Cornell Abortion Debate: Jonathan Peeters and Stephanie Gray
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 พ.ย. 2017
- Is abortion moral? Should it remain legal?
This debate was an opportunity to hear an exchange of ideas between speakers with wildly different perspectives on this question. It was followed by a Q&A with the audience.
Debate speakers:
Jonathan Peeters, for abortion
Stephanie Gray, against abortion
Sponsoring organizations:
The Cornell University College Republicans
Debate in Science and Health: Cornell University
Ithaca College Feminists United
Ithaca College Republicans
Ithaca College Students for Life
No Labels at Cornell University
Veritas Forum at Cornell
About the speakers:
Jonathan Peeters graduated with a B.S. in applied mathematics in 2000. He briefly pursued a doctoral degree in mathematics before realizing that his heart was really in philosophy. He received his doctorate in philosophy from the University of Colorado, Boulder in 2008. He has taught at University of Colorado, Boulder; the University of Washington, Seattle; and Ithaca College. He is passionate about introducing students to the arguments and methodology of contemporary analytic philosophy. His research has focused on the Early Modern period, especially on the notions of space and divisibility of Descartes, Leibniz, and Newton.
Stephanie is a seasoned international speaker who began presenting at the age of 18. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, and a Certification, with Distinction, in Health Care Ethics, from the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia. Stephanie is Faculty at Blackstone Legal Fellowship where she trains law students from around the world about conversing persuasively on abortion. She has given over 800 pro-life presentations across North America as well as in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Austria, Latvia, Guatemala, and Costa Rica. She has spoken at many post-secondary institutions such as Yale University, George Washington University, the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Sussex in England. In 2017, Stephanie was a presenter for the series "Talks at Google," speaking on abortion at Google headquarters in Mountain View, California.
Peeters just responds with, "No, that shouldn't be illegal" or "you shouldn't do that, that seems like a bad idea." He gives no real reasons for his positions except his own general opinion.
Jonathan Peeters: "I dont think the anti-abortionist can satisfy both of those jobs"
Stephanie Gray: "Hold my beer"
I wonder if ill be alive when the next generations look at us like morons for something so obvious. This is an example of philosophy gone wrong.
Underrated comment. Philosophy and science denial gone wrong
I mean, its the same thing that happened with eugenics. Was once pretty common, but now its universally rejected.
Lol, "having sex doesn't mean consent to getting pregnant"
Being a result of irresponsible sex doesn't mean consent to abortion
@@Sg-gs phenomenal response
His skiing comparison doesn't work, because the purpose of skiing is not to get caught in an avalanche, while the purpose of sex is reproduction.
Having sex is consenting to the possibility of getting pregnant
Guess what, Nature couldn’t care less about your consent
This man’s argument was built on a completely illogical line of reasoning. Stephanie’s argument destroyed his 🙌😂
I wouldn't say it's completely illogical, but it can still be refuted by pointing out a relevant difference between the McFall v. Shimp case and abortion. I'm pro life btw.
0:05:37 Speakers' introductions
0:06:48 Gray's opening statement
0:21:47 Peeters's opening statement
0:34:24 Gray crosses Peeters
0:39:51 Peeters crosses Gray
0:45:50 Gray's rebuttal
0:54:18 Peeters's rebuttal
1:02:57 Gray's closing statement
1:06:30 Peeters's closing statement
1:10:55 Q&A
Feeling a lot of second hand embarrassment on behalf of the pro-abortion guy whilst watching this. That was honestly brutal!
Well said. I'm pro choice, I'm embarrassed at his arguments
That's because anyone should be ashamed to defend killing an innocent child.
I’m confused: feminist use the argument that men shouldn’t be able to decide e force a woman to have a child legally, but the person that is defending abortion isn’t a woman, there was only woman stated, but also a man.
Also abortion is 100% perfect for an irresponsible man; he can have sex unlimited and not be responsible for the consequences to a woman (so eliminate the problem)
Abortion isnt the answer lol did you not listen to the thing? i dont think its matters if it was women or a man ridiculous even if it was a women Stephanie would have wiped the floor with her
@@pancakemcgee8853 I think you misinterpreted her comment. If I am correct, Rachel is making the point that abortion essentially let's men of the hook so-to-speak, because it "relieves" them of the responsibility of parenthood, even when they voluntarily participated in the sexual act. She's saying that it's the perfect excuse for irresponsible men, who can essentially have sex with whomever they want whenever they want, and when a child is unexpectedly conceived, the culture that enables and embraces abortion let's him off the hook because abortion is ok with them. She's not saying that abortion is the answer, she's saying it's not.
@@meerouWell articulated 👏
Johnathan's arguments are so weak. Once again I'm left without a pro-abortion/ pro-choice argument that scientifically convinces me that abortion is right or should remain legal.
You won't find one
I can't convince anyone but have you looked into reducing abortion (likelihoods) beyond forcing people to rely on cloths hangers, starvation diets or funny potions?
SexEd, Healthcare coverage (including for birth control and any minors (especially disabled ones) ) even reliable child support all work.
@@fionafiona1146 Outlawing abortion would reduce likely hood of abortions because it illegal but i wouldnt go down drastically my problem is with the cloth hangers how would she even get it up there?the placenta is a food source no matter if the mom starves herself it is going to be feed with the nutrients from the placenta.
@@pancakemcgee8853
Hasn't been observed to be the cases anywhere, where law changed.
Ireland has seen a sharp drop in fairy transit once abortions became legal but less than 1/3 of that translated into medical procedures (thanks to social security information and some societal reassurance?).
