I have heard these arguments before and they come with philosophical presuppositions about personal identity. But, first I will address your argument about personhood and animal sentience. Personally, I do think that it is morally ”wrong” to kill sentient non-human animals. My argument for this is twofold: brain development and speciesism. I think that we intuitively have a sense of human exceptionalism, and we have developed the cognitive ability to enact our sense of justice on others. I disagree that ”if we don’t stop at the creation of the essence of something being the point of personhood” that we are then forced to draw the demarcation of personhood much farther past the point that most people feel comfortable with. We can make a distinction even if we cannot draw a clear cut line at when that distinction emerges. We do this all of the time. We can play on the side of caution in abortion cases and set a non-arbitrary cutoff date depending on fetal development (it doesn’t have to be at birth and it doesn’t necessarily have to include other species). Now for your second argument…personal identity. Even if I agree that abortion is harmful because we are stepping into a fetus’ ”stream of time and cutting it short” (which I do not), how does the metaphysical view that a fetus is numerically identical to its adult self relevant to the fetus’ moral status? What property (other than species and dna) does a human fetus possess that affords it moral status and rights? I don’t think that an argument can be made that abortion harms the fetus, because I don’t there that there is ”someone” there to harm. Harm entails a conscious being whose well-being takes a turn for the worse.
@ I think your point of speciesism is where I’m going. Without any religious influence, we have no logical argument for our speciesism unless we have drawn the line of personhood MUCH farther down the line where others species are unable to attain to it. Without that It is simply illogical bigotry. A new born baby has no where near the mental cognitive abilities as a full grown pig. The new born baby simply holds within itself the nature or essence of our species that will allow for it to one day attain to the mental abilities that differentiate us from other species.
Athetheism, unlike priesthood and popery, is NOT a career. Christ at one part of the gospels warns that he won't be bringing peace. I spent 14 years in Northern Ireland, where very decent people are threatened over a disagreement about whether Almighty God, creator of billions of galaxies of billions of stars, does or doesn't give privileged information to a man living in a special part of Italy.
I don’t think Shannon was being Genuine in her response to Trents Questions. She differs to not understanding or just totally strawmaning his arguments.
Personhood is a metaphysical property, and so personhood needs to be analyzed with metaphysics. The discussion on personhood, I find, is too often focused on biology, which is helpful but not conclusive. The biological facts of a fetus could still be true whether the fetus was metaphysically a person or whether the fetus didn't even exist because reality is a simulation. If reality is a simulation, the biological facts about a fetus don't indicate its personhood or rights because it doesn't actually exist. As an idealist, I believe minds are dissociated alters of God and conception is the completion of that dissociative process, and being ontologically human we are categorically persons, so human life and personhood exists from conception. I'm not yet convinced that it's our personhood that gives us human rights, but our being the image of God that does this, but that is a separate discussion.
As human persons, we assign a higher value to other human persons simply because they are of the same species. This is a form of speciesism. However, we also make a value distinction between embryos and born persons as well. This is effectively illustrated in the hypothetical thought experiment: who would you save in a fire if you could only save one? One hundred frozen embryos or a five year old?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 I still have misogynists claiming women can and should be prohibited from practicing law. As a feminist (not feminine man, 😉), it irritates me to no end. Like many self-represented parties, they don’t know how to update cases. For some history see: “In 1873, this [Supreme] Court remained unmoved by Myra Bradwell's argument that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited a State from classifying her as unfit to practice law simply because she was female. Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873). In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Bradley described the reasons underlying the State's decision to determine which positions only men could fill: ‘It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.’” Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) 458 U.S. 718, 725 fn. 10 My Mormon dad, in the 60s and 70s, thought women should not vote because it was the man’s place to be in charge and lead, and the woman’s place to stay in the home. My Mom was a very hard worker, but she never had a paying job. I had a paying job on a farm at age 12. I made $50 per month, working on a farm. My dad took $25, and I had to pay all my expenses, except room and board. My dad never told me, but looking back on it, I’d bet he was probably cheating on taxes by reducing his income. He made $300 per month, plus a house. Hey, I put in a full days work in the summer time.
Notice how it seemed like she was offended when Trent mentioned the name of Jesus towards the end...I know she played it off like a joke, but you could see that it bothered her...that alone is a very telling sign that abortion is evil. It makes sense that someone that would defend abortion would be offended by the mention of the name of Jesus Christ.
The idea of Jesus and the immoral teachings and blatant contradictions in the bible make it hard to take someone's capacity to think rationally seriously. Trent is arguing for the moral position then invokes the name of a god that is immoral.
@@mikeyfox4749 I would say by the majority of people in the US, so our general local society. Most of us won't condone slavery or genocide, but the bible does. That's why cherry picking and "that was a different time back then" are so prevalent with religion.
44:47 she said I’m going to move on but I don’t think I fully answered your question. I’m sure she didn’t answer his question at all literally at all. His question simple. If I level of consciousness does not dictate the value of the human then what is the value of the human what dictates the value. She says it’s because the human is one of us and he simply sits so is a fetus and then she switched in sad we’re at a time let’s switch gears to the next question.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 If you had half a brain, you'd realize that was sarcasm. Go back to middle school biology if you seriously think that a pig fetus is not a pig.
She is so cruel. She pretty much says its fine to destroy something as long as it hasn't reached its final stage. Building a house? Its ok if someone burns down the frame since the house wasn't finished anyway. A baby is developing in the womb? Its ok to kill it since it hasn't reached a certain stage in its life cycle. And the way she gleefully laughs about this is disturbing. And to describe pregnancy as "parasitic" is just awful. A parasite is essentially a predator that feeds off its host. Pregnancy is the body creating a human, its not predation, its literally the body doing what it was made to do; reproduce.
Having sex is what the body was made to do…can you have sex without that person’s consent? Are they allowed to stop before sex has reached its final stage of completion? No? Now you understand her argument, mate. Nor you, me, or a fetus gets to use the body of someone who doesn’t continuously consent to that. If they stop consenting, out you go, even if you aren’t “done”.
This idea that a woman must endure a pregnancy just because you think it’s what her body was made to do ignores the fact that her continuous consent is required at all times. You reduce women to nothing but incubators, organic nurseries and it’s bloody disgusting, mate. Women are people. Not chattel.
@@johnlewis9266 "because you think it’s what her body was made to do" That's not my opinion, that's a biological fact. What do you think a womb is for? So can I abandon a 1 year old baby and let it die if I decide I don't consent to having to care for it?
During a course about abortion, the professor said that personhood depends on brain development. She told us that a walking, talking human being would be a nonperson if he had an underdeveloped brain. If she's right, does it make sense to say that you'd need an autopsy to tell whether a shooter murdered a person when he killed a human being?
@@leonardu6094 Leonard, that's the kind of thing some atheistic scholars can believe when they expect natural science to answer metaphysical questions. What does she mean by "brain development?" I don't know. Maybe she means that personhood depends on brain age. Children begin to know right from wrong at about seven years old. Some people even say that a baby becomes a person at birth.
@@leonardu6094 I believe each country should outlaw it. You may want to allow it after rape or incest. But that's like knowingly executing an innocent person instead of the criminal.
If all persons are intrinsically equally valuable then why don't they share equal rights in all things? While it may differ between different societies, we typically give persons different rights - and sometimes take them away - at different stages of their life (e.g. someone might lose the right to decide on the use of their own finances or make decisions on receiving medical treatment). It isn't personhood alone that decides what rights someone is given in many cases - why should it be so in this case?
Trent, many of your objections to the consciousness argument is look at other animals who have the same if not more of a cognitive ability then say infants and newborns, but of course we would not kill them and yet we are generally not concerned if something like a dolphin was killed as much as we would be if an infant was. The conclusion would therefore be, consciousness is a) not the feature that defines personhood or b) not the only feature that defines personhood. How would you have responded in Shannon invoked sort of two criteria that needed to be met for personhood. Namely a) being a biological human which is acquired from conception and then b) having that consciousness acquired at 20 weeks I think she mentioned. Because them whilst a dolphin might be more cognitive then a 1 year old, it doesn't satisfy a) so how would you have responded to that because whilst I am 100% pro life quite possibly soon to enter seminary I always want to be able to articulate my positions as best I can, that whole idea of 1 Peter 3:15 so rest assured whilst I'm playing the devils advocate I am not in fact the devil haha
If you want to articulate YOUR position why are you asking him for the answer? Can he give you your position? You are a follower and is probably a great candidate for the seminary
That would exclude people who are asleep or in a comma. Humans are not conscious when in those states but they're still persons. Therefore, displaying consciousness is not a defining feature of personhood.
She lost the moment he pointed out that a "present capabilities" model of person makes it rational to value different peoples right to life based on what their present abilities are rather than their inherent unconditional personhood. When he clafified his analogy on that she stumbled
Retired high risk Perinatologist here, But what the bloody hell don’t you get, Trent? 100% of pregnancy and childbirth does damage to a woman’s body. If we cannot compel even a simple blood donation from some bloke to save the life of his newborn, not even in any extreme circumstances like a blood shortage because we cannot cause harm of so much as a needle stick, I’m not sure where he has any argument at all about forcing women to endure harm without their consent. Full bloody stop, Trent.
