Is abortion sacred? (REBUTTED)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 ก.ค. 2022
- In this episode Trent rebuts the arguments made in a recent essay in The New Yorker that claims having a child might be worse than aborting a child and that some Pope’s thought abortion wasn’t a sin.
To support this channel: / counseloftrent
Original article: www.newyorker.com/culture/ess...
![[HIGHLIGHT] หมีLIVEปะ? | EP.171 เห็นแต่ในจอ วันนี้มาต้องขอคารวะ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPWLxa0e_Z8/mqdefault.jpg)
"If abortion becomes illegal we'll go back 100 years!" Well if abortion becomes "sacred" we'd be going back 4,000 years.
Very well said fellow crusader.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. th-cam.com/play/PLUcjoO2Bj8AsiGYdzfqZyXae1lhMw_p2s.html
This is true
Context: National Library of Medicine (Medline) is run by the United States Government and is not a substitute for medical advice (by their own admission). TH-cam is owned by Google.
This should get stickied imo
By their definition a C section to give birth is an abortion. This is true in technical medical terminology, which seems at least partially why they can call abortion a "medical procedure". See how they play with words and their meanings? What most pro-life people are against are not C-sections or other procedures wherein they try to keep both child and mother alive, but those procedures wherein they aim to kill the child.
Well big media wouldn't want facts to get in the way of their agenda now would they?
Also a reminder: abortion is a heinous procedure to actively destroy human life which has no way to defend itself
I love forced state propaganda!
Now TH-cam is adding a "context disclaimer" when the topic of abortion comes up to "inform" on abortion healthcare.... which abortion is not Healthcare in any means
So funny how that happens!
Any time they add disclaimers, you know they're afraid of the discussion, which means they're losing and they know it.
Healthcare is meant to foster and promote human life, but abortion only destroys life.
As a nurse it drives me crazy when people call abortion "healthcare" and I always say something in the most loving way I can so I don't get fired, but we can't be silent anymore.
Seriously? I am not seeing it on mine
The fact that google needed to put a disclaimer on the video stating that an abortion is the “removal of an embryo or fetus from a uterus” speaks volumes.
They obviously have their eye on Trent.
Isn’t it an embryo and fetus made up of human dna... this a human being?
And isn’t the time for birth control before getting pregnant.
People just wanting to stay sinful.. praying for them.
Also annoyed at the ‘information/propaganda’
In the UK it just says that "An abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy". By pregnancy they mean "the life of an innocent vulnerable and completely defenseless human being." Sounds better the way they say it though.
What frustrates me is that this is never a question of "rape, or incest". That's a red herring. The real issue is that they want to be able to live a certain lifestyle without the consequences. And, they want the government to be the safety net for their lifestyle.
Absolutely. They use exceptions to just basically say, “there are exceptions to every rule, therefore rules should not exist.” That’s a dangerous line of thinking that even I started falling prey to.
Absolutey; it's just a linguistic trap. Because if you grant the rape exception, they won't suddenly disagree with abortion in the other 99% of cases.
people are alive and conscious at conception. rape does not justify child murder. th-cam.com/play/PLUcjoO2Bj8AsiGYdzfqZyXae1lhMw_p2s.html
I'm not a Catholic, I'm a Mormon/Lds.
However, I find myself inline on abortion a lot more with Catholics than a lot of Latter-day Saints.
What do U think is different from the Mormon vs Catholic views?
The entire Pro Life movement was instituted and propelled by the Catholic Church after all from the very beginning. The Church has ALWAYS seen Abortion as evil, injustice and contrary to God's will.
What’s your church’s teaching on abortion?
Where do you live?
I find support for abortion isn't found among the more active members of either faith.
We had a Sunday School teacher who told everyone she was pro choice during class and they released her from her calling.
@@tony1685 gotta agree here. LDS has one of the most twisted theologies on Christ inasmuch they aren't even considered Protestant even in the liberal sense. Their invalid baptisms and denial of the Trinity is already most troubling. Best get out of the LDS and come Home.
B.C.E. = Before the Christian Era
C.E. = Christian Era
Christ always finds a way, Trent! If they want to change language to de-Christianize it, then we can re-Christianize their changes. 👍
besides, the acronyms are so similar that almost sound alike, so I have to literally translate them into BC & AD, to make it clear. It would have made better sense to call them Era 0 and Era 1.
