Justin Trudeau WINS Abortion Debate By Assuming What Needs to be Proved
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- Here are three quick thoughts on this exchange between Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and this young pro-lifer.
#RedPenLogic #Abortion #ProLife #ProChoice #Christianity
----- FIND MORE FREE TRAINING -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
----- CONNECT -----
RPL TikTok: / original_mrb
RPL Facebook: / redpenlogic
RPL Instagram: / redpenlogic
STR TH-cam: / strvideos
STR Facebook: / standtoreason93
STR Twitter: / strtweets
STR Instagram: / standtoreason
STR LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
----- GIVE -----
Support RPL: www.str.org/re...
Support Stand to Reason: www.str.org/do...
Bold of you to assume Trudeau wouldn't be okay with ending a two year old's life.
Unsettling, but probably true.
Peter singers philosophy is basically what you get when someone has no moral quarrels with thinking this idea to its logical end. Most people are cowards so they dont do it, but they share his philosophy
he would be okay with ending million's lifes, he don't care bout no human being
Ongezellig
@@TheEvilPig01 Yes, that is my name.
You don't kill the child for the crimes of the father. Once this clicked in my head, the gape argument from the pro choice always seemed very weak to me.
The real argument is should a foetus have rights over its mothers body
No children are killed. Fetuses are terminated
@@colinmatts the answer to that is purpose of womb. You can't say the child is trespassing in a place it belongs, especially in a organ only for that specific child.
The real argument is even more ridiculous, does an unwanted human have rights or not.
@@sysprogmanadhoc2785 What species is the fetus....it's human if you did not know.
@@souzajustin19d Just because a womb has a particular purpose, that doesn't mean a woman should be forced to carry a child she doesn't want in it. The real argument is...why should the unborn be given a right that no living person gets?
Evil should not be dealt with by committing evil
Exactly this! 2 wrongs don’t make right. Pro Choicers are moved by the assumption that they are doing the “right thing” by these women seeking abortion, but they fail to acknowledge the termination of the unborn as a great evil in itself. We should always aim to expose this fundamental flaw in their reasoning whenever we engage pro choicers in dialogue.
@@Tobi_237 I realized this when I was first told about abortion, these adults that I debate with don't know what to say when I tell them that. I'm pretty sure they also don't want to make the argument that murder of any kind is ok so this is the best argument for pro-life against pro-convenience/murder
@@RedBloodAura Indeed! No reasonable person would advocate for such an objectively reprehensible act of killing an innocent human being, so pro choicers often employ euphemisms to spruce up their rhetoric on the subject, I’m sure you’re aware of the common ones. But, as Mr B said, with compassion, we skilfully help our opposers see through the lies, and hope that the truth sets ‘em free. ‘Cause, ultimately, there ARE no good arguments FOR the wanton killing on demand that abortion culture has sanctioned for far too long.
@@Tobi_237 yeah. Like when they say murder instead of Healthcare or bodily autonomy. It's hilarious and sickening to me that they are afraid of saying their true intentions when in a debate
Evil doesn't exist in nature. Its a word humans made up and some people uses. We have only un/desirable
Trudeau trying to school someone to use the terms yes or no is hilarious!
Omg yes! 🤣
FAAACCCTS!
Are you embarrassed that you steal candy from babies? Yes or no only!
He did.
@TheUnheardVoices_ if you stand with Trudeau, you might be the textbook definition of reprobate. He is destroying our Country.
Trudeau telling someone to pray is the height of hypocrisy.
It's because he doesn't actually know what, how, or why prayer is prayer.
Cuz god is a joke....
He is a demon that is not even good lying
@@andreasiversen6141 the guy who never read the bible:
@@andreasiversen6141Okay...?
As a Canadian, I sincerely disagree with Trudeau’s view.
As a Canadian, so do I.
Me too.
Amen my Canadian brethren
But, he is from Quebec so 🤷♂️
@Excuse me but yep, when you don’t have an argument so you just talk over the other person and try to make him look stupid that really makes your viewpoint look good
I cannot stress this enough. Pro-lifers. If you are not well versed in the _social dynamics_ of debate, do not have on-camera interactions with bad-faith people, _esp. politicians!_
Maybe he was paid, its weird
If I, as a pro-lifer, am willing to concede and say "Yes. Women who get r-worded should be allowed to get an abortion." Would YOU, Trudeau, be willing to concede that the remaining 95% or so of elective abortions should be outlawed?
If not, then this isn't really about women who get r-worded. This is about using their trauma as a political meat shield.
Only 0.4 % abortions are rape related.
That’s what’s I say when they try to use the extreme case for a regular practice.
@david Murder of a child. It's that simple.
Hence why I dont say I am a pro-lifer, its just as bad as being pro abortion in terms of euphemisms that dont maintain coherency under pressure. I align with abolitionists. Abortion is murder. Any involved in abortion should be charged with murder. Clemency, grace, and support, should be provided those who have suffered under the lie. Going forward, zero tolerance.