Pregnancy and blood donation are not morally analogous for many reasons: First, the pregnant woman has a duty to care for the unborn child by virtue of the fact that she is his mother. Second, the uterus is designed to take care of the unborn child. It’s an organ that literally exists for the sake of someone else (the unborn child). The same cannot be said for our blood, kidneys, etc. l Third, in 99% of cases, the pregnant woman participated in an act (sex) knowing that it could cause a needy child to depend on her for survival. She has accepted this risk and must take responsibility for it in a way that doesn’t harm another innocent person. Fourth, there’s a moral difference between killing someone and letting someone die. Sure, I can deny a blood donation to someone, but I can’t slit their throat. Abortion is not merely saying no; it’s an act of killing involving starvation, dismemberment, etc.
@@mnmmnm925 you are making a fallacious argument about consent. Consent to an activity with a non-zero risk of an associated adverse event is not consent to the adverse event, mate. A woman consenting to a date knowing of a non-zero risk of an adverse event of date rape is not consenting to be date raped, nor do they need to endure the date rape by not killing the rapist in self defense. I’m not obligated to burn to death in my car just because I took the risk of my car catching on fire from an accident. Having an abortion when you experience an adverse event of pregnancy IS TAKING Responsibility. You don’t get to exclude abortion from the definition of responsibility, mate.
@@johnlewis9266 "Consent to an activity with a non-zero risk of an associated adverse event is not consent to the adverse event" I never said it was, please don't mischaracterize my argument. I said consent to an activity = you _accept the risks_ of said activity = you incur a responsibility to deal with said risks in a responsible way. Now let's see where your other points go astray. "A woman consenting to a date knowing of a non-zero risk of an adverse event of date rape is not consenting to be date raped, nor do they need to endure the date rape by not killing the rapist in self defense." Agreed. The rapist is responsible for the rape, not the woman. Let's not ignore the other agents and decisions involved in the situation. "I’m not obligated to burn to death in my car just because I took the risk of my car catching on fire from an accident." Agreed, but that wasn't my argument. I said you have a responsibility to deal with the situation _in a responsible way,_ and at the very least, that includes not intentionally killing another innocent person. For example, you cannot escape the burning car by intentionally executing a nearby pedestrian. "Having an abortion when you experience an adverse event of pregnancy IS TAKING Responsibility. You don’t get to exclude abortion from the definition of responsibility, mate." Yes, I do. It is never "responsible" to intentionally kill another innocent person, which is what abortion does. If you disagree that the unborn child is a person, then I want to know what your definition of person is. Also, I just want to point out that you only addressed 1/4 of the arguments listed in my previous comment.
@@mnmmnm925 I made 2 comments. Maybe don’t be lazy and scroll. Great, I’m glad you agree that activity is about accepting the risk and dealing with it responsibly. Having an abortion when you don’t want to experience the risks and harms caused by pregnancy IS being responsible and acting responsibly by terminating the pregnancy.
@@mnmmnm925 “abortion kills another person.” Begging the question fallacy. For the destruction of an zygote, embryo or fetus to represent the 'murder' that zygote embryo or fetus must represent a human person at the time the pregnancy is terminated, and there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that is the case. No one has been able to point to any properties or attributes a zygote possesses and exhibits that would be sufficient to demonstrate this is the case. All that's been offered are that the zygote is living and of human origin, which are uselessly broad: literally any living cell of human origin would meet the criteria. These two properties alone, therefore, while necessary are clearly not also sufficient. Something more is needed to demonstrate a human zygote is also a human person.
On the Neural development point she's hung up on, there's a white paper on neurodevelopment called "When does life begin? A scientific perspective" by Dr. Maureen Condic, a PhD associate professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, who discusses the question of where life begins and how factually and scientifically, the onset of a new human life is at the moment of conception, neuroembryologically undoubtedly. It doesn't seem to be a major problem for her in regards to personhood but at least scientifically, one can understand how neuroembryogenesis positions life at the beginning of conception without moral judgements or values.
Personhood is irrelevant to whether a cluster of cells rapidly multiplying within you, have any right to be there when for any reason you don't want them.
Even 0 is a number we don't start counting on 3. Zero has no value in its self but they do when 10 zeros are after a 1 so zero in it's self has potential value. Is a runner in a race a runner after the bell rings to start the race or is the runner a runner before the race has begun 🤔
Dear Mark,I have had great fun with "imaginary numbers". They are based upon the "imaginary" square root of minus one. Instead of a straight line, you can make them upon a plane.
The picture analogy is the correct analogy and she proved exactly what is happening, the child's future is being stolen by people thinking they are clever because they killed early.
Potential for potential sounds a bit slippery by Trent. Why not potential for potential for potential? Does an unfertilsed egg or a sperm have the potential for (repeat as many times as you like) being a human person - and we should not be throwing them away.
So according to her view why wouldn't males be justified to restrict the category of personhood to maleness. I mean all she's really saying is that its justified to select ones favorite category of humans based on some biological characteristics that group has and limit "personhood" to just them and simultaneously classify others outside that favored human category as non persons so that the "non persons" can be done away with or exploited. Thats all shes saying.
It is irrelevant to abortion whether the cluster of cells growing in a woman's belly is the slightly deranged human cells called a cancer, or a human person, even at any stage in the process,. let alone the instant of conception or of implantation. If any part of a real person's body is occupying a part of her body when she does not desire it, even if she had earlier given her permission, that person should remove himself. The idea that some completely unknown organism, "conceived" in some public imagination as a person, has rights that a grown person doesn't, is wildly nonsensical.
The animal examples seem irrelevent - this is not an argument about when it is a crime to kill an animal or an animal-fetus. It about killing a human-fetus. And if Trent's criteria is rationality and being sentenient, it is a question of when is a human fetus rational and sentinent.
No, it’s not irrelevant. Shannon is using the concept the personhood, which isn’t exclusive to the human species. Personhood is used by philosophers to determine which beings in general it is wrong to kill, not simply which humans it is wrong to kill.
It’s the Ship of Theseus. Philosophy gives us an obvious answer. If you rebuild the ship with different materials that look and function identically to the original over time or immediately, it’s still the Ship of Theseus. Why? They share the same substance. The function and species of what makes a “Ship of Theseus” are all fulfilled, and thus it is still that ship. In the womb or outside of it, the substance of “human” is present both in the embryo human and the fully grown human.
A ship cannot be a substance. I understand your argument, but you’re misapplying it. A ship is not a substance because it has no essence. It’s just a material thing.
A form describes a things potential and actual being-- a things actual state and potential state are 'in' whatever form we are describing. When we point out a book we are saying it has the form of a book. It is actually sitting closed on the desk and is bound paper. And because it is a book, it has the potential to be opened, closed, read, and set on fire. That's what we mean when we say something is a "book". And in fact, a thing would make no sense in being described apart from its essential and therefore potential properties. A human being is human because it has human DNA-- that is what is essentially human versus what would be some other biological life form. That gives it its form, and whatever stage it is it, or state, it must be granted its form as being a human. We are held morally to respect a things potentials when regarding what it actually is, and that dictates how we treat it.
I wouldn't even argue personhood, just life. If we found fossils of bacteria on Mars we'd call it life. Also personal responsibility needs to be brought into the conversation, you drink and drive then suffer the consequences, you assault someone then suffer the consequences, you have sex and get pregnant then suffer the consequences. 🤷♂️
well in majority of the cases, pro-aborts are the ones that bring up "personhood" into the discussion. so pro-lifers are simply responding to that. and it's useful to have good counter-arguments. and to simply argue using the label "life" is vague at best. we don't consider the life of a bacteria to be as valuable as the life of a human being. also, our skin cells, for instance, have human life in them too. that doesn't mean that we're committing mass genocide everytime we scratch our skin. being specific helps a lot. and pro-lifers do bring personal responsibility and accountability to the discussion. I've talked with a lot of pro-aborts myself and seen a lot of other pro-lifers debating with pro-aborts. and it's almost always the pro-lifers that bring matters of personal responsibility to the table while most pro-aborts are simply more concerned about their lifestyle.
NO. You have sexual intercourse for the pleasure of it. This has been arranged by natural selection, as urging the participants to balance by childbirth (which I note is very uncomfortable) the prehistorical rate of child mortality. "The Ginger Man" asserts that in Ireland, the Catholic Church hold that children are the punishment for fucking. You, Elias, seem to agree with that.
Trent Horn: "An unborn person isn't a potential person. An unborn person is a person with great potential" ❤️
It doesn't matter! NO Person has the right to occupy with any part of his (or presumably her) body, any part of another person's body who doesn't want it there,
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 That wasn’t the topic of the debate. The debate was on whether a fetus is a person or not.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069well in case you didn’t know a child does have the right for its necessary needs like a uterus and breast feeding when it comes to its biological mother because of parental responsibilities and that should include inside or outside of the womb.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 yes they absolutely do have that right
@@alfredomaldonado6614a child doesn’t have a right to breastfeed. It has a right to be fed, but it doesn’t have a right to breastmilk, nor the right to any particular woman’s milk.
Shannon and Trent: I was so impressed with the civility, respect and productive dialouge exercised by both of you. We need more debators like both of you!
Much respect for the host, for not talking over her guest while in disagreement.
Good job Trent for representing truth.
Trent is the guest.
@@Lerian_V That's what the person said
@@CedanyTheAlaskan I was either drunk, I guess, or half asleep. lol
What’s this personhood, I’ve never heard that expression used , your a person male or female.