One would bend a wire cloths hanger.
If one were to drop below 16% body fat (from eating nothing but oranges in the first trimester) pregnancy becomes unviable, that has been well documented for nearly 300 years now.
Ps. The placenta only filters the mothers blood for nutrition (having a higher affinity for it than adult tissue) but needs up to 500(excess)cal a day (3rd trimester) to sustain development.
You could look into the Dutch hunger winter (1944)and see how far the birth rate dropped, wich developmental and epigenetic changes are documented and find out males aren't as resilient in utero.
@@fionafiona1146 what's fairy transit?
Well she roasted him. Plain and simple.
Thanks be to God.
Nope.
Which side was she on? I saved this debate and haven’t yet watched it
@@BlackKnight288 look at the channel name, then the replies. Take a guess.
@@Liberum69 the entire debate was unedited and in its entirety.
Stephanie had great arguments and the answer she gave at the end was hands down destructive to Dr. Peeter' s case for abortion.
here is your answer dude. The state cannot compel a person to take specific action to save another's life. In the case of abortion, if no action is taken, the child will come to term and be delivered. In other words, you're making an apples and oranges comparison and misrepresenting the finding in Mcfall.
The biggest issue I have with the bone marrow argument and where it falls apart is liability. Was the person that denied the sick man the use of his bone marrow responsible for sick man's condition? No. Is a mother and father responsible for the new life that they brought in to this world? Yes.
Rape? Why isn't anyone thinking about the thing mentioned in the talk?
Admittedly any society that fails to prevent rape might be responsible for the upbringing of the resulting child and could reasonably be expected to cover Healthcare costs and childsuport but those that do cover these aren't taking about banning bodily autonomy for the few remaining cases.
fiona fiona rapists should definitely be given a harsher sentence and should be held to much higher standards of child support payments and restitution for physical, emotional, and psychological harm inflected on the woman. If the state won’t hold the man to those standards with stricter laws and consequences for rape, then it should compensate the mother and support the child in the place of the man (or if the man is unable to).
In the case of a mother who was a victim of rape, she was not responsible for the new life.
@@fionafiona1146 I think you could still argue that a parent has a responsibility to their child even if they are not causally responsible for that child. As an imperfect analogy, when a child suffers from a disease the parents aren't responsible for their child becoming sick but they still have responsibilities to the child to pursue medical treatment or care.
@@magicw7338
If children are abandoned to parents care some will be neglected. There needs to be a public option to live together with any sort of dignity
where did they get this guy... he doesn't seem educated at all lol. Stephanie Gray is awesome.
He has solid arguments, the debate is revisiting all the old ones... while it might be more appropriate to look into reducing abortions (including cloths hanger, starvation diet and suicide assisted ones) trough evidence based methods SexEd, Healthcare&contaception coverage, childsuport humain financing in general) or any other.
Finally!
What's going on here is that feminists want to destroy women. By making them promiscuous. Defending & promoting PROMISCUITY in your gender. With PROMISCUITY you get PREGNANCIES, Its inevitable. And so therefor you get ABORTION. A complete trivialisation, desensitization of sexuality and thereafter HUMAN LIFE. I think they want to create this sort of new gender that is FRIVOLOUS & COLD TO THE CORE. With no MATERNAL INSTINCT. A complete monster.
@@lur3950
I don't know any more promescuous communities than those retiring in Florida and DO miss sex ed for them but doubt local gynecology is busy with abortions.
Sure I might value human live differently than you but won't subject any child of mine to perpetual poverty or starvation, even if that requires suicide in the absence of health care... The sex I choose to have however has a very low perl index and tight safety nets.
@@fionafiona1146
It's kind of difficult to describe if you are ironic, satirical, derailed or sarcastic.
Aha, aha aha & what is your point?
You don't make any
Stephanie quite “dismembered” that young boring dude 😏. See what I did there? As empty and bad a joke as that guys arguments 🤓.
👏
The guy's arguments are completely off. That end bit about morality being different than legality really made me angry because if the laws of our government are not made to protect morality, what are they for? Morality protects human rights and our laws should protect human rights. Otherwise, what is the point of law?
Well, here's the thing. Some morality, you can't legislate. For instance, you can't make the N-word illegal in the U.S. b/c that would violate the 1st Amendment. It's wrong, but you can't outlaw it. However, it is the govt's duty to protect human rights, such as the right to life. This exact thing is stated in the Declaration of Independence. So, in the case of abortion, there's no question that it's the govt's job to outlaw it.
The purpose of laws (and of law enforcement) is to keep society from falling apart. The purpose of morality is to conform to the Good. For religious people, the Good is rooted in God's nature. As a result, in a society with different religions, different philosophies and therefore different moralities, the law is actually purposely neutral to those. Again, the purpose of the law and law enforcement is keeping society (the city, the State, the Nation) working.
Even religious philosophers like Thomas Aquinas recognized that secular authorities must permit things that are immoral in order to prevent greater evils. In his case, he was talking about permitting unbelievers to practice their rites. Augustine justified prostitution as legally tolerable (not moral), because he thought society would fall apart without harlots. Murder wouldn't be justified, though, but in fact, legality and morality are distinct.
The very fact that you can judge laws as immoral shows that laws and morals are district.
It's like he doesn't get where humans come from. No one existed to ask permission to exist. His idea of consent implies some party could have gotten permission before "trespassing."