B.C. = Before Christ
A.D. = anno domini (in the year of the Lord)
I have often thought the same. The 'politically correct' attempt to exclude Christ, but we can let Him in again by the back door in the way you say.
It’s funny they replace BC and AD but literally use a Catholic calendar
"We live in 2024 BCE!"
"And what has it been 2024 years since?"
The Didache written in the first century forbids abortion, there is precedent of early Christians condemning abortion.
This video has an “informational” inset claiming that “abortion is a procedure to end a pregnancy.” That’s completely false. Abortion is a procedure to end the life of the unborn child. There are many situations where there may be reasons to end a pregnancy early without desiring (or aiming) to end the life of the child. Those situations (such as treating an ectopic pregnancy, early induction for preeclampsia, etc.) are NOT abortions unless they are accompanied by the specific desire to ALSO end the life of the child, rather than try to preserve that life as one would try to preserve any premature infant. Even if it’s highly unlikely, or downright impossible, to save the life of the child (like in an ectopic pregnancy), that doesn’t mean the goal is to end the life.
Calling all early ends of pregnancy an “abortion” is just a totally distorting lie.
I also have a read a comment that giving birth is the same as a “termination” because both abortion and giving birth “terminates a pregnancy.” There’s some real mental 🤸♀️ Olympics going on these days.
Amen, amen, amen!
You bring up an important point that many participants in the abortion debate don't realize: There are multiple different reasonable definitions of abortion throughout society. The way the Catholic Church defines it is not the same way the medical community defines it, for example. It is therefore wrong to assume that one definition is right and the others are false, lies, evil and should be abolished. Rather you should take the existence of those definitions into account when you make pro-life arguments, to avoid misunderstandings.
For example when you say to a medical professional: "Abortion is never necessary", he is going to assume his definition of abortion (ending a pregnancy) and (rightly!) say: "You are wrong. Ending a pregnancy is sometimes necessary."
Instead you should state your defintion of abortion expressly, so there is no misunderstanding: "Directly killing an unborn is never necessary."
There is no point in quarreling about definitions.
@@blag345 medical professionals are fully aware of the legal definition of abortion. When medical professionals try to argue that early termination of pregnancy may sometimes be necessary, they are well aware that those procedures are not part of the actual definition of abortion in the legal code of any of our fifty states. To pretend otherwise is sophistry on their part.
Again, this is about refusing to allow reality and objective definitions to be twisted.
Edit: but I completely agree with you that pro-life advocates should state the correct definition of abortion right at the beginning of any such conversation and then refuse to budge from it.
"Interesting" wording in the Meline link added by TH-cam for "context":
_"Procedural abortion: a procedure to _*_remove the pregnancy_*_ from the uterus."_
I had never heard the term "remove the pregnancy" before. This is the weirdest way to not say baby or even fetus.
it's strictly medical wording. Professional language rarely cares about feelings, as it's supposed to be descriptive
@@Mish844 get a life troll
@@lois2997 shame that you don't have anything of value to add
@@Mish844 So-called "professional language" might very well be another language then because pregnancy is a period and natural process that babies and their mothers go through, not an object to be "removed." Rarely cares about feelings? Cares even less for facts, it seems, as it fails to be descriptive because it's not describing anything in reality at all. Well, perhaps the sentence makes sense to you in progressive academese, but it does not do so in english.
@@Mish844 Shame that you don't have a single coherent thought inside your head. It's much more of a shame how you can not seem to escape this predicament.
I love how people nowadays instead of trying to change themselves to be more eco friendly instead try to use climate change to justify abortion
People who can't fix potholes now want to fix the climate, it seems.
I thought the purpose of environmentalism was to preserve a balanced ecosystem for the future generations. But those who have abortions are trying to prevent future generations from being born.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. th-cam.com/play/PLUcjoO2Bj8AsiGYdzfqZyXae1lhMw_p2s.html
The slippery slope remains undefeated. There is not limiting factor for these people. They are incredibly dishonest.
Abortion “health” is an oxymoron.
Abortion is to healthcare as iconoclasm is to curation.
When a new Trent Horn video drops I know it's gonna be a good day. ♥️👶🏻
Focus on what the unborn are. Great tip Trent.
I find that when evengelizing,, that is what they attack, the humanity of the child, or they set up a false dicinomy where they put the child against the mother and say is the child more important than the mother? They always gotta twist it into that.