@@irenemccann7032 If you are brain dead, you are neither.
If you are with less brain than a cat, you are neither.
Literally, you have to be a person to be either male or female
Trent opened my mind.
Great!
He is a shill.
@@marksandsmith6778 mark please tell us why you think Trent is a shill ????
I disagree with Shannon when she claims that consciousness is and emergent property of the brain .
Near death experience studies are starting to lean heavily against that view because we’ve had people report veridical perception without a functioning brain like in cardiac arrest .
And Shannon has sown familiarity with the NDE scientific literature and the only reason I’d see as to why she’d take this position is her atheistic worldview
@@angelbrother1238
shill
INFORMAL•NORTH AMERICAN
noun
an accomplice of a confidence trickster or swindler who poses as a genuine customer to entice or encourage others.
"I used to be a shill in a Reno gambling club"
verb
act or work as a shill.
"your husband in the crowd could shill for you"
This assumes Trent' intellect so I could be wrong.
M SS
@@angelbrother1238 I found these ref. in a few minutes... why didn't you "Brother of angels" M
Excelente Trabajo Trent, continua defendiendo la verdad y que Dios te Bendiga a ti y Tu Familia
I have never seen anyone give an argument for why consciousness is valuable. I think value comes from what you are, not what you are doing.
What you are, as in a collection of molecules?
@@ancestralflyingman7079 what you are is a being that is human and therefore you have a right to live.
@@Klee99zeno what makes you a being and not a clump of cells? Your consciousness?
@@ancestralflyingman7079 it is a human nature that makes you and I valuable. My value as a person is not dependent on something I am doing. Thinking or breathing are behaviors, and they are not restricted to humans. A mouse has some kind of consciousness and does have some sort of thoughts. But the life of a mouse is not as valuable as that of a human.
@@Klee99zeno can you define human nature? How do we tell if we have it?
I'm surprised she didn't notice the contradiction there:
1. She says reacting to stimuli isn't a good definition of personhood because it applies to too many things.
2. She admits her definition of personhood applies potentially to rats and pigeons.
Nah she claims that the first if true must extend to the second
@@thesoliloquist1940 But Trent's was a challenge that revealed if one wishes to include beings which merely have consciousness at the level of a newborn baby as persons then it follows that one should also include lobsters. However, if one wishes instead to only include those animals which have higher levels of consciousness such as primates then one should exclude 1 year old babies.
@@LtDeadeye That’s why person is not made of a single thing but composed pf different things. Would u rather save ur dog or a lobster? Would you save a new born or your dog? Would you rather carry out an abortion or kill a new born ?
@@imoyabrax450 I agree. We aren’t simple. But what would I do is a much less important question than what should I do.
My intuitions to save my dog over the lobster will have been influenced by my experiences and relationship with lobsters and my dog. The same goes for the other forced dichotomies.
@@imoyabrax450 In Tahiti there was even custom of drowning newborns, rather than making the earlier children starve.
Its funny how we can say a type of grass is alive if it is growing, and is called a living grass, and is dead if it dies and stops growing, and is called a dead grass, but a growing baby is not a growing baby person when it is growing and doesn't become a person until it can accomplish certain tasks.
It's actually referred to as dormant.
I'm not quite sure if you're saying a newborn isn't a person. I think it's Carl Sagan who says that if a foetus with a certain level of frontal cervical capacity is a person, then so is a dolphin.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 I was saying a human growing is a living human. Intervening, especially if the trajectory is a healthy one seems wrong.
@@danvankouwenberg7234 grass is probably a bad example because some people would think seasonal grass is dead grass just because it stopped growing for a season.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 Cant go on brain size or even function or you could unplug someone in a temp coma. Just like a baby is only that way for a bit.
Trent, you are such a charitable and gifted conversationalist! I’d love it if you would dialogue with ex-Calvinist Leighton Flowers of Soteriology 101.
Most respectfully, I suggest reading Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira article on “Dialogue”. This constant use into our lexicon is a new development and has Marxist roots. More can be read here: www.tfp.org/unperceived-ideological-transshipment-and-dialogue/
@@SperoinDeo very interesting!
Wow! Trent Horn is an amazing speaker. I hope he continues his journey to try and save unborn children. I am amazed on how calm and collected he is. They way he makes you think.... " hmm..I've never thought about it like that before 🤔💡" is insane!
Good Job Trent Horn 👍👍
OMG
..Trent is soo patient and humble...This conversation made me realise how impatient I am... couldn't finish watching this
Trent, another outstanding debate. Thank you for all your work.
Just saw there was a video version of this, I listened to the dialogue when it first came out and thought it was an excellent discussion that didn't get heated even with as big a topic as abortion. I do affirm Trent's arguments, especially as a Catholic, but I appreciate that Shannon has seriously thought about this issue and tried her best to defend her position. I do hope that she takes these arguments and is influenced by them to convert to defend the sanctity of life and personhood! :)
As a Catholic, how do you feel about the sanctity of life of the molested kids by Catholic priests that the church did nothing to make sure justice was served? Why is it pro-lifers fight so hard for the right of an unborn fetus but look the other way when children after birth suffer?
@@scottiemcgee3838 First, this is a red herring that has nothing to do with the morality of abortion. This isn't a case where we can't fight both issues. We could both name an endless list of injustices in the world but that doesn't mean we ignore an issue and just claim whataboutism.
Second, you can bet that Catholics are mad, upset, frustrated that the abuse scandal happened, no one is okay with it. More importantly, we have not turned a blind eye. The Catholic Church has taken action such as the 2002 Dallas Charter which revamped background checks, psychological evaluation in the seminaries, procedures that make sure children are not in an improper setting (more than 1 adult with children required). You'll find a vast majority of the reported cases come from the 60's-80's and between 1960-2002 4% of global priests were *accused*. Since 2005, there have been on average about 7 substantial accusations per year in the United States compared to the several tens of thousands of minor sexual abuse cases annually. Even one single case is still horrible, but the Catholic Church is not this harbinger of hiding abusers.
@@ragelikecage4012 it's not a red herring if the outcome of your preferred result of a pregnancy is for the birth to succeed rather than an abortion. Pro-lifers demand for abortions to stop, regardless of how shitty particular children's lives would be if they were to be born. It's easy to stand outside a clinic and shout murderer, but if they got their way, are they gonna help the children that will be born into poverty, abusive/neglectful situations, drug related deformities....etc? Some might, but the reality is there would be a ton of kids in horrible situations no one should deal with. And the attack on Catholic's treatment of pedarast priests was pointing out that many of the priests never had to atone for their sins. They got away with molestation and rape.
@@scottiemcgee3838 As a catholic I stand against this however it is quite difficult to challenge it when you have politicians involved in this as well. for instance Vice-president Harris withheld key evidence to convict some clergy of molestation, preventing catholic victims from getting justice. secularism has been involved in the churches corruption. However many Catholics stand against it. But must of us still adhere to the fact that the church is infallible but not impeccable. Just read Dr taylor marshalls book on infiltration. And the catholic church teaches that the sacraments we receive isnt affected if the person giving it is a sinner.
I do however disagree with the last bit of your comment. If a child in mid Africa is going to die before the age of 3 because of starvation or plague. should we decide to rather kill the child to prevent suffering. The catholic church is also the largest charitable organization in the world, they have built numerous amounts of schools, nurseries hospitals/clinics and shelters. and have supported millions of families with the problems you brought up even for the LGTQ community ( even though we disagree with homosexuality we support those we are conflicted)
I just question your opinion that we should rather kill people to alleviate suffering, how is that at all moral. That in itself is so discriminatory, the world would be better off without disabled children ( this might be a strawman) but when you come down to the matter this is essentially what youre implying.
There are living persons who can be hurt by having too many siblings.
It i evidence of the hypocrisy of the Vatican that if it wishes to have fewer abortions, one good way to prevent them is called contraception.
Very respectful discussion between two people that disagree. Really enjoyed it!
So she is saying.. the lack of value is due to lack of consciousness... But when asked if its the same to kill a non-human animal with similar consciousness to an infant as killing an infant, the value is then determined by its humanity... Alright...
One of the better debates I’ve seen. Subscribed
Great presentation of arguments from Trent. I couldn’t stop laughing at the wtf facial expression he had on most of the time. Thanks for your work Brother. Enjoying your podcast as well. I’m a devout confessional Lutheran and find myself agreeing with you most of the time more than I do with Protestants.
i pray for your conversion, God bless you
From the rites that you have and the way you refer to the church fathers as an aid in reading the scriptures, you guys are basically lite catholics, you just refuse the magisterium of Christ.
43:21 She assign higher value to humans. So is the fetus human? Science said fetuses are human beings (learned that in AP Biology).
Steve @Steve Human being is not a scientific “notion.” Rather, it’s a scientific fact that when 2 living human beings from the species mate, the product will be the same species as the parents. Person is different than human.
Human is a biological, scientific term and
person is philosophical, legal term. The term personhood has a changing definition throughout history. Check out Lia Mills’ TH-cam video called “are the unborn person” for more info (the video from 9 years ago)
@Steven Dillon I don’t give a shit what it is, it doesn’t have the right to force a woman to give up her bodily functions for their needa
@@KC-py5vq not even if it’s a human person?