His argument about how the child not consenting to the mother’s bone marrow or whatever was weird to me. The child didn’t get to decide to exist and cannot do anything other than live inside the mother. That is just a crazy argument. I can’t believe anybody would consider it rational either. I mean should we punish the woman because the child exists without it’s ‘consent’? I just don’t know if people who make these questions are even really aware of what they are saying.
Stephanie Gray is the very best pro-life apologist I have ever heard! She presents very logical arguments as to why abortion is immoral and therefore should be illegal.
Unfortunately, there are lots if immoral laws.
Forcing women to give birth is quite immoral too.
Until you have a method of supporting a fetus outside of anybody (injecting men with fertilised eggs might be a death sentence but could approximate viable live) there are other more practical methods (SexEd, Healthcare&contaception coverage, childsuport, ect.)
@@fionafiona1146 She has repeatedly outlined why the "forcing X to do something is immoral therefore the pro-life position in invalid" does not work as an argument, especially in the light of what is essentially homicide. Thus is further compounded by the (logical, materially real) fact of responsibility between and mother and child.
The thought-process and logical conclusion: th-cam.com/video/RGPudL_GQ3Y/w-d-xo.html
@@pyranomics7229
It's neglect at most (assuming full personhood), not even mall practice (if Trans Americans are concerned), until the time every period is criminal and no child may be put up for adoption you aren't any more coherent.
@@fionafiona1146 no one's forcing her, it's just that nobody's allowed to take the baby out.
This Jon guy had SO many logical fallacies. False Analogy fallacy, Non Sequitur fallacy... What the heck? Why was he a chosen speaker, these arguments are not academic and laughable.
damn how about you stick to playing with toy figures
Pro-choice "feminists": "This is a war on women! Men need to stop telling us woman what to do!"
Pro-life woman: *roasts a pro-choice man at a debate*
But sure, go on with how being pro-life is "anti-woman" or "anti-feminist."
this!!!!! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
You need to stop telling dog owners what to do
Identical twins just like rape is using the rare unusual circumstances to prove a rule. 3 out of 1,000 births are identical twins. If we accept the 997 cannot be aborted than I am willing to hear out the philosophical implications of twins on personhood.
Twinning matters because it undermines the principle Stephanie is arguing. She argues that as soon a human being is conceived it has rights. But if the the zygote is endowed with rights then with twins at some point another set of rights is endowed to another human being but not at conception as is the claim. This appears then to be a contradiction.
Take the example of conjoined twins. How do you know there are two individuals? You count something. What is this thing that is counted? Brains was mentioned. But if it's brains a zygote doesn't have a brain. Another contradiction.
A thought experiment can also illustrate the problem. We can conceive of a being but not a human being that will also have the right life. Let's say an intelligent alien. This once more shows that the rights are not unique to human beings. Why does this matter? It shows that the thing that has rights is different from a human being and a human being is not a sufficient condition for having rights.
Audio is too low, even with a speaker device. Cannot hear at all😕
This guy is horrible his line moves all over the place
Please remember this: "YOU still have the SAME heart that began beating in your mother's womb" ~Houston Kat
What if you don't? Perhaps, in situation as Heart transplant.
Stephanies logic could hardly be tested by an educated person. This dude should have stayed at home with his mom... who didn’t abort him.
th-cam.com/video/Fk5x1fifxrM/w-d-xo.htmlm00s
"I doubt that mere species membership is enough to give right to life."
I'm not a legal expert, but I'm pretty sure that in the United States, "mere species membership" does in fact give one a right to life. Specifically, the 14th amendment addresses the right to life for those with"membership" in the human species.
Unprotected sex doesn't mean you're taking on having a fetus inside you?
Bro whaaaaat???
I seriously advise you guys don't try to eat or drink anything while listening to this dude 🤣🤣🤣
If she is pro-life then why did she murder this guy in this debate?
Lol
God bless Stephanie Gray for standing up for the rights of the unborn! Her arguments are powerful, moral, ethical, and fueled by the Holy Spirit!
I have watched many debates on abortion and the pro choice is never compelling. They usually get slaughtered by the pro life. In my opinion.
There is a difference between a right to life and a right to healthcare. I really wish pro-choice people would understand that across the board.
they don't have a right to life. and they don't get the extra LEGAL right to use someone else's body to live
@@ngxoxo The right to life is a human right. If they're an innocent human being, you cannot take their life, since it isn't your's to steal. It's the govt's job to protect people's lives. See Declaration of Independence: "... *Life,* Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
I am not pro-choice but I find it amazing that pro-life individuals, on the heels of claiming the embryo-fetus has a right to life, turn around and argue that the freshly born baby does not have a right to health care. I completely agree that all humans have a right to health care, just like they have a right to protection from assault, crimes of various types, to clean water, etc.
@@gfujigo First of all, do not compare two separate political arguments in an attempt to make a connection to them in order to validate your point. We know u have a bias against pro-life. We get it. Don't bring other subjects into it. I am a pro life supporter and anti-death penalty and Healthcare for all supporter. There's an entire subparty of democratic liberals who are anti abortion pro liberal. Hillary Clinton even made it in her abortion campaign to include those types of democrats in her abortion slogan (thats why she says safe, legal, but few, as in few abortions)
Second of all, u say freshly born like that has significant meaning. U imply that freshly means less significant than someone that has walked on this earth for longer. So my question is how do you define the value of a human being? If we define by time lived on earth, than why don't we have more laws and taxes towards letting old people have all freedoms and rights and to use taxes to try and let them live exponentially longer? If your value is emotional stability and suffering (many advocates of abortion say they do it because the foster care system is awful) then why is committing suicide illegal and frowned upon? Why is assisted suicide still a hot topic? Why is the death penalty considered the highest form of punishment when it takes all the suffering away? Wouldn't you want the death penalty instead of life in prison, getting beat or raped by inmates?