Trent thank you for what you do! You breakdown everything with such simplicity and easy-to-understand logic
Really enjoyed this. The way Trent was able to dissect point by point of the article in an informative and humorous way, made for a very insightful and effective video.
Thank you, Trent. Your unpacking of the content is gold! Peace.
BCE = Before Christ's Era, CE = Christ's Era.
She’s literally complaining that she didn’t kill her baby and regretting not doing so.
Shame on her, that poor baby!
I want to add a comment about the California wildfires. The redwood seed cannot germinate without being subject to the heat from fire. Given the time that would be required to develop such a trait evolutionarily, taht tells us that wildfires have been happening in California for millennia.
Trent, we need more Kermit the Frog impressions.
Quick reminder that we can just read BCE as "Before Christ's Era" and CE as "Christ's Era". If we stick to this hard enough, we can change or at least confuse the common understanding to the point where the term will become irrelevant.
Edit: someone came up with a better version in the replies, so I changed my comment to reflect that.
I always thought it meant Before Christ Existed
@@YovanypadillaJr That also works.
Nah because Christ always existed
What about "Before Christ's Era" and "Christ's Era"?
@@carlosbalazs2492
That's gold! I will now edit my comment, as I think your's is the best version I have come across.
How was Jesus' birth unplanned? Mary consented to it after being asked by God.
Where does he say it was unplanned?
@@yajunyuan7665 Not him the New Yorker article.
@@johnnotrealname8168 Okay
14:42 - bit of a cringe when Trent said "bce" outside of quoting the article. I always hated it too - as soon as I see it the first thought is that that's the author severely undermining his or her own credibility. No scholar has any right to expect to be taken seriously if they use it.
Trent Horn is the best!
Abortion is part of those religions that practice child sacrifice. Human sacrifice was sacred to some cultures.
BCE - Before the Christian Era
CE -Christian Era.
Works for me :)
nah that's a weak willed giving in to the secularization of academia.
@@tafazzi-on-discord I generally only use it to troll those who insist on using CE and BCE, in order to point out Trent’s point: the so-called “common era” is, in fact, the Christian era.
Trent I'd love to hear you speak more on this idolizing of life problem. That was the first I've heard of jt
Time-stamp
20:40 - Did a pope say that abortion can be acceptable?
21:30 - Debate over semantics (“homicide”), but abortion was still considered a grave sin.
Timestamp 21:38 how can it be a grave sin to kill something that doesn't have a soul?
wouldn't that be like killing an animal?
@@yajunyuan7665 unborn children have souls, the Bible says that lord knits us together in our mothers womb, implying not only humanity but spirit.
@@yajunyuan7665 Nonetheless, it is wrong to murder an animal for no reason (however to a different degree). If the unborn, or pre-3rd Trimester fetus, are without souls and then given souls, why is it that we say the unborn are alive yet a person can only 'give up' their soul upon death?
@@Andrew-wo8ry Yes I believe unborn children are souls but the video at that timestamp said past pope thought fetus was alive but soulless
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 Of course, but people don't do abortions for no reason, just poor reasons.
I believe it's a soul from conception but that is not what past Pope believed based on was said at that timestamp.
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1-2 [A.D. 70]).
“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21. Council of Neocaesarea [A.D. 314]).
"Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the fetus, are subjected to the penalty of murder" (canon 91. Council of Trullo [A.D. 692]).
Thus, in 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion “is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church” (Evangelium Vitae 62).
- From Catholic Answers
As you can see, Catholics are required by an infallible Papal statement, I’m pretty sure, to believe abortion is a moral evil. So, Catholics, who must believe in Papal Infallibility, must believe in this.
And yep, the Didache, one of the earliest Christian sources directly condemns abortion:
“The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1-2 [A.D. 70]).
So does the Letter of Baranabas, another very early source:
“The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).
Also:
And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion” (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).
Another I think apocryphal very early work, that still condemns abortion.
Athenagoras:
“What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? . . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it” (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).
Tertullian:
“In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197
“[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive” (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).
“Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (ibid., 27).
“The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22-24]” (ibid., 37).
Minucius Felix:
“There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide” (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).
Council of Ancyra
“Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees” (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).
Basil the Great
“Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not” (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).
“He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees” (ibid., canon 8).
Jerome:
“I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder” (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).
The Apostolic Constitutions
“Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed” (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).