@@vaskaventi6840 huh? No, nobody has the right to force somebody else to give up their bodily functions. Not a 2 year old, not a 60 year old and certainly not a unviable fetus.
@@KC-py5vq “Nobody has a right to force someone else to give up their bodily functions”
> Yet if we accept that the fetus is a human person, the abortion is clearly forcing the fetus to give up his/her bodily functions as well.
Trent, you have been on fire lately. I really think you are especially good on these particular topics, relating to abortion. You are very well informed, and do an excellent job representing the Catholic position. Thanks, hope to see some more. I am loving all your debates on this particular topic, not only that the extra material you go over very specific objections regarding the more specific nuanced ethics of this.
Shannon Q: "That's a very noble philosophy."
Catholics: "Yeah, we know. That's why we say things like this."
The "fetus" John the Baptist, leaped for joy in the womb of his mother.
Trent was right to say that assigning more value to someone is like you is essentially the same thing that happens in racism. And it's really not even an argument
I appreciate the conversation. I'm going to have to sort out my echo issues.
@Peter Cho I think you are speaking to someone who doesn't believe in heaven and the heavenly brings... Doesn't seem like the best approach to reach... them bombarding them with messages they clearly reject 🤔
Thank you Shannon!
@@michaelaratnam6517 Yeah, that! Peter, you did nothing to extend any dialogue. By chasing someone away, you lose.
Shannon, as a Christian, I would like to apologize for the comments below. You are an honest, caring person who appears to value life. We value your honest search for truth and wish you peace and love in your search for love and mercy.
@@6williamson Shut up...
Trent's premise is solid so his arguments were consistent. Shannon's premise was shaky and she had to resort to a lot of ad hoc. Her position would indeed include other species and her response to that would justify racism.
Great discussion, thank you very much.
One take from this for me is that it kind of proved that the debate about abortion is far from over, contrary to some people claim.
No person has the right to use any other person's body for their own survival. Debate over.
@@mewho6199 you can deny someone the use of your organs for their survival but no person has the right to deliberately kill another person without proper justification.
when you deny, for instance, a fatally ill leukaemic person from using your bone marrow for his survival, you're right that he can't force you to give him your bone marrow. But at the same time, you don't also have the right to actively and deliberately kill that leukaemic person by means of suction, poisonous chemicals or dismemberment and end his life right there and then without proper justification. that's a better analogy of what actually happens in abortion. in the case of the leukaemic person, if yiu deny him your bone marrow, you're not actively responsible for his death. his own condition brings about his death. but if you deliberately kill the leukaemic person before his condition brings about his death, you ARE responsible for his death. just like that, in the case of the unborn, you don't passively let the unborn naturally die out in abortion. you choose to actively and deliberately kill it. and that too for lifestyle concerns that wouldn't justify killing any person in any another situation.
and to treat an unborn child as if the child were some hostile intruder intentionally intruding into your life is just another bad analogy. you don't bring someone into your home and then treat him as if he broke into your home.
I though this was a really interesting conversation different to many of the dialogues about abortion that I have heard. I think another large difference between you two is the way you view consciousness in its relation to the brain. Loved it!
The point that should have been attacked the most was when she admitted that we don't know how to define personhood and therefore we shouldn't have laws protecting it. If we do not know with certainty when life/personhood begins, then the law should err on the side of caution to protect the possible life. The absence of certainty does not negate the existence of something.
Yes, CA answered made a similar point. They asked the caller: If you’re out hunting rabbits and you see something moving in the bush, but there is a chance that it is a child. Should you shoot?
Except that erring on the side of caution means that we must accept the possibility that we are forcing harm (pregnancies cause harm in varying degrees) on people whose personhood is NOT in question by removing their ability to protect themselves against harm.
How can you justify the possibility of that outcome?
If I shoot someone on the street because I was erring on the side of caution that they might try to harm me, you probably would consider that an immoral action because you understand there is the alternative possibility that they weren’t going to try to harm me and therefore they were unnecessarily killed.
So square that for me. Why is it ok to err on the side of caution for X when it comes to the harm that comes to pregnant women even if that harm or kill them might have been unnecessary because it wasn’t X, but not for any other circumstance?
@@cm4502 What you described is not erring on the side of caution.
@@stewartcollins948 why not? You are erring on the side of forcing harm on someone because of possibilities. I don’t see why one possibility should be special pleaded.
There is a possibility that the pregnancy, if the fetus develops from not person into person, harm will come to the woman.
Women are people. And as people, we have the same rights that men do to protect themselves not just from actual harm but ALSO to protect themselves under the THREAT of harm before any harm actually occurs.
I can shoot anyone breaking into my house in the middle of the night without stopping to assess whether or not they are just drunk and got the wrong house, or is just someone sleepwalking. They don’t have to actually mean me physical harm in order for me to protect my body from harm, nor do I have to wait until they start causing me harm before I exercise my right to defend myself.
So not only are you arguing to remove a woman’s right to defend herself against harm at a time that it is a person (when in no other situation is a man prohibited from defending himself against harm) but now you want to remove her right to defend herself on the mere POSSIBILITY that the mass of cells is a person.
Sounds like when it comes to women, you view them as person adjacent and more like property in that occupying the insides of their bodies without their consent doesn’t constitute a violation or harm unto itself.
Reminder: rape can be physically gentle and still constitute harm because the violation of bodily integrity is - in and of itself - causes harm. (Note: I’m not talking about abortions that result from rape. I’m talking about rape because it is the only thing people seem to even partially understand about the concept of consent without the emotional baggage that comes with the abortion discussion)
@@stewartcollins948 I think you might be approaching your position with the ignorance that 100% of pregnancies harm women to some degree.
exhaustion, altered appetite and senses of taste and smell, nausea and vomiting, heartburn and indigestion, constipation, weight gain, dizziness and light-headedness, bloating, swelling, fluid retention, hemorrhoids, abdominal cramps, yeast infections, congested, bloody nose, acne and mild skin disorders, skin discoloration, mild to severe backache and strain, increased headaches, difficulty sleeping and discomfort while sleeping, increased urination and incontinence, bleeding gums, pica, breast pain and discharge, swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain, difficulty sitting and standing, inability to take regular medications, shortness of breath, higher blood pressure, hair loss, tendency to anemia, curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities, immunosuppression, hormonal mood changes, stretch marks, loose skin, permanent weight gain or redistribution, abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, pelvic floor disorder, changes to breasts, varicose veins, scarring, other permanent aesthetic changes to the body, increased proclivity for hemmorhoids, loss of dental and bone calcium, higher lifetime risk of developing Altzheimer's, hyperemesis gravidarum, temporary and permanent injury to back, severe scarring requiring later surgery, prolapsed uterus, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, diabetes, placenta previa, anemia, thrombocytopenic purpura, severe cramping, embolism, medical disability requiring full bed rest, diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles, mitral valve stenosis, serious infection and disease, hormonal imbalance, broken bones, hemorrhage, refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease, aggravation of pre-existing diseases and conditions, psychosis, lower breast cancer survival rates, increased risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease, cardiopulmonary arrest, magnesium toxicity, severe hypoxemia/acidosis, massive embolism, increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction, malignant arrhythmia, circulatory collapse, obstetric fistula, future infertility, permanent disability, and death.
Trent your patience amazes me as always. Oh my goodness! The relativistic, secular perspective is just beyond frustrating to me. All I can do is pray for the Holy Spirit to touch the heart of Shannon and all those who are in favor of abortion. I’m grateful to be Catholic and that God has given me the ability to see the beauty of chastity. May God help Shannon!
Margo.Basso
Moron
FEDSJ
Sky fairy nonsense.
FEDSJ ok honestly both of you are being kinda unreasonable. “Sky fairy nonsense” is dismissive of arguments people have for the existence of a god. And “oh right, do you not believe in god then” is dismissive of arguments people have against the existence of a god. The reason it’s such an inflammatory topic is because no one knows whether a deity exists. You can’t prove it with science. But you can make an effort to not be dismissive of people for no reason.
@@aks799 I dismiss you as well
winstonsmiththx1138 yikes bro. Hope you find your way out of the new atheist anti-sjw rabbit hole someday.
This woman shifts the goal posts every time the going gets tough...
Trent is soooo patient!! It's amazing. Shannon and other pro-choicers always talk in circles. The size of the circle varies but it's always a circle.
Could you describe the circle please ?
Nonsense. It’s prolifers that always talk in circles.
8:40-9:30
I have to disagree with Trent on his inaccurate assessment of Star Wars. Sure, Star Trek is more blatantly philosophical but Star Wars, while following the Buck Rogers formula, is also a "heroes journey". (When its done right- this wouldn't apply to any of the sequel movies) Didn't Lucas base the foundation of Star Wars on such a philosophy?
All space travel involving star to star journeys is Fantasy. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy made this clear by replacing Star Trek's di-lithium crystals with an Infinite Improbability Drive.
For those who propose this idea that one's person-hood is defined by a level of brain development or function, and that the loss of their memories or cognitive ability due to a brain injury would render them no longer the same person, or even a person at all, how do they deal with instances in documented out-of-body experiences related to near death events where the person is able to remember facts impossible to know outside of that experience? An example would be the well known case of the person who died on the operating table, left their body and traveled around the exterior of the hospital, and after they were revived remembered the location of a shoe on a ledge. This type of event would seem to indicate that the brain is not a container for our memories, but really more of an interface to access them from the soul. If so, then it would be the soul that defined an individual's person-hood, not the relative functionality of the body.