- love, DFLA (Democrats for life for America) :)
@@TreblePvP
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your questions.
"I am a pro life supporter and anti-death penalty and Healthcare for all supporter."
This describes me perfectly. I to am pro-life, pro health care for all and against the death penalty. So your statement "[w]e know u have a bias against pro-life" is wrong. I also vote Democrat and, ironically for you, absolutely love Democrats for Life of America. For example, I am a big fan of State Senator Katrina Jackson (D-LA).
I said "freshly born" to highlight the irony that conservative pro-life advocates, after waxing eloquent about the sacredness of human life in the womb, paradoxically then fight to make sure that once the baby is born it does not have a right to health care that would help to keep it alive and healthy. If life was sacred in the womb, then it is sacred outside the womb as well. The baby has a right to health care to make sure it can live a healthy life.
"So my question is how do you define the value of a human being?"
You are a human being and human person once you are conceived and your value as a human being never leaves you and it does not decline and is not impacted at all due to age, location, gender, race, level of development, opinions, dependency, size, whether int in the womb or out, diseases, emotional stability, etc.
"If we define by time lived on earth, than why don't we have more laws and taxes towards letting old people have all freedoms and rights and to use taxes to try and let them live exponentially longer?"
I do not define human value by time lived on earth. Human value and personhood begins at conception and lasts throughout a person's entire life.
"f your value is emotional stability and suffering (many advocates of abortion say they do it because the foster care system is awful) then why is committing suicide illegal and frowned upon?"
See my previous answer.
"Why is the death penalty considered the highest form of punishment when it takes all the suffering away? Wouldn't you want the death penalty instead of life in prison, getting beat or raped by inmates? "
I am anti-death penalty. I do not believe the state has a right to take life away outside of just wars. If the state makes a mistake, it cannot bring that person back. In addition the state is biased in the way it handles the death penalty. Life is sacred, and outside of war or defending someone (yourself or others) from imminent physical or lethal harm, I don't believe in the death penalty.
So, next time, ask before coming to conclusions about what you know about someone else. You may find yourself pleasantly surprised ;-)
Regards,
A Fellow Democrats for Life of America Supporter
He looks like they picked him up at their local starbucks 😂
She straight up _executed_ him with the "Mommy, don't" closing statement.
To the twinning argument. Let's say before the split you have one zygote, which is a person. At some point during that 14 day time that zygote splits into two. When it splits, neither is the original or both are (which view you take of those two isn't important), and at that point both become two separate persons. Each one will develop uniquely from that point, but neither was first. If we had transporters like in Star Trek, and if you have a transporter malfunction that brings back two copies of the same person, both of them would have been the same until that point, but at that point neither came first and both become unique individuals despite having the same DNA. The point of saying all this is to point out that while twinning may be the only real life example of one person becoming two unique people, it doesn't mean that prior to that point the embryo wasn't human, alive, or a person, and thus the argument he's making isn't actually a legitimate argument.
I saw a theory that there are two sacks inside one ovum, like a double yolk egg so both are fertilized at the same time and though from the same ovum were always individual.
The debate should come with some legal consequences. She should be arguing in front of a state or federal court for the fate of the unborn. The pro-choice movement can present their best advocate and the judge/s can settle the matter.
An avalanche is caused by externalities consentual sex is agreeing to sex and sex is ordered to reproducing so I'd say yes you do agree to a human being
Rape? If you need exceptions you don't think about good rules.
I'd certainly have sex to reproduce in nine months (indifferent of my likelihood to conceive) if my future children were entitled to more than Healthcare coverage and 1/4 of the money it takes to raise them healthy, alias it will take a while to afford it.
Yes; the avalanche analogy is apt if another, separate couple has sex and you get pregnant as a result. It's fallacious if made in earnest, and repugnant casuistry if made knowing better.
@@fionafiona1146 can you execute a rapist on a claim of rape? No trial, no evidence, just a claim? If not, why can a innocent child be executed because of a rape claim? In most cases of sexual assault, abuse and rape the victim knows the perpetrator. It isn't a violent act by a stranger. In any case girls and women should be encouraged to immediately seek emergency assistance. They will be treated to prevent ovulation and also to try to prevent sexually transmitted disease which can cause infertility and even death. Evidence will also be collected, a report filed and a case opened so that the rapist can be brought to justice. Rape is a violent act against a woman. Abortion is a violent act against a woman and her child. It doesn't help the victims, but the abuser.
I love the PSA then they have to say for the close-minded social justice Warriors. Who have no intention of learning at all of other people's views. Like the fact that it's medically proven that at conception a whole new DNA is formed different from the mother and the father.
It's not cloning.
Your sunspots have unique DNA, like every cancer, do they (as viable organisms that could be cultured outside your body) have a right to live?
With that reasoning every men ejaculating is a mass murder, failing to combine XX, XY, XXX, XXY, XYY or any number of viable combinations into millions of possible children.
fiona fiona Cancer cells are mutations of healthy cells that, while they act like a single-celled organism, are still components of the original multi-cellular organism. Human embryos are organisms, requiring both an egg and sperm and becoming, as you point out, a new cellular composition different from the egg or sperm. Comparing a zygote to a cancer cell seems to be far-reaching: a zygote doesn’t inherently pose a threat to the life of its host and is there because as an intended or unintended result of a direct action that is designed and ordered to bring about that result. Furthermore, the zygote, once forms, now exists in an environment that is designed and ordered specifically to shelter and feed the zygote. Our bodies are not designed to shelter and feed cancer cells - when they do, we die.