@@tony1685 you know it's going to be an absurd comment when it begins with "...actually..."
@@tony1685 I suggest you call into catholic answers Tony. All of this has been addressed before. And your lords name in vain point is circular
@@tony1685 I think not responding to "Actually the SECOND commandment is about idols" is due to us Catholics hearing this take every other day at the very least and some have grown tired of responding to it.
Why has the Catholic church changed ten years of penance to excommunication?
Completely agree. People wouldn't be so vehemently for abortion if it weren't linked to sex.
Likewise, it's easy to argue in the present day from a Feminist perspective, with the goal to remove any hurdles that women face and men don't. But if technology gets to the point where any child is viable after conception (for example, in an artificial womb), who's choice is it then to keep the child alive? Still only the mother, who wouldn't even be carrying the child? Does the child still gain their rights at birth? (...whatever birth would look like with an artificial womb)
people are alive and conscious at conception. rape does not justify child murder. th-cam.com/play/PLUcjoO2Bj8AsiGYdzfqZyXae1lhMw_p2s.html
I'm like it wasn't an unplanned pregnancy any more than if a guy says to his wife you want to have a kid. The only difference is the time between the yes and the conception was immediate. You could only make that case if mary had said not now
Trent, just remember: BCE - Before Christ Era, CE- Christ Era ;)
No. You remember BC-Before Christ, Ano Domini-Year of Our Lord
I think she says pregnant “person” to emphasize her belief that the woman is a person but the fetus isn’t.
🌹🌹🌹👏 Thank You Trent
This whole video gave me a deja vu of a discussion that I had with a white nationalist/racialist on twitter when it was leaked that RvW was going to be overturned by the SC. He basically argue the exact same things that this article in the New Yorker is talking about, this only confirms to me that WN and racialist or "race realist" are just racist liberals, having the exact same ethos and philosophy.
The thing that I found very curious is that in the original thread that sparked all this debate on twitter that I got involved with, this white nationalist was lamenting the fact that RvW was being overturned because, according to him, this was the last positive eugenic pressure for the american population, specifically whites. A very observant catholic commenter in that thread pointed out that racialist complaining about systemic structures, liberal privilege and eugenic pressures on the population coming from people that are going to die childless anyway is stupid in the extreme and they're just looking for rationalizations to justify their failure to follow their most basic of biological imperatives. This of course cause a lot of butt-hurt among that crowd of social rejects.
Ahh yes she tried to pull the old Sixtus vs. Gregory canard. I remember and old CSI episode where they tried that when interrogating an anti-abortionist activist.
What the heck is this abortion "health care" article doing right under the video!?
TH-cam.
Because it is. A woman shouldn't be forced to carry a dead fetus in her body. Abortion is more than just promiscuous sex.
@@bamafencer12 Literally nobody is against the removal of a baby who unfortunately died while in their mother's womb. Pro lifers are against abortion.
@@bamafencer12 Removing a dead child from the womb is not the direct killing of a child. Therefore is not an abortion. That is outside the scope of the pro-life position.
@@musicman1eanda You say that, but some state legislators and interpretation of the law disagrees with you in some states. Some Republicans (and I'm one) are trying to ban contraception. How can we reduce abortions and want to ban condoms at the same time? Makes zero sense.
I wanted to ask anyone for advice.
I am a Catholic and a 17 year old. I go to a Catholic school in Australia.
As a part of English class we have to read a book called Things We Didn’t See Coming, by Steven Amsterdam. I am finding the book very difficult to read. The disrespect depictions of Christians, the sexualisation of women and the foul language plays into this.
I also suffer from clinical OCD and scrupulosity, which is amplifying some of these issues, making reading this book very, very difficult.
As I understand, we have to submit to authority, as all authority comes from God. As long as the authority is not making you do anything contrary to the faith.
I have expressed by discomfort with the book to my teacher but he says I have to read it regardless.
Would I be sinning by not reading the book? As I would be not submitting to my teacher’s authority over me?
I desperately want to do the right thing, and want to do well in the subject, reading as much of the book as I have to, to be able to do the work.
Go to Catholic answers call during the Live Show!
You might be able to push back against the teacher on mental heath grounds.
Talk to your therapist and see if he can think of ways to handle this situation.
I'd ask your priest
Talk to your parents and school administration. As a last ditch, you could always accept a 0 grade for that assignment, on moral grounds.