@@david-ul5mg David, the OP never said anything about covid masks. Additionally his statement was to point at the absurdity of using an edge case to prove the primary case. You are correct however in showing the fallacy in his statement, that attempted to point out another fallacy. Both parties are being disingenuous. Additionally "My body, my choice" is quite equivalent to "My plantation, my prerogative". If you dont want to own slaves, you dont have to, however we have the right to. They are "our property". These broad statements that have no basis is reason or christian fundamentals have led our society to some dangerous places. By all means continue supporting the post-slavery eugenics movement, however when the time comes, I will gladly perp walk you to jail for all the lives you have aided in murdering.
"What about cases of rape?"
"How does rape justify murder?"
I'll have to remember the counter illustration about the young girl. That's a good re-focus point to bring up.
How doesn’t rape justify murder? cause in a lot of cases it sure did, as a survivor you kill us without actually killing us, if it’s severe especially. I don’t wish to get into it because hopefully you got the point.
@@hahahefofmw Can you explain more
I don’t know. For me, as someone who’s mother was raped, I hate it with a passion, but I cannot justify abortion in that case because of the following 2 reasons: a) the child didn’t rape the mom, and b) I don’t want anyone in any circumstance determining the fate of a human being while being emotionally compromised.
The innocent child should not suffer for the crime of the father.
The just thing to do according to Gods law is to put the wicked, vile rapist to death - not the innocent helpless child.
Put as a question / statement….
‘So you think the children of criminals should be put to death?
If you’re against rape you should be against abortion.
Rape is one human being abusing and misusing another human beings body against their will for convenience and pleasure
Abortion is one human being abusing and misusing another human beings body against their will for convenience and pleasure
The body inside the mothers body is not her body.
@@justwannaridemabikethough we cannot agree with it there are people who are abused and do choose to abort, and we know that God still loves them and they will go through their sufferings, but there are certainly killers in heaven. We have to have compassion still.
The justification for abortion is that no one gets the right to use another person's body to live
Indeed, the child does not become his father, there are people born of bad situations that becomes followers of God. From moment of conception, it is a life, that has value, the life in the womb were you, it was me, and everyone who has ever lived. The life in the womb matters, and so does life matter outside of the womb.
Every time a dude jerks off he determines the fate of MILLIONS of humans
Something I would want to ask Trudeau is: If my father commits a crime, should I be punished for it? If the answer is no, then why are we punishing a baby for a crime its father commits? Not to mention, the baby basically gets the death penalty, while the father gets prison time for his crimes. It just doesn't seem right to me.
Him especially! He may be the son of mass murderer Fidel Castro! I usually don't believe in punishing the child for the sins of his father but in little blackfaces case I would be willing to make an exception.
That's not how this works. Children born out rape often trigger the mother into mental illness, child abuse or suicide. Everyone really needs to put this topic in perspective.
No babies are killed, fetuses are terminated
The guilty goes free while the innocent dies - it's tragic!
@@rhyfelwrDuw so is rape....
Canada has NO laws on abortion..meaning it can be done up until 9 months 🥺 it's heartbreaking to say the least 😔
For the probirth movement (and yes it is probirth and not prolife) to have any credibility it needs to give satisfactory and objective answers to the following Qs....not personal opinions
1. What in nature confers intrinsic value on human life
2. Why anyone should have more say on a womans body than she herself
3. why human lifeforms should have the same level of rights all all stages in their development i.e. from conception thru to death
Without satisfactory, objective answers to these Qs, the Prolife movement doesn't have a leg to stand on
@@drackoni-han13 The real question is when does a fetus become a human. I remember how every abortion debate used to lead to that question, but nobody had a satisfactory answer. I hope you're not serious about that first one. Does your life have intrinsic value? It's not the kind of thing that can be objectively proven, but if we don't all accept that as a given then why should murder even be illegal?
Hey, these are some hopefully objective answers according to a Christian perspective (they are logical and objective if you believe in the authority of God and His word).
1. We are valuable because God created us and values us. We are made in the image of God so all human life is valuable from conception to death
2. God has given us free will so aside from God, each individual has the ultimate right over their own actions and their body. A baby is also a human so a pregnant mother does not have the ultimate right to kill that other human.
3. Since we are always human we always have the same value (according to God through the bible).
While you could call this pro-birth I think it is rightly called pro life as well because it maintains the value of life for mothers and babies.
@Excuse me but Why should anyone care about _your_ religion? While we are at the hat, why should anyone care about anything at all?
@Excuse me but its freedom of religion, from from religion. That freedom includes discussion
Why make more victims?