While ejaculation certainly raises questions of ethics, the action does not harm or kill another human being.
Jonathan is a wishy washy debater, which is a shame.
My guy ditched his argument real quick in the XE
So basically he just copied David boonins argument. Read Christopher kazcors book, he destroys Judith Jarvis Thompson and boonin
When I see these picture my first reaction is that I want to vomit. My second is a thought: anyone who thinks this is ok is a savage.
Ultimately, abortion is a grave sin of pride. “I will be like God”.
1:02:57 She ends this man's whole career.
I could probably make better arguments for slavery than the bone marrow analogy.
I’m sure this was very interesting for those who could actually hear it
The cross exam was really hard to hear.
I love it when another pro choicer gets exposed of their illogical, inconsistency’s. Lastly their irrational behaviors
LIFE IS SACRED FROM CONCEPTION TO ITS NATURAL END... GOD BLESS HIS ONE AND ONLY CATHOLIC CHURCH
Please, Stephanie Gray is a god next to this guy. She completely destroyed him.
Debate actually starts at 6:44
If a person starts a house fire, knowing that there’s a chance a baby is upstairs, and doesn’t save the life of that child- they will be charged with criminal negligent homicide. Why is it different when the baby is smaller?
Would love to see a debate between Stephanie and mama dr jones
That would be interesting.
I wonder if any of these pro-abortion supporters who claim fetuses/zygotes are not human for whatever reason realize they are making the argument: to have human rights one must be human-plus? This would essentially build the argument for all kinds of discrimination which includes discriminating and removing the humanity of minority populations.
Hi,
I didn't watch this, so I am not sure if you are referring to the video, but the pro choice or "pro abortion" side as you say is about bodily autonomy. There is literally no other scenario where we force someone to stay attached to another for the purposes of keeping them alive. Even corpses have bodily autonomy, which is why you can't use organs of a dead person even if it will keep someone else alive, unless they are a registered organ donor. Also, in case you didn't know, pregnancy is NOT a health neutral condition.
@@roar44879 so she addressed this by saying that your organs like you heart, your lungs, pancreas, liver etc.. are in your body for your body, your uterus is in your body for your offspring.
@@kml2546 adressed this? Please be a little clearer since I don't know what "this" is supposed to stand for.
@@roar44879 sorry, was referring to the organ donation comment. Stephanie addressed why it's not OK to force someone to donate organs but have to use the your uterus to keep a baby alive.
1:11:50 Stephanie's response here is not legally literate. For the following three reasons.
There's actually only one case of a woman being prosecuted for abortion in all of Anglo-American history. It happened back in 1599. Women would not be prosecuted for abortion if it was made illegal.
1) They lack "mens rea" (a guilty state-of-mind), are often coerced, & emotionally distressed, so it would be next to impossible to find them guilty.
2) The state has bigger fish to fry. Namely, the abortionists, who do not share the previous qualities listed.
3) Women serve as the best witnesses for the crime committed. When given immunity, they are usually the biggest reason the state can stop the criminal abortionists.
Women were not, & would not be prosecuted for abortions while they are illegal.
Well I would say the if abortion does again become illegal then most women who have them will be guilty state of mind but of course that is excluding poeple who are not in the right state of mind like women who are experincing depression. If someone kills their child they go to jail thus if abortion is illegal then that is them killing their child.
@@bmorrison379 killing something not capable of independence is hardly a proof of guilt, otherwise having a period is manslaughter too.
Obviously there are gray areas but wouldn't one best start with evidence based methods like SexEd, Healthcare&contaception coverage or reliable child support, reducing the issue by much more than the strictest ban and persecution do.
fiona fiona did you just compare abortion to getting your period? Please learn the difference between a gamete and an individual human organism.
@@b4byheart726 this ^
I think that would change as time goes on and socially it becomes more obvious with education we never got like people legit not knowing its a human being thats alive, the majority of pro choicers arent on this level of thinking in the race when it comes to abortion
1:21:35 "What about studies saying abortion laws don't stop abortion?"
That's based off of a very poor study done by the Guttmacher Institute. See this video which covers it's flaws in-depth: th-cam.com/video/o9JO5d65g28/w-d-xo.html
The bone marrow was created for that persons spicific body, the uterus was created for the fetus body
The uterus was created for another body
Are
Stephanie obliterated this dude.
Dude speak up.
I can't hear you
What I am really trying to understand is he made a good point where how we identify individuals in conjoined twins is their separate brains and consciousness. Let’s say we had two sets of conjoined twins formed very similarly. In one both have a brain and consciousness. In the other only one does and the other does not have a brain or consciousness. Let’s also say that this brainless twin is also being kept alive by the other twins body for the sake of argument. Is this twin without a brain considered a person and or has rights because by Stephanie’s argument, being human is where are right are grounded, but this would also include dead people and non viable pregnancies. For the dead, they are protected by law but the rights they have are different so one could argue that a preborn babies rights are also different. And there’s more I could say even. Please I welcome a discussion because I need help with this.
The thought I had is that one will be viable at some point while the other will not. But they both are still human so it needs more explanation than simply being human. Human growing? Human progressing? Human alive? The conjoined twin and also technically alive so idk.
55:25 Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen are fraternal twins, not identical. 😉
She creamed him!