You are correct that we are to submit to those in authority over us- but only if they aren’t sinful. Then we have a duty to resist, for the sake of our soul. What I will tell you, especially since you deal with scrupulousness, is to first take it to your priest. Tell him your concerns about the material. If he tells you that the material is sinful, then you may have to take a 0. But let the priest help you make that decision so that you can be at peace.
That teacher let a really good opportunity to teach how to reason slip through his fingers. He should have walked her through her reasoning and let her explore why she thought that. Just shutting her up and shunting her to the "right" side of the room didn't TEACH her anything.
You are assuming the author is actually depicting the story accurately...
Kansan... voting today to stop late term abortions here.
Pray for us!
An excellent Biblical defense, Trent! I would push back slightly against your interpretation of Exodus 21 here. The text describes a punishment for the premature birth of the child saying that a fine is to be paid. However, it then goes on to say that if there is further injury, then it is "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." That is quite literally the death penalty for killing this unborn child, and is an even stronger defense in my opinion than what you posited here.
If anyone tries to argue this is talking about the mother, then I would ask that person to find the Hebrew phrase for "to her" in the text. It is not there. Grammatically it should apply to both the woman and the child.
21:48 Hormonal contraception causes abortion - life begins at conception.. 26:51 - 46 million abortions that occur world wide - man , many, many times that number because of hormonal contraception.
So contraception is also wrong for the married?
The Teaching of the Twelve specifically condemns abortion as murder by name and that's from 50 AD. I'm not sure what the issue is. The whole "Bible doesn't say X, Y, Z" explicitly is an argument that can only work with people who subscribe to a sola scriptura mindset and even that's something of a stretch because of how the Solas are interpreted by each individual school of Protestantism.
When Trent talks about life becoming an idol for some atheists and leftists, he ventures precariously close to what many pro-abortionists say about pro-lifers. I agree with Trent, but it might be enlightening to have him explain why pro-lifers do not, as a group, idolize life.
"I AM The Way, The Truth and The Life. No one comes to The Father except through me." - Christ Jesus. People are alive and conscious at conception. rape does not justify child murder. th-cam.com/play/PLUcjoO2Bj8AsiGYdzfqZyXae1lhMw_p2s.html
Bring back Kermit the climate change frog for a full climate change episode haha
Woman from an athletic perspective have a benefit from having a child about a year to 1.5 years later with improved performances and the Russians knew this and would time their womans athletes with a pregnancy 1 year to 1.5 years before the Olympics.
How is a pregnancy unplanned (outside of rape)? Did 2 complete strangers bump into each other on a subway platform, engage in sex without any prior communication? I've heard this all my life about unplanned teenage pregnancy. But the pregnant girl in my grade 9 class was aware of what was going to happen when she had sex with her boyfriend, although they erroneously discounted the probability.
The informational insert thing is absurd propaganda. Great video trent
02:15 on this episode of "things that never happened but sounded awesome in my head"...
04:20 this lass is close enough to the truth, but then she gets all flustered and upset.
Thanks Trent! Excellent distinctions and rebuttals.
This is an argument this woman should be having with State legislators. It has noting to do with the overturn of the Roe decision.
The teaching of the twelve apsotles 1st,2nd century very clear in
🔎 Didache
2 ,1 : 1a
talks about
The second commandment of the teaching [2] You shall not murder. You shall no commit adultery.
You shall not pracrice magic. You shall not use potions . You shall not procure abortion ,nor destroy a new -born child. [3] You shall not covet your neighbor's goods.
🤔 ? boy o boy all this Evils have have return in our times again .
26:35 "we should kill babies because uh... Planet getting warmer"
As always Trent thank you so much for the great explanation. Twisted the scriptures or what the father said is NOT honest 🤥🤫
no
there I just saved you about 30 minutes
The answer would have already been known by anyone who clicked on this video. If you aren't interested in hearing the arguments, then why are you here?
@@jamesshives5679 /RWOOSH
I love this Trent...
These people who do these types of article have no scruples
“It’s just a clump of cells” what the heck are you then?
Didn't notice the Google indoctrination insert. Would have dismissed it anyway.
I'm gonna need to hear more from Kermit the Climate Change Frog in future videos. Maybe you could set up a debate.
What about Luke 1:39 and on, where we are given the annunciation and the story of John the Baptist leaping in the womb? The scripture says, “Elizabeth’s infant leaped in the womb.”