Out of body experience is not documented. It is a claim by someone who had an experience they can't explain. It has never been proven that anyone has actually been out of body.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 The fact that we know about such claims is because they are, in fact, documented. That does not mean that the they have been adequately investigated, or scientifically explained.
@@youngbloodk right so all we have is people saying things. That is not compelling I can say anything. We would have to verify the claims before we give them any weight.
@@youngbloodk people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens by the thousands do you accept that as fact?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 You said they were not documented. I pointed out that they are documented, but I did not say that someone reporting something makes it true. Lots of people claim to have been abducted by aliens, or to have seen bigfoot. Those are documented claims. That does not mean that they are true, nor does it mean they are false. Just because a somethings seems incredible, does not mean it is false. In several of the claimed out-of-body experiences, the people in question have reported details that should have been unknowable to them. This lends a degree of credibility to them, that warrants further investigation. Just as there are many true, documented, scientifically investigated miracles, I cannot dismiss the out-body-body claims just because they seem incredible. And anyway, the point was not that out-body-experiences are proven, but that if some ultimately proved to be credible, they might shed some light on the question of personhood, as related to brain function.
He is very patient with her. When I realized that they were discussing personhood and I think she talks in circle, I find it hard to listen to the discussion. Why is there still a debate after all this time?
There's a debate after all this time for all the reasons they discussed and more. The points made in the debate are points of contention.
Yeah, why is there still debate in regards of forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn’t want.
@@KC-py5vq Yeah why is there a debate on whether to kill an innocent child or not?
@@KC-py5vq Because, per your own words, there is a child involved that "wants" to live. Morality cannot be reducible to the desire(s) of the stronger party.
@@brittoncain5090 abortion isn’t killing. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy.
Trent uses kindness and simple common sense. So refreshing.
my wife is a molecular biologist. She notes that we are a genetically distinct humans upon fertilization. That's your blueprint for the rest of your physical life.
So what?
@Prasanth Thomas so what? as soon as an egg is fertilized it is human, it will never be an apple, or a dog so I say again who cares? and so what?
@Prasanth Thomas I admit that it's human I do not admit that it has the right to live if it has to live off the body of someone else. I think we're done here because you are an intellectually dishonest moron
@Prasanth Thomas Would you argue an human erythrocyte was also a member of the species h. sapiens? Or would you instead describe it as coming or taken from a member of that species? A direct yes or no answer will be appreciated.
@Prasanth Thomas so then you acknowledge that human cells in and of themselves are not A human being. Neither is a zygote.
She looks like Taylor Swift green-screened herself into a living room
I have no idea why there is even a discussion on personhood here, in regards to abortion. Who has ever argued human rights are derived from personhood? All men (mankind) are created equal!
First, from time immemorial personhood was synonymous with 'human being'. Evidently people are trying to change this definition, therefore it has no value as a starting point.
Second, personhood is descriptive of 'who' we are with an underlying presumption of 'what' we are (a human being)...ie, hence why personhood was synonymous with human being.
Lastly, we can skip the whole personhood debate and go straight to identity which is where our founding American documents grounded our rights (our identity by virtue of our creator).
We have human rights, not 'personhood rights'. We don't have rights because we can walk, talk, think, argue or any other reason....We have rights based on what we are, not who we are or what we can do.
This means the question more properly comes down to when a human being exists and not when a human being becomes a 'person' (whatever that means now).
Given that we know with certainty that a unique individual human being begins at conception (a scientific fact), and that a human being is a human being from beginning to end, the following logic follows inescapably:
Premise 1: It is a moral evil to intentionally kill innocent human beings.
Premise 2: Abortion always results in the intentional death of an innocent human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, Abortion is always morally evil.
So the question isn't when does a human being become a person. The question is do you think all human beings no matter how small have human rights?
@Qwerty
What would would non-human persons (which could only be hypotheticals) have to do with human rights?
@Qwerty
Yeah I agree;. However, because rights are grounded in identity (and not personhood) and because there is now an on going debate on the Advent of personhood, it seems prudent to lead with the Advent of a human as a starting point rather than the muck of personhood. You agree?
Tyson Guess
I think personhood is important because we can’t say a living single cell of our body is a “person” despite being a living component of a human being.
I regard the human being, the human person, as a whole comprised of living parts.
A body cell is a part with no personhood, whose telos, genetic information, is ordered and actively involved in producing tissue. A body cell grown on culture results in a slab of flesh.
A sex cell is also a part, not a whole, as it is ordered toward preparing for fertilization, and does not develop if unfertilized.
A fertilized sex cell has the genetic information ordered and actively involved in the development of a human being, it has the intrinsic power to acquire the emergent properties we see in a fully developed human. Therefore a fertilized sex cell, by virtue of the genetic information activated in a certain way, is a human person despite being unicellular and lacking consciousness.
This is why I think personhood is important, if one considers cells, since each cell has the genetic information to produce a full human, but only one cell, a fertilized egg cell, is capable of doing so.
Well we don't have 'personhood' rights Reggie. There is no document that says we have 'personhood' rights. Furthermore, you're going to run into all kinds of issues trying to properly define 'person'.
We have human rights. When a human being exists, which is at fertilization, then we have human rights. End of story.
Now, I agree a zygote is a person because person is synonymous with human being. However, 'personhood' is an ambiguous legal term and standing on that term, when it is not legally defined is just foolish.
If its human it has human rights. I don't care how someone defines person, thereby making that whole conversation unnecessary.
Zygotes are a human being. Therefore they should enjoy all the benefits of being a human. "FullyGrown" has nothing to do with it since that is also just as ambiguous.
Qwerty what animal or insect is considered to be a person if your statement “not all persons are humans” is true. And you understand that if you are attributing personhood to an animal or insect then that means that that animal or insect is equally as morally valuable as YOU.
If you don’t consent to being pregnant, what does it matter what point a fetus is considered a person? No person in any other situation is allowed to override your ability to give or deny consent to your body.
JimAndMiscPeople accusing Shannon of avoiding the issues Trent presents, ignore the fact that she is very clear on this one. I would even amend it to "consent to continue being pregnant" as in a change of mind after a month or two.
22:00--shannon's objection to the language analogy falls flat when placed in the larger context of premise, ie particulars associated with potential/capacity of kind.
I see an abortionist 2-step coming soon...
This discussion was more oriented toward putting forth arguments and dissecting them, and less oriented toward communicating and covering distance. I think a lot of time was wasted forcing the other person to defend what they were saying, rather than quickly putting everything on the table and then discussing and arguing the core of the issue. Seems to me they could both have let each other put it all on the table before starting to discuss objections. I do appreciate the discourse, but I also think it didn't get very far.
I was going to add, when the Spanish were conquering S. America and the Islands they had some of the same discussion about whether indigenous people constituted true persons. It didn't end well.
The question may not be how we should define personhood but whether we have the right to define the personhood of another human.
Exactly. People prefer “Personhood” because it justifies violence against powerless humans.
i'd even suggest posting comments on Shannons channel for anyone that agrees with Trent because on Shannons channel that's where all those that disagree with Trent will be reading
Trent made a very strong counter-argument on the criteria laid down by Shannon on what constitute personhood which is consciousness then we will have to consider certain animals such as a rat who can navigate through a maze as person more than an infant on the ground that it seems that the rat is more conscious of its environment than an infant.
Nope. Humans and animals are not on the same level in terms of logic and reason and having a will.
@@littleone1656 They are on the same level if the human we’re talking about is an infant.
One argument has a foundation.
Shannon's ideas a contradictory mess, Trent is the only one in this conversation with a consistent and moral view and seeking clarification instead of obfuscation.
I've seen Shannon take over from two men discussing abortion, at least one of them an atheist friend. She was Very Clear about whether any person threatened even with death from kidney disease, has any RIGHT to demand that a relative with two kidneys provide one of them.
Oh, by the way, my late wife's mother, and that woman's mother, both died in childbirth.
43:08 - 43:38
That's literally one of the reasons why ppl dont agree with abortion
Thanks for making all these interviews, I never took debate but i'm totally gonna go for it next year.
47:34
I wouldn't argue that, i think they have an obligation to *someone* available so that they may survive.
Before birth, that can only be the person pregnant.
This is logically founded because we know under contexts of rape there was 0 responsibility of the victim for the birth, but sadly they are the only person who can provide the positive right to life.
I'm NOT against child support, but it's ultimately more about financial equity, which IS an aspect of survival in this society but it's quite different from pregnancy on an actions required level.
So here is how her logic backfired. She said “it’s not a picture of the picture never developed. And that it had the “potential to be a full developed picture” meaning the ending result of the pictures FULL capabilities. Here is how the EXACT same logic would work.... we can kill the baby before they’re a teenager because they have NOT YET reached there FULLY developed potential to adult hood. Remember she’s devaluing someone based diff what stage they’re in. She will agree we exist from conception meaning we exist right? So she then won’t consider us worthy until we develop more and more to HER standard.
Idiot
I feel like the standard of basic sentience, awareness and ability to feel pain is pretty universal....