I am a Christians, but I was wondering... If GOD Almighty gave the Human Kind the gift of 'FREEWILL" to choose between Good and Bad (Evil)... Why not give WOMEN their "FREEWILL" to Choose?... Who are we (humans) to deny anyone of their gift of FREEWILL from God? ... Anyway, God will judge us all in the end... right?
My only concern is... why will the government give "financial support" (millions of dollars) for "Freedom to Choose" (Pro-Abortion movement) but not other Basic Human Freedom... such as the Freedom of Speech, Assembly, Freedom of Religion, Freedom to Bear/Carry Firearms, etc.?
yes, individuals can use their free will to do evil, but the legal system (and ideally the cultural norm/ societal pressure) would guide individual behavior and reduce the perpetration of evil. Therefore since abortion is akin to murder it should be legally punishable as such, as both violate The Lord's command.
I am in no way a scholar but common sense tells that the man’s argument is flawed. Let’s say a driver gets into an accident due to his or her negligence. The other affected driver now hospitalized, needs a “born marrow” to survive. For some reason the negligent driver happens to be only match for the born marrow. Can the government force the negligent driver to give a born marrow for the survival of the other driver ? I think yes. In the case of abortions, the woman is the negligent driver and the baby is the hospitalized driver. The baby is in that position because of the negligence of the woman to prevent her pregnancy when she’s not ready for a child. Therefore the mother is obliged to lend that baby her womb for 9months in order to survive
Interesting you think the govt could force this bc it’s unconstitutional. Has never happened. But if pro life ppl were consistent that fetus is human being and human beings have equal rights to fetus then the law should be this. I have a right to others helping me to live. Right to helping me in medical emergency whether others want to or not. Be consistent
@@cfar1969 The difference is that my bone marrow's purpose is for my body while a woman's uterus' purpose is for her offspring. It is biologically ordinary for a fetus to live in a uterus, but it is extraordinary for me to give my bone marrow to someone else because it wasn't designed for that other person.
Christ Jesus said, "Woe (burden/sorrow) to that man,... it is better for a man if he had not been born (unborn child) than to betray the Son of God (Christ Jesus)" (Matt. 26:24 / Mark 14:21 paraphrased)... In other words, it is better for that Man, to be killed in the womb of a woman (abortion) than to be born and betray Jesus... Is this literal or a figure of speech?... or perhaps both?...
God gave mankind the "gift of FREEWILL" that comes (back to back) with God's Law/Commandments (one can not exist without the other)... One of the Commandments is "thou shall not KILL."... the word "KILL" is a more appropriate correct word than "MURDER"... why?... because a "Self-Infliction" is not a murder but a "Suicide."... Murder by definition, is the infliction of another party or other individual person... God tells us that regardless of guilty or not, self-defense or not, enemies or friends, etc... we (mankind) must not KILL our own kind (humans), and only God has the right to KILL, for God is the "Giver and Taker of Lives" of all His creations.
But due to the STUBBORNNESS of Mankind, God gave Moses another set of Laws/Commandments, other than the 10 commandments, this time, it was more detailed and more on Human Relationships like "DIVORCE, MASTER & SLAVES, etc." and how to govern the Nation of the Jews/Israel (God's chosen people) that is pleasing in the Sight of God...
With this other set of Laws/Commandments given to Moses by God, I could not find any detailed Laws/Commandments regarding the KILLING prohibitions of "UNBORN CHILDREN"... but the killing prohibition for the "BORN CHILDREN" (Babies/Infants) was clearly given... In those early days, the only way they can kill the "UNBORN CHILD" was by killing the pregnant woman... and as time goes by, they found some medicinal plants/herbs that can abort the pregnancy and were only allowed to be used if there is a danger in the life of the pregnant women...
God can even order/instruct Israel to "WIPE-OUT / ANNIHILATION" (total destruction/obliteration) of any clan, society, or nation as God's "PUNISHMENT" including babies/infants, children, and pregnant women (with unborn children),... For Example.. when God ordered/instructed King Saul to eliminate/wipe out the entire AMALEKITES, King Saul spared their King, and God got so mad/angry that God gave his kingship to a shepherd boy named David...
If somebody out there could find a CLEARER passage/verses in the O.T. or N.T. regarding the Killing prohibition of the "UNBORN CHILDREN," please let me know... thanks
The saddest thing about these debates is the lack of scripture. God created us from the moment of conception. Psalm 139:16, "Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.".God saw your substance even as it was still forming, and in your DNA everything was already written, such as your eye color, your facial structure, your future bodily changes. They were continually being fashioned, God wrote it in your book, (genes). The only way to convince people that abortion is murder is to use the sword of the spirit which is the word of God. God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Prov 6:17.
As a Christian and prolife person I agree with you. But we can't argue that something should be illegal based on one religion in a country that has freedom of religion. And I think it's VERY important to teach in church why abortion is wrong also from a scientific view because 2 out of 3 women who have abortions identify themselves as Christian.
In this debates they don't allow religion, bibble scriptures in. The girl is a Catholic Pro Life leader. She knows this. But, they all have to stick to the argument to debate. Because there are a lot of secularism in culture today. But, I get your point clearly. I'm glad you are making it in this pro abortion culture we live in.
Jonathan Peeters asked terrible questions. Here are some questions for Stephanie Gray. How would she force a rape victim to go through with an unwanted pregnancy?
the same way she force a victim of a culture of promiscuity with an unwanted pregnancy, by convincing her with science, arguments, and the words of God that abortion is morally impermissible.
I’m pro choice…or I guess pro legal abortion
I wouldn’t say it’s moral, but safe legal abortion should be available for those who choose to..