Christ said it best...
"In the beginning it was not so"
"God hasn't revealed the moment of ensoulment" it's the Catholic why of saying "we haven't found a way to make it work with metaphysics yet" .
Sort of. There just is no way of absolutely knowing but it for sure is possible as soon as the individual human being comes into existence. The form "calls" for the soul
@@partydean17 An alive human that isn't a soul would be an animal.
That has implications for how grave abortion would be
Good point Trent. When things relate to sex, prepare for the whirlwind.
Wow who wrote these points? These are absolutly the worst attempts at biblical or christian justification for abortion.
Trent, I know you probably have bigger fish to fry and on a larger pan at that. But I would be extremely grateful if you (or anyone else from the comment section) could in some way answer. I have a friend that has opened up to the possibility of God's existence, but a large stumbling block that I she has found seems to be why do we need God. To paraphrase her "what would it change? If God is real that doesn't really change my life". As usually I would be prepared to counter with certain arguments or debunk misconceptions or to erase doubt, this stumped me.
I don't know how to tackle this. Obviously being a christian (a catholic even more so i'd say) changes a lot in your life, but I cant seem to find a good approach to this. I cant formulate a good emotional argument, I cant formulate a good logical argument, philosophical. To add to that, as with a lot of people today, she doesn't accept the concept of sin per se.
Long story short: I cant find a good response to this and I would be grateful to you Trent or anyone else in the comment section for some help, tips, advice or anything like that. Perhaps this has a very obvious answer, if so I am sorry for the waste of time. God bless.
Ok here's how I'd answer: If God is there, morality becomes a rock-solid discipline, based on the real fundamental structure of the world, with the same rigor and credibility as science. God is, among other things, the bridge between objective reality and science, in the same way withing Physics, the W and Z bosons were the bridge between early Quantum mechanics and special relativity (the theory was later known as "quantum field theory").
That's one thing knowing God exists changes, while another thing that may be a motivator of other people would be that the God that exists promised us an afterlife. You can go into Pascal's wager to expand on that.
And the last thing I can come up with that is diverse enough from the other two is this: God loves you more than anyone else ever could, and He gifts you everything from your existance to your conscience. Isn't it worth it to figure out if that's true? God will love you even if you don't give Him any feedback, but if it's true wouldn't the right thing to do be to find a proper way to thank Him?
I tried to come up with one argument for each branch of greek rhethoric, respectively they are ethos, logos and pathos.
@Athanasius thank you for the advice, I totally overlooked the simple concept of truth. Again thank you.
@@tafazzi-on-discord Thank you for the ideas and thank you for putting in the effort. God Bless
I like your arguments since the essay was from a religious standpoint. I wonder can you make similar arguments without the religious in nature? I know you commented in the beginning that abortion isn't solely a religious issue, so maybe in the future (as this is months old) share this without religion. Passing or banning abortion shouldn't be supported by religious arguments since our government doesnt ideally follow christian standards, so I think arguments in general from pro-life would be more sound to gain every support in the cause if there were no religion involved.
Can someone please answer. I made a claim that the Eucharist placed in the monstrance looks “similar” to an ancient pagan/satanic symbol. Did I commit the unforgivable sin?
Of course I actually believe Jesus is truly present in the Eucharist.
? Some of yall are obsessive out here.
@@partydean17 I know, I suffer from scrupulosity from time to time.
@@partydean17 so am I okay?
@@tvhead7074 nah. Well in terms of what you said that's fine. No problem saying "wow those pagans had an inkling of true beauty and found that"
Problem is you stessin
Anything and everything can be construed as a pagan symbol if one imagines enough. Heck, nature worship would dictate even a leaf can be pagan.
I tend to subscribe to the idea that God has placed himself in every man’s heart, so we’ll naturally seek him the best we can and articulate how we are able.
I see the Eucharist in the monstrance as Jesus shining forth, bringing darkness to light, nourishing life, and warming the coldest corners of my soul. So I’ll naturally see “sun” imagery as that is how I articulate myself on it. Plus, I love puns so the English words sun and Son make me smile 😁
Well the current Pope is likely a universalist so I wouldn’t put it past the magisterium to put a pro abortion pope in.
What’s with the title of A Pro abortion Pope?