There are records of teen-age crime rates that have gone down between ten and twenty years after the passage of laws in various US states, making abortion available.
This suggests that some babies whose mother bore them, against her will, do not have a childhood beneficial to themselves or society.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 true. So this would lead me to ask. Does this justify killing humans ? If so why stop it just before birth from this logic we would allow it for criminal who commit crime if to prevent more crime.
Sigh. No, mate. You aren’t even remotely following the logic.
Trent is arguing that it’s a person because it will develop into a person. That’s an admission that it’s not a person YET.
It’s not about value. It’s about how we consider things as they are, and not what they may, if allowed, become later on.
If I drop my cake batter on the floor I don't say "I ruined my potential cake" but rather I say "I ruined my cake" because everything that the cake is comprised of is in the batter before it's even baked in the oven
Absolutely it is, all humans are persons. There's no adult without childhood, as well as there's no childhood without babyhood and then foetushood. A person is a living human. Once the sperm successfuly fertilizes the egg, the product the zygote and foetus is a human person that continues to grow and learn
A lot of people on this board confuse apple seeds and apples.
They must make a terrible apple pie.
I've just made an apple pie, and was careful not to include seeds.
But I'm quite keen on grape seed oil, which seems to me a remarkable byproduct (I presume) of winemaking.
Her arguments are quite circular. It's always sort of the same from the pro-choice side. They cannot properly keep their categories straight. They don't think in sets of things, in classes.
Because that is stupid
@@winstonsmiththx1138 Its stupid to organize your thoughts and rationally categorize your ideas?
@@sonofphilip8229 that isn't what you said. Nice straw man though
@@winstonsmiththx1138 triggered snowflake leftist atheist?
"psychologically safe from this conversation"
wow. I can't even.
If your hunting and see activity in a bush but have not identified what it is do you fire the shot? Of course not! So if you don't know if the fetus is a person why kill it? What if your wrong?
If you have a parasite do you let it continue to grow or do you cut it out?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 explain how a fetus is a parasite? Please include the scientific definition of a parasite in you explanation. You made a claim so the burden of proof is in you.
@@forgednotcast612 a parasite is an organism that needs a host to further its development. If a women is pregnant and doesn't want to be she has a parasite. So simple even a theist can understand.
@@winstonsmiththx1138 you do follow science right?
Good, a parasite is >
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense.
"the parasite attaches itself to the mouths of fishes"
Last I checked, a human is the same Species as a fetus! You are able to comprehend an English sentence correct? Please reread the definition before making an argument.
Do you believe a mother and fetus are of the same Species? Yes or no?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 dude you just got destroyed lol. So simple even an atheist can understand. this is exactly what Nietzche meant when he alluded to atheists reducing humans to parasites... Atheists have become really predictable these days...
Okay. You sold me. Subscribed.
LIFE IS SACRED FROM CONCEPTION TO ITS NATURAL END.. AND SCIENCE PROVES IT.
Abortion is also natural
In all species, the parents can be observed terminating the life of the offspring if they judge that the environment cant support any more of their species..
@@thesoliloquist1940 thats after they were born moron. And only if the offspring is sick, or detrimental to the support of other offpring.
@@joeytavez7055 really, everything you wrote was pedantic and hardly distinctive from my comment.. You were basically only more descriptive of what my input encapsulates..
Also i truly dont see how 'after theyre born' is less worse than terminating the offspring in utero.. Bc at least we can arrest their development before their sympathetic nervous system renders them the ability to actually feel being ended..
But 'im' the 'moron' right 😒.. Yours is what we call an 'irrational emotional response'.. Bc if you knew what you were saying, you would recognize that you are admonishing a procedure which is comparatively merciful opposed to the old fashioned method of population control practiced by all species..
Plus multiple instances of parent species ending the lives of their offspring have been documented in enclosures such as zoos for no other reason than them being future competition.. This being bc the enclosure is only known by the orginal specimen (it was built for) to be only supporting of them..
All species of cats kill off their male heirs bc they could mate with their females.. The examples of 'abortion' (or more technically 'filial infanticide') being a totally natural phenomenon could go on..
@@thesoliloquist1940 We ARE NOT animals. That should clear some things up
@@joeytavez7055 google 'ancient abortion' and this ought to clear up your confusion.. This practice wasnt created out of the 20th century.. Abortion is ancient and is evolutionarily ingrained in us as the urge to copulate..
We are animals with high intelligence, such like whales or primates..
An acorn has the capacity to become an oak tree, but we still draw a distinction.
The argument of potentiality takes you much farther than I think you realize. If you denounce the validity of potentiality or essence, then a being must fully possess what it is to be truly a human person because anything before reaching full personhood is still in the stage of being potential. But here’s the deal, if they must fully posses what distinguishes a HUMAN person specifically, and not a pig person, horse person, then logically full personhood can’t be truly reached until outside of the womb. Human persons are rational choice-making beings, but a new born human baby is not this. A full grown pig has much higher cognitive abilities than a new born baby, so surely we couldn’t ascribe full human personhood to the new born baby since he doesn’t fully possess what would differentiate himself from the pig. Therefore, post birth abortions should be morally permissible since the new born baby is not truly a person yet.
@ I don’t think that the species or organism is essential for personhood. Personally, I don’t think that even rationality and morality on the level of Homo sapiens is necessary for personhood. I think that sentience and brain development is essential for personhood…not the ”capacity to have the capacity” as Trent defines it.
I admit that the distinction between human organism and human person is gradual and that a clear distinction is difficult to make (although ”moment of conception” is not without its own problems). Where we as a society draw a distinction depends on a number of factors (one of which happens to be species - not a coincidence). I also think that we as a society can draw an additional distinction between moral personhood (based on the conditions stipulated - and will include many animals and a fetus later on in its development) and legal personhood. Legal personhood kicks in after birth, and currently excludes most non-human animals. So no…intentional infanticide is not permissible.
Potentiality can be a slippery slope. For example, if an embryo WILL turn into person if it is developed in a womb, and a human sperm or egg cells WILL also develop into a person if they fertilize or are fertilized (respectively) and are then developed in a womb, why draw the line at embryo and not gamete? How much external support do we as a society require?
@@kimmyswan I think what Trent and other people try to point out is if we are using a strictly materialistic frame work, if we don’t stop at the creation of the essence of something being the point of personhood, we are forced to draw the demarcation of personhood much farther past the point that most people would be comfortable. If we draw it at sentience or meaningful brain activity, then any species on earth that attains that level would also gain full personhood like you and I. Killing a pig would become not only animal abuse but murder. Most people can’t stomach that, so we must go further to find full HUMAN personhood.
I think the moment the zygote or embryo is created, it creates its own future or individual stream of time in and of itself. It is in the mother, but it is also a completely individual biological life form. That’s why murder is wrong outside of any religious idea like killing something with imago dei. It’s not that you killed someone’s present, you stole their future. Any chance of memories and love that should have existed. So with an embryo, to end their life directly is to step into their stream of time and cut it short. To delete the future that existed.
@ I have heard these arguments before and they come with philosophical presuppositions about personal identity. But, first I will address your argument about personhood and animal sentience. Personally, I do think that it is morally ”wrong” to kill sentient non-human animals. My argument for this is twofold: brain development and speciesism. I think that we intuitively have a sense of human exceptionalism, and we have developed the cognitive ability to enact our sense of justice on others.
I disagree that ”if we don’t stop at the creation of the essence of something being the point of personhood” that we are then forced to draw the demarcation of personhood much farther past the point that most people feel comfortable with. We can make a distinction even if we cannot draw a clear cut line at when that distinction emerges. We do this all of the time. We can play on the side of caution in abortion cases and set a non-arbitrary cutoff date depending on fetal development (it doesn’t have to be at birth and it doesn’t necessarily have to include other species).
Now for your second argument…personal identity. Even if I agree that abortion is harmful because we are stepping into a fetus’ ”stream of time and cutting it short” (which I do not), how does the metaphysical view that a fetus is numerically identical to its adult self relevant to the fetus’ moral status? What property (other than species and dna) does a human fetus possess that affords it moral status and rights?
I don’t think that an argument can be made that abortion harms the fetus, because I don’t there that there is ”someone” there to harm. Harm entails a conscious being whose well-being takes a turn for the worse.
@ I think your point of speciesism is where I’m going. Without any religious influence, we have no logical argument for our speciesism unless we have drawn the line of personhood MUCH farther down the line where others species are unable to attain to it. Without that It is simply illogical bigotry.
A new born baby has no where near the mental cognitive abilities as a full grown pig. The new born baby simply holds within itself the nature or essence of our species that will allow for it to one day attain to the mental abilities that differentiate us from other species.
Shannon has no proper arguement. She is an amateur athesis. Pax Christi.
The difference between a wife and a whoore is that the wife is an amateur.
Athetheism, unlike priesthood and popery, is NOT a career. Christ at one part of the gospels warns that he won't be bringing peace. I spent 14 years in Northern Ireland, where very decent people are threatened over a disagreement about whether Almighty God, creator of billions of galaxies of billions of stars, does or doesn't give privileged information to a man living in a special part of Italy.
I don’t think Shannon was being Genuine in her response to Trents Questions. She differs to not understanding or just totally strawmaning his arguments.