It’s not something I could choose personally, but I can’t make that choice for others, I don’t know their situation, and poverty, lack of support, trauma, sexual assault, incest, and health concerns are very valid reasons why I could see a person making that choice.
Therefore I could never fault or judge a person on that choice….
It’s unfortunate his debate style is not as effective as hers…
If you're admitting it's not moral, what specifically is immoral about it?
@@travisjohnson7065
And I hope you ask this in good faith
But I think abortion is immoral or unethical b/c when life begins is a philosophical question that I believe begins at conception..
I would not be able to end the life of my child if I found myself to be pregnant..
However it is not my place to impose my morality on to others…and without proper support women are forced to make that choice….because society does my help many…
So I’m saying abortion is unethical but I can see why the desperate, the sick, the poor, and abused would need it…but they wouldn’t if there was help for them
Currently there is not
What I’m saying is I emphasize and understand both sides..
@@robertalust5466 A couple issues. First, it's not a philosophical question, and in fact, it is not a question at all. We know the answer. It's a fact of basic biology that life begins at conception. If you can cite a single biologist who denies this, I'd love to know.
And not only biology, but also common sense. The sperm and egg are living cells. Why would two individually living gamete cells come together in reproduction to create non-living offspring, which eventually becomes living at some arbitrary later time? So it goes from life, to non-life, and then eventually life again? And also, why are there countless signs of life we can clearly observe in the womb? Why is a supposedly non-living organism growing and developing within about 24 hours of conception? Why is a supposedly non-living organism multiplying its cells, increasing in complexity according to its own DNA, absorbing nutrients and oxygen, converting nutrients into energy through metabolism, and so on? We need to stop pretending that any of this is even debatable. It's an irrefutable fact that there is life in the womb of a pregnant woman, and for anyone to ever suggest otherwise is incredibly idiotic. So much so that even many pro-choice advocates have abandoned this pathetic attempt at an argument.
Second, think about what you're saying about morality. You would not be able to end the life of your child, but you think you can't impose that onto others. So basically what you're saying is, you can't tell other people not to kill their children. Think about that. So you see another parent killing their child, and you feel like you have no right to stop them?
Lastly, there is help for them. If a mother in need asked you for help, what would you do?
@@travisjohnson7065 agree with biology
100%
And yes if one or two ppl asked me for help I could to a degree but I couldn’t help dozens or hundreds
And I couldn’t help with everything a mother needs to give birth and or if she decides to raise it..
Your biological argument is fantastic
And I could definitely help a few mothers financially…
But I can’t help her with mental health concerns, physical health concerns, trauma..
Nutrition ect…a supportive system of people
And even the financial help maternity clothes, pre natal fitness, birthing plans
Having a baby is expensive…
If we want everyone who ever gets pregnant to have to child then we need the support systems for all..
@@travisjohnson7065 and just to be clear
are you suggesting mothers in need go asking strangers for help?
Could you imagine doing that if you were in that position..?
Do you really think other people would help? ..
Most people are bogged with their own issues and struggles..
I think we can agree on a lot here
But the fact is the system is broken and there’s a lot of women who get pregnant that feel they have no choice because they have no help.
Both sides present interesting points. Personally I do not want to be pregnant because of what it would do to my body (how I go about not being pregnant is a biologically unavoidable aspect of that). However based on my research I see evidence supporting that most women choose to have abortions because they do not want to or can not take care of a child (or another child if they already have children). What is the moral debate regarding that? I see that this argument, especially this man's argument, has a lot to do with the woman's decision of what to do with her own body. I think that is an important part of this situation for plenty of women. For example it is important to me because I personally do not want to experience the effects of a person using my body to develop. If the main reason for abortion though is in fact that the people having abortions can't or don't want to take care of a child after the child has already used their body to become a person, what is the debate on that? If a woman consents to having a person use her body but she just can't or doesn't want to take care of that person after that person is born, and taking it even farther if we as a society don't want to step in and take care of that person after the woman consents to fully carrying the person, what do we have to say about that?
Rights also always imply a responsibility so if a woman has a sole right to decide to kill her children and society has no right to protect and defend her children, her right has also effectively severed the responsibility of the father, extended family, or society to care for her or her children. You cannot give her a right to choose to kill her child and expect society to be responsible for her choice if she doesn't. You also effectively degrade all children and mothers by reducing children to just a choice.
The solution to not being able or not wanting to care for a child shouldn’t be killing the child - it should be creating more resources and help centers for underprivileged parents. Otherwise we are giving the death penalty to an innocent human being.
Stephanie used the example of women’s help centers in a couple of her examples!
“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.”
@@jenniferstark7116 what do underprivileged women do while we are waiting for those resources? Perfect world…yeah everyone that needs it gets support financially, physically, and psychologically, but that doesn’t exist, and we can’t force a woman and her child to live a life of poverty and desperation…even abuse.
I keep looking for an abortion debate between two serious thinkers making an effort to seek an ethical conclusion. First, a serious abortion debate would be restricted to first trimester abortion. Each side would be required to talk for at least ten minutes on 1) body autonomy rights, 2) sentience, 3) consequences to women 4) why or why isn't the human species to be protected in non-sentient form in the womb, at great cost to women; while it's acceptable to torture and kill all other species for money, entertainment, etc.?
Mainly, keep the debate focused only on first trimester since 97% of abortions take place then. Also, the fetus is non-sentient; also, the method of abortion is different then; also, the psychological experience will be much different than a later abortion.
The prejudice towards non-humans needs to be addressed, specifically, how can an argument be deemed reasonable when it's merely whimsical favoritism?