Scripture doesn't really support the humanity of a fetus before birth except in narrow, miraculous circumstances (such as the conception of our Lord, and John the Baptist, for instance). Most Jews have never traditionally recognized the fetus as more than a potential human (in fact, a Jewish group has challenged some of the new abortion bans as violative of their religious liberty). See Exodus 21:22-25. Isn't God entitled to wait until the moment of birth to impart His image and likeness to a fetus if He wants to? What if He decided that it wouldn't be good to put a woman's life in competition with that of a child, pitting one against the other? God first formed Adam's body from the dust. God breathed into Adam's fully formed body the breath of life, AFTER which Adam became a living soul. That fully formed body may have even had biological life.
I read the other day that a young woman about to go to college decided to obtain contraception from her doctor, even though she did not plan to be sexually active. She planned instead to focus on her studies, so romance and sex was out of the question for her during that 4 year period. In light of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, she reasoned that she must plan her college career as if she is going to be raped at some point (which could very well happen). We must notice that the court system is extremely lax on rapists...a young man was given nothing more than a slap on the wrist a few years ago, even though he was caught in the act. Boys will be boys, right?
And what about girls who enter puberty prematurely? The youngest documented mother was 5 years old. We had a 9 year old incest/rape victim recently who was told she must bear her attacker's child...what do 9 year old's know pregnancy and child-bearing? So, we sin against this 9 year-old with what is essentially a second act of violence in order to avoid the sin of abortion (a decision that would be made for her since she was not of age)? This girl was ultimately taken across state lines to obtain an abortion. But I couldn't help but wonder...if this 9 year-old girl was forced to give birth, and assuming she survived childbirth, she would surely bond with the child. Would her parental rights be preserved, or would she be deemed incompetent to raise the child and have her child taken away from her? How many traumas must she endure to satisfy the pro-life movement?
🤰👶
@The Counsel of Trent
Why was my account blocked from being able to comment on your channel? and Was it you or someone else who did it?
Trent doesn’t spend that much time in the TH-cam comments nor does he comment moderate his channel(s). Maybe it’s a TH-cam glitch? Or a report by someone that block chained to Counsel of Trent? (Like how people will block one user on Twitter and the blockee’s friends are blocked as well)
Either way, Trent wouldn’t have been the one to do it.
@@jendoe9436 It's not a glitch because all my previous comments on his old videos got removed which can only happen if you get permanently banned.
It might not have been Trent but it would have to be someone using his account.
Why have all my past comments on your other videos been *aborted* from the comment sections?
The notion that Trent or any of these apologists knows what God wants is hilarious.
Abortion is a right of every woman no matter how loud (old) men are screaming and holding up the Bible or pointing to a ‘law’ from a nonexistent being. Trent’s moral framework is appalling.
So do you think mothers have the right to kill their children after they are born?
No one has a right to murder. Period.
@@fooberdooge3103 I don’t think it’s that easy. First of all I don’t think that abortion fits the definition of murder. Secondly, how do you justify the intrusion into someone’s privacy to make personal medical decisions. This isn’t just immoral but unconstitutional in my opinion. We are still living in a free country although it feels like that clergy is taking over…
@@maxmaximus2608 Abortion is murder because it is a scientific fact that life begins at conception. Want evidence?
The American College of Pediatricians:
"The predominance of human biological research confirms that human life begins at conception-fertilization. At fertilization, the human being emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species Homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is one of form, not nature. This statement focuses on the scientific evidence of when an individual human life begins."
Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, the “Father of Modern Genetics,”
“To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place, a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion…it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception.”
Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic:
“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School:
“It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive…It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception…Our laws, one function of which is to help preserve the lives of our people, should be based on accurate scientific data.”
If life begins at conception, then "my body, my choice" doesn't work, because the baby is his or her own person who has a right to live. Killing babies is not OK. And "Pro-life" doesn't mean "pro-birth", like so many who favor abortion claim. Christians have done far more for unwanted children than any other group. Period. There are pregnancy centers, hospitals, adoption agencies, food banks, addiction resources, and much more, and a key player in that game is the Catholic Church.
"My body, my choice" must be a hell of an excuse, because it's been used to justify the slaughter of over 60 million precious babies and counting. Except it's not. Just look at what science teaches us about conception. If anything, "my body, my choice" demonstrates the selfishness and materialistic nature of our society.
@@fooberdooge3103 abortion is not murder. Period
I tried to send feedback (to YT),
and it deleted it until I changed what I said.
@ajamusic