Personhood is a metaphysical property, and so personhood needs to be analyzed with metaphysics. The discussion on personhood, I find, is too often focused on biology, which is helpful but not conclusive. The biological facts of a fetus could still be true whether the fetus was metaphysically a person or whether the fetus didn't even exist because reality is a simulation. If reality is a simulation, the biological facts about a fetus don't indicate its personhood or rights because it doesn't actually exist. As an idealist, I believe minds are dissociated alters of God and conception is the completion of that dissociative process, and being ontologically human we are categorically persons, so human life and personhood exists from conception. I'm not yet convinced that it's our personhood that gives us human rights, but our being the image of God that does this, but that is a separate discussion.
Imagine if every debate on abortion was as peaceful and civil as this one.
4:06
Shannon talking about "othering" people.
How so incredibly ironic.
As human persons, we assign a higher value to other human persons simply because they are of the same species. This is a form of speciesism. However, we also make a value distinction between embryos and born persons as well. This is effectively illustrated in the hypothetical thought experiment: who would you save in a fire if you could only save one? One hundred frozen embryos or a five year old?
The Supreme Court once held that it was constitutional for a state to prevent women from being a lawyer.
@David Ortiz idiot
@David Ortiz what? Idiot
Based
@@winstonsmiththx1138 I still have misogynists claiming women can and should be prohibited from practicing law. As a feminist (not feminine man, 😉), it irritates me to no end. Like many self-represented parties, they don’t know how to update cases.
For some history see:
“In 1873, this [Supreme] Court remained unmoved by Myra Bradwell's argument that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited a State from classifying her as unfit to practice law simply because she was female. Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130 (1873). In his opinion concurring in the judgment, Justice Bradley described the reasons underlying the State's decision to determine which positions only men could fill: ‘It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the State; and, in my opinion, in view of the peculiar characteristics, destiny, and mission of woman, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the sterner sex.’”
Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982) 458 U.S. 718, 725 fn. 10
My Mormon dad, in the 60s and 70s, thought women should not vote because it was the man’s place to be in charge and lead, and the woman’s place to stay in the home. My Mom was a very hard worker, but she never had a paying job. I had a paying job on a farm at age 12. I made $50 per month, working on a farm. My dad took $25, and I had to pay all my expenses, except room and board. My dad never told me, but looking back on it, I’d bet he was probably cheating on taxes by reducing his income. He made $300 per month, plus a house. Hey, I put in a full days work in the summer time.
Life has an inception and a conclusion. a beginning and an end the brain is somewhere on that timeline but not the point of inception.
Notice how it seemed like she was offended when Trent mentioned the name of Jesus towards the end...I know she played it off like a joke, but you could see that it bothered her...that alone is a very telling sign that abortion is evil. It makes sense that someone that would defend abortion would be offended by the mention of the name of Jesus Christ.
The idea of Jesus and the immoral teachings and blatant contradictions in the bible make it hard to take someone's capacity to think rationally seriously. Trent is arguing for the moral position then invokes the name of a god that is immoral.
@@scottiemcgee3838 Immoral by whose standards?
@@mikeyfox4749 I would say by the majority of people in the US, so our general local society. Most of us won't condone slavery or genocide, but the bible does. That's why cherry picking and "that was a different time back then" are so prevalent with religion.
44:47 she said I’m going to move on but I don’t think I fully answered your question. I’m sure she didn’t answer his question at all literally at all. His question simple. If I level of consciousness does not dictate the value of the human then what is the value of the human what dictates the value. She says it’s because the human is one of us and he simply sits so is a fetus and then she switched in sad we’re at a time let’s switch gears to the next question.
Is a pig fetus a pig? Where rationality has gone?
No it's a fetus. If a fetus was a pig we wouldn't have the word fetus would we?
@@winstonsmiththx1138 If an infant was a human, we wouldn't have the word infant, would we?
@@nicolem.8960 you are an idiot. All infants are humans don't be stupid if you want to argue with me you better be intellectually honest
@@nicolem.8960 coldplay sucks by the way find some real music
@@winstonsmiththx1138 If you had half a brain, you'd realize that was sarcasm. Go back to middle school biology if you seriously think that a pig fetus is not a pig.
Trent is willing to inflict suffering on women who are pregnant against their will.
She is so cruel. She pretty much says its fine to destroy something as long as it hasn't reached its final stage. Building a house? Its ok if someone burns down the frame since the house wasn't finished anyway. A baby is developing in the womb? Its ok to kill it since it hasn't reached a certain stage in its life cycle. And the way she gleefully laughs about this is disturbing.
And to describe pregnancy as "parasitic" is just awful. A parasite is essentially a predator that feeds off its host. Pregnancy is the body creating a human, its not predation, its literally the body doing what it was made to do; reproduce.
Yeah, many talk like monsters
Having sex is what the body was made to do…can you have sex without that person’s consent?
Are they allowed to stop before sex has reached its final stage of completion?
No? Now you understand her argument, mate.
Nor you, me, or a fetus gets to use the body of someone who doesn’t continuously consent to that. If they stop consenting, out you go, even if you aren’t “done”.
This idea that a woman must endure a pregnancy just because you think it’s what her body was made to do ignores the fact that her continuous consent is required at all times.
You reduce women to nothing but incubators, organic nurseries and it’s bloody disgusting, mate.
Women are people. Not chattel.
@@johnlewis9266 "because you think it’s what her body was made to do" That's not my opinion, that's a biological fact. What do you think a womb is for?
So can I abandon a 1 year old baby and let it die if I decide I don't consent to having to care for it?
During a course about abortion, the professor said that personhood depends on brain development. She told us that a walking, talking human being would be a nonperson if he had an underdeveloped brain. If she's right, does it make sense to say that you'd need an autopsy to tell whether a shooter murdered a person when he killed a human being?
Lmao that's kinda hilarious. It's also a demented position to adopt. Moreover, what does she mean by "brain development"?
@@leonardu6094 Leonard, that's the kind of thing some atheistic scholars can believe when they expect natural science to answer metaphysical questions.
What does she mean by "brain development?" I don't know. Maybe she means that personhood depends on brain age. Children begin to know right from wrong at about seven years old. Some people even say that a baby becomes a person at birth.
@@williammcenaney1331 What's your personal view of abortion?
@@leonardu6094 I believe each country should outlaw it. You may want to allow it after rape or incest. But that's like knowingly executing an innocent person instead of the criminal.
@@williammcenaney1331 I completely agree.
dolphins
If all persons are intrinsically equally valuable then why don't they share equal rights in all things? While it may differ between different societies, we typically give persons different rights - and sometimes take them away - at different stages of their life (e.g. someone might lose the right to decide on the use of their own finances or make decisions on receiving medical treatment). It isn't personhood alone that decides what rights someone is given in many cases - why should it be so in this case?
No one says they share equal rights. They share equal _basic_ rights.
Carnivorous plants are sentient. They respond to stimuli. BTW How can this WOMAN giggle when she is discussing slaughtering the innocent in the womb?
Idiot
Trent, many of your objections to the consciousness argument is look at other animals who have the same if not more of a cognitive ability then say infants and newborns, but of course we would not kill them and yet we are generally not concerned if something like a dolphin was killed as much as we would be if an infant was. The conclusion would therefore be, consciousness is a) not the feature that defines personhood or b) not the only feature that defines personhood.
How would you have responded in Shannon invoked sort of two criteria that needed to be met for personhood. Namely a) being a biological human which is acquired from conception and then b) having that consciousness acquired at 20 weeks I think she mentioned.
Because them whilst a dolphin might be more cognitive then a 1 year old, it doesn't satisfy a) so how would you have responded to that because whilst I am 100% pro life quite possibly soon to enter seminary I always want to be able to articulate my positions as best I can, that whole idea of 1 Peter 3:15 so rest assured whilst I'm playing the devils advocate I am not in fact the devil haha
If you want to articulate YOUR position why are you asking him for the answer? Can he give you your position? You are a follower and is probably a great candidate for the seminary
That would exclude people who are asleep or in a comma. Humans are not conscious when in those states but they're still persons. Therefore, displaying consciousness is not a defining feature of personhood.
She lost the moment he pointed out that a "present capabilities" model of person makes it rational to value different peoples right to life based on what their present abilities are rather than their inherent unconditional personhood. When he clafified his analogy on that she stumbled
Trent does have a famous catchphrase ...
"Great BREASTS "
Retired high risk Perinatologist here,
But what the bloody hell don’t you get, Trent? 100% of pregnancy and childbirth does damage to a woman’s body. If we cannot compel even a simple blood donation from some bloke to save the life of his newborn, not even in any extreme circumstances like a blood shortage because we cannot cause harm of so much as a needle stick, I’m not sure where he has any argument at all about forcing women to endure harm without their consent.
Full bloody stop, Trent.
Pregnancy and blood donation are not morally analogous for many reasons:
First, the pregnant woman has a duty to care for the unborn child by virtue of the fact that she is his mother.
Second, the uterus is designed to take care of the unborn child. It’s an organ that literally exists for the sake of someone else (the unborn child). The same cannot be said for our blood, kidneys, etc. l
Third, in 99% of cases, the pregnant woman participated in an act (sex) knowing that it could cause a needy child to depend on her for survival. She has accepted this risk and must take responsibility for it in a way that doesn’t harm another innocent person.