First sensible comment here
I've watched many debates of Mme. Gray Connors : This part usually come at some point - th-cam.com/video/Fk5x1fifxrM/w-d-xo.html. IMO, when she describe the laparoscopic surgical procedure, she is describing a form of abortion. However, she cannot say it (based on her stance on abortion). To compare, the Abortion Pill(s) doesn't target the embryo (if we had the technology, ones could save it...). First, Mifepristone (1st pill) blocks your body’s own progesterone, stopping the pregnancy from growing (Pregnancy needs a hormone called progesterone to grow normally). The second medicine, misoprostol, causes cramping and bleeding to empty your uterus.
This method doesn't target the embryo, but Mme Gray Connors distinguish it from the ectopic pregnancy procedure (for no logical reason).
Peeters definitely presented the most coherent and effective argument from PC side. It's just too bad that he seemed unprepared for the cross-examination. Some of the question from Gray asking for supposed logical consistency had better answers than the ones that were given.
Only for People who believe in God the Creator of visible and invisible... 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 /paraphrased, "Our (Physical) bodies are not our OWN, Jesus bought us with His OWN blood, so we must glorify God thru our Body and Spirit/Soul, which are HIS."... Therefore, since our bodies are not our "OWN," we can not put TATTOOS, PIERCING, DO SELF INFLICTION, SUICIDE, DO DRUG/ ALCOHOL/CIGAR ABUSES, ABORTION, INDECENT SEX (PORNO & MASTURBATION), SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, CHANGE GENDER/TRANSGENDER, ETC...
Whatever that mass of cells is I find it hard to defend it as a human being deserving the protection of society. It has been found that one in five fertilized eggs do not even adhere to the woman's womb. If all these zygotes have souls then heaven must be full of these little whatever's and God, the designer of reproduction, did a poor job of protecting these little souls. Looking at the fate of newborn children through the ages shows a great deal of infant mortality, death during childbirth, natural abortion, starvation, disease etc. if God cares deeply about the fetus, it sure does not show up in human design. If all these souls are in heaven that did not live long enough to take a breath heaven will be a strange place in deed. This is not the answer to the abortion debate but it needs to be part of the conversation.
Stephanie Grey's argument only holds any merit when you disregard every shred of scientific evidence and study of the central nervous system. To be a person, having a baseline of neuroligical function is necessary (this doesn't count defects, as they are defects, not baseline), which a fetus below some 20-weeks *doesn't have*.
Furthermore, bodily autonomy doesn't give a shit of it's a person or a vessel for a person that has yet to exist, if you don't want to support that life, it's your right to cut it off.
If you personally hold a fetus that sacred, good for you, don't have an abortion. Ever. What you don't have the right to is to force others to kowtow to this as well, since not everyone is disregarding biological facts and are bleeding hearts over a bundle of tissue.
Start of life? Hah... Sperm and ovum are alive. Unless you want to tell me that a blastocyst is created from dead tissue. Life is perpetuated. What matters is when that life becomes valuable. This is a very fuzzy line, this is true, since individual bias (like special pleading to the zygote/fetus), or the other extreme that a fetus is only 'protected' when it's born (elective abortion until birth). Both of these are extremes. The most sensible line that has been drawn, via biological science and humane ethics NOT guided by religion, is the age of viability. That's when the fetus has any chance whatsoever to survive outside the womb. Prior to the 21st week, that chance is 0%. The fetus will die as soon as it gets out, there's nothing that can keep it alive. Why? Because it's not developed enough to do so. The brain isn't developed enough at all, thus cannot control whatever functions the body has developed thus far.
So, with these things in mind, Elective abortion should very much remain legal *up until the age of viability*. After that it's medical emergency only, as it is in most civilized places.
Regardless if I personally like this or not, it's the best line to draw. It protects the womans right to choose and bodily autonomy, and it protects the fetus when it has developed to a meaningful stage.
_"To be a person, having a baseline of neuroligical function is necessary."_
This is not true. To be a person, it is only necessary to have the capacity to gain or regain neurological function; because death is the _irreversible_ loss of neurological function. Upon implanting in the mother's womb, the embryo starts receiving a steady supply of oxygen and nutrients, thus giving him or her the capacity to gain neurological function.
_"If you don't want to support that life, it's your right to cut it off."_
This is only true if a woman gets pregnant by rape. Otherwise, she has no right to cut off the child from life support, because both she and a man caused the child to depend on her for 40 weeks.
_"What matters is when that life becomes valuable. This is a very fuzzy line, this is true, since individual bias (like special pleading to the zygote/fetus), or the other extreme that a fetus is only 'protected' when it's born (elective abortion until birth). Both of these are extremes."_
I agree with you on this, except that it is not a fuzzy line. The line is implantation. Before implantation, the cells of the newly conceived body are not undergoing cellular respiration. After implantation, the cells have started to undergo cellular respiration and will continue to do so until the moment of death.
You say that bodily autonomy doesn't care about whether the fetus is a person or not.
Then you draw the line at viability.
Those two ideas are incompatible.
Question: why do you feel the need to control women's bodies in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy?
I'm pro-life by the way. The question of: "what are the preborn and are they deserving of human rights?" Thus is the main question upon which the whole abortion debate hinges.
"If you think slavery is immoral then don't keep slaves." It's a good thing for humanity that the slave trade abolitionists didn't buy that argument.
Anthony Hulse yeah but forcing one human to keep another alive isn't a form of slavery is it...
Being a mother isn't a relationship built on coercion.