Fourth, there’s a moral difference between killing someone and letting someone die. Sure, I can deny a blood donation to someone, but I can’t slit their throat. Abortion is not merely saying no; it’s an act of killing involving starvation, dismemberment, etc.
@@mnmmnm925 you are making a fallacious argument about consent.
Consent to an activity with a non-zero risk of an associated adverse event is not consent to the adverse event, mate.
A woman consenting to a date knowing of a non-zero risk of an adverse event of date rape is not consenting to be date raped, nor do they need to endure the date rape by not killing the rapist in self defense.
I’m not obligated to burn to death in my car just because I took the risk of my car catching on fire from an accident.
Having an abortion when you experience an adverse event of pregnancy IS TAKING Responsibility. You don’t get to exclude abortion from the definition of responsibility, mate.
@@johnlewis9266
"Consent to an activity with a non-zero risk of an associated adverse event is not consent to the adverse event"
I never said it was, please don't mischaracterize my argument. I said consent to an activity = you _accept the risks_ of said activity = you incur a responsibility to deal with said risks in a responsible way.
Now let's see where your other points go astray.
"A woman consenting to a date knowing of a non-zero risk of an adverse event of date rape is not consenting to be date raped, nor do they need to endure the date rape by not killing the rapist in self defense."
Agreed. The rapist is responsible for the rape, not the woman. Let's not ignore the other agents and decisions involved in the situation.
"I’m not obligated to burn to death in my car just because I took the risk of my car catching on fire from an accident."
Agreed, but that wasn't my argument. I said you have a responsibility to deal with the situation _in a responsible way,_ and at the very least, that includes not intentionally killing another innocent person. For example, you cannot escape the burning car by intentionally executing a nearby pedestrian.
"Having an abortion when you experience an adverse event of pregnancy IS TAKING Responsibility. You don’t get to exclude abortion from the definition of responsibility, mate."
Yes, I do. It is never "responsible" to intentionally kill another innocent person, which is what abortion does. If you disagree that the unborn child is a person, then I want to know what your definition of person is.
Also, I just want to point out that you only addressed 1/4 of the arguments listed in my previous comment.
@@mnmmnm925 I made 2 comments. Maybe don’t be lazy and scroll.
Great, I’m glad you agree that activity is about accepting the risk and dealing with it responsibly. Having an abortion when you don’t want to experience the risks and harms caused by pregnancy IS being responsible and acting responsibly by terminating the pregnancy.
@@mnmmnm925 “abortion kills another person.”
Begging the question fallacy. For the destruction of an zygote, embryo or fetus to represent the 'murder' that zygote embryo or fetus must represent a human person at the time the pregnancy is terminated, and there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that is the case. No one has been able to point to any properties or attributes a zygote possesses and exhibits that would be sufficient to demonstrate this is the case. All that's been offered are that the zygote is living and of human origin, which are uselessly broad: literally any living cell of human origin would meet the criteria. These two properties alone, therefore, while necessary are clearly not also sufficient. Something more is needed to demonstrate a human zygote is also a human person.
On the Neural development point she's hung up on, there's a white paper on neurodevelopment called "When does life begin? A scientific perspective" by Dr. Maureen Condic, a PhD associate professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy, who discusses the question of where life begins and how factually and scientifically, the onset of a new human life is at the moment of conception, neuroembryologically undoubtedly. It doesn't seem to be a major problem for her in regards to personhood but at least scientifically, one can understand how neuroembryogenesis positions life at the beginning of conception without moral judgements or values.
You’re talking about embryology, not “neuroembryology.”
Personhood is irrelevant to whether a cluster of cells rapidly multiplying within you, have any right to be there when for any reason you don't want them.
Maureen condic is an anti-abortion propagandist,
Early on when Trent is deconstructing she her view of personhood she turns his examples of why it's wrong into his point of view.
Why no link for Shannon Q, Trent??
Even 0 is a number we don't start counting on 3. Zero has no value in its self but they do when 10 zeros are after a 1 so zero in it's self has potential value.
Is a runner in a race a runner after the bell rings to start the race or is the runner a runner before the race has begun 🤔
Dear Mark,I have had great fun with "imaginary numbers". They are based upon the "imaginary" square root of minus one. Instead of a straight line, you can make them upon a plane.
@@jacksimpson-rogers1069 cool
The picture analogy is the correct analogy and she proved exactly what is happening, the child's future is being stolen by people thinking they are clever because they killed early.
I think every productive conversation starts with a trigger warning. Lol
Not sure if you meant it to be I think this is extremely funny
Omg how does weather a person is cognitive or not justify your evil actions?? Like murder against unborn children??
Murder, legally, in advanced countries, involves actual breathing humans.
Don't kill baby Hitler, adopt baby Hitler and teach him about Christ
whoa, he was just starting his youtube 3 years ago? wow that grew fast huh?
Trent, you're the MAN!
Potential for potential sounds a bit slippery by Trent. Why not potential for potential for potential? Does an unfertilsed egg or a sperm have the potential for (repeat as many times as you like) being a human person - and we should not be throwing them away.
Ah, the Divine Right of one in several million spermatozoa.
Great discussion
I think Shannon's dismissal of the Polaroid analogy is completely insane.
Honestly, I think we found a love connection
So according to her view why wouldn't males be justified to restrict the category of personhood to maleness. I mean all she's really saying is that its justified to select ones favorite category of humans based on some biological characteristics that group has and limit "personhood" to just them and simultaneously classify others outside that favored human category as non persons so that the "non persons" can be done away with or exploited.
Thats all shes saying.
Fetus is Latin for baby
It is irrelevant to abortion whether the cluster of cells growing in a woman's belly is the slightly deranged human cells called a cancer, or a human person, even at any stage in the process,. let alone the instant of conception or of implantation. If any part of a real person's body is occupying a part of her body when she does not desire it, even if she had earlier given her permission, that person should remove himself.
The idea that some completely unknown organism, "conceived" in some public imagination as a person, has rights that a grown person doesn't, is wildly nonsensical.
The animal examples seem irrelevent - this is not an argument about when it is a crime to kill an animal or an animal-fetus. It about killing a human-fetus. And if Trent's criteria is rationality and being sentenient, it is a question of when is a human fetus rational and sentinent.
No, it’s not irrelevant. Shannon is using the concept the personhood, which isn’t exclusive to the human species. Personhood is used by philosophers to determine which beings in general it is wrong to kill, not simply which humans it is wrong to kill.
It’s the Ship of Theseus. Philosophy gives us an obvious answer. If you rebuild the ship with different materials that look and function identically to the original over time or immediately, it’s still the Ship of Theseus. Why? They share the same substance. The function and species of what makes a “Ship of Theseus” are all fulfilled, and thus it is still that ship. In the womb or outside of it, the substance of “human” is present both in the embryo human and the fully grown human.
A ship cannot be a substance. I understand your argument, but you’re misapplying it. A ship is not a substance because it has no essence. It’s just a material thing.
Trent needs to argue with Peter Singer (an animal rights philosopher) if he want to use animal examples.
It's weird that pro abortion clings to consciousness, a thing that we haven't yet understood when or what it is.
A form describes a things potential and actual being-- a things actual state and potential state are 'in' whatever form we are describing. When we point out a book we are saying it has the form of a book. It is actually sitting closed on the desk and is bound paper. And because it is a book, it has the potential to be opened, closed, read, and set on fire. That's what we mean when we say something is a "book". And in fact, a thing would make no sense in being described apart from its essential and therefore potential properties. A human being is human because it has human DNA-- that is what is essentially human versus what would be some other biological life form. That gives it its form, and whatever stage it is it, or state, it must be granted its form as being a human. We are held morally to respect a things potentials when regarding what it actually is, and that dictates how we treat it.
Jibberish
@@winstonsmiththx1138 You must make that statement often.
@@Againstfascist every time I read something you wrote
@@winstonsmiththx1138
Allow me to help you understand.
What is an apple?
@@Againstfascist to me it is a piece of fruit
I wouldn't even argue personhood, just life. If we found fossils of bacteria on Mars we'd call it life.
Also personal responsibility needs to be brought into the conversation, you drink and drive then suffer the consequences, you assault someone then suffer the consequences, you have sex and get pregnant then suffer the consequences. 🤷♂️
well in majority of the cases, pro-aborts are the ones that bring up "personhood" into the discussion. so pro-lifers are simply responding to that. and it's useful to have good counter-arguments. and to simply argue using the label "life" is vague at best. we don't consider the life of a bacteria to be as valuable as the life of a human being. also, our skin cells, for instance, have human life in them too. that doesn't mean that we're committing mass genocide everytime we scratch our skin. being specific helps a lot. and pro-lifers do bring personal responsibility and accountability to the discussion. I've talked with a lot of pro-aborts myself and seen a lot of other pro-lifers debating with pro-aborts. and it's almost always the pro-lifers that bring matters of personal responsibility to the table while most pro-aborts are simply more concerned about their lifestyle.
@@mkmarak idiot
@@winstonsmiththx1138 at this point you are beyond intellectual aid...
NO. You have sexual intercourse for the pleasure of it. This has been arranged by natural selection, as urging the participants to balance by childbirth (which I note is very uncomfortable) the prehistorical rate of child mortality.
"The Ginger Man" asserts that in Ireland, the Catholic Church hold that children are the punishment for fucking. You, Elias, seem to agree with that.