Another example of “if you’re going to confront someone you better know your stuff and where you stand on EVERY aspect of the issue”. So many times, the people who confront politicians or whatever have no idea what they’re talking about
I wonder. Here, in my kitchen, I know exactly what I would say to Trudeau, Biden, Putin and even the devil himself but when you are face to face, with all the razmataz and noise that surrounds a celebrity, I am not sure that I wouldn't forget half my rehearsed arguments.
He tried to make his point but trudeau interrupted and talked over him each time. I think he was trying to point out the fact that over 95% of the abortions are not from rape, which is a very valid argument. However, in trudeau's typical narcissist, abuser-mentality way of debating people, the poor kid never had a chance.
You are correct, however bear in mind Trudeau is experienced in politicking, and won't let our prolife advocate get a word in edge wise because he wants to force him into a loaded trap of a question, and he simply isn't used to that. This is not a debate, and Justin knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on if our advocate can get his point across, which is why he resorts to dogpiling, like a pigeon on a chess board acting like it's won. You can know every aspect of an issue but not be given the opportunity to express it. Which is why free speech laws matter so dearly, so we don't have to enter a one-sided battlefield when our opponents allow us to discuss an issue. Justin can't dogpile a statistical statement about rape vs non-rape abortions.
So what?
The question would still a valid question.
If that statistic is true for all abortions that only 5% results from a sexual assault then, how do you feel about those 5% of women making the choice not to carry their rapists child to term?
This is where is gets murky and many of you appear to be very insensitive to the victim dealing with that kind of trauma.
Let’s math!
Out of 1,000,000 abortions (hypothetical figure) globally only 5% were due to sexual assaults.
That’s 50,000 traumatized women.
How does God feel about the trauma those women experienced?
How do pro-birther’s feel about them?
@@toreyhorton1789 I can guarantee you that God cares for those women, and also that killing the babies doesn’t get rid of any trauma. 2 wrongs don’t make a right. Just because someone harmed you doesn’t give you the right to go and kill or harm someone else
"There are few things more evil than sexual assault"
Correct. Murdering innocent babies is one of those things.
Forcing women to go through with unwanted pregnancies would be up there too
A fetus is as innocent as a rock
Nope. Our value is not determined by women's wants@@colinmatts
@@johnlove2954 So, you just don't value women's rights?
If your therapist told you there was a brand new treatment that would help you recover from your PSTD instantly. All you have to do is go out to the woods and kill a hobo. Would it be ok? Of course not. Rape is not an excuse to kill someone that had nothing to do with the rape.
the ultimate question: "would you then prohiibit non-rape pregnancies from being aborted"? if we agree on rape, will you let go of all the other cases?
you will see them fall apart
At the very least in the rape case (even though I still disagree with the idea of abortion, I am more sympathetic to the mother) the rapist should then get charged with rape and murder/manslaughter
@@John_Six_Twenty-Nine I'd rather abort the rapist rather than abort the innocent child
Yes I would because ultimately I believe in bodily autonomy, pregancy comes with many challenges physically, mentally and finacially that nobody should have to endure against their will.
Sexual assault and/or a mother's life being at risk are just a handful of examples that show the cruelty of anti-abortionists and the disingenuousness of the "if you don't want to get pregnant don't have unprotected sex" argument.
Not to mention even when abortion bans are implemented that contain exceptions for if the mother's life is at risk it still impacts those cases as doctors often too fearful of being prosecuted to perform an abortion even when permitted, as we've seen in Texas where the state is being sued by women this happened to.
Man I really fell apart there, eh?
@@RJH755 so then, please stop using this argument as a justification. at least be intellectually honest.
I could argue your other points... but at least stick to your ACTUAL views... and don't try to lump in exceptions for your actual cause
@@James-li8cm Your comment was about rape so I responded to that it's not usually my go to argument when talking about abortion, it's usually not my go argument in favor of abortion though it can also be a good barometer to figure out if someone is even worth discussing abortion with as to me arguing with someone who thinks there should never be exceptions is as productive as arguing with a flat earther
I can't think of any Canadian who's done as much damage to Canada as this man.
KAMLOOPS CATHOLICS
I can...Satan
@@CrypticHowl They are the same person.
@@CrypticHowl A man? Hardly, a man is honest, takes responsibility, has integrity, and does not try taking advantage of the weak. The fallen angel, a man? Ha! lol XD
@@TheClimbingBronyOldColt Ah yeah lol my bad, I read the original comment as "I can't think of anyone else who's done as much damage" and totally missed the word "Canadian" - easy mistake, but you get my point.
As a medical doctor and scientist (MD, PhD) I wish the abortion issue centered more around the current scientific consensus. As we currently define life in the scientific community, an embryo is not alive, nor is a fetus until 24 weeks ,the point where it could survive outside of the mother's womb. A fetus is considered alive not from the time there is a heart beat but rather when the last organ system to develop (the lungs) brings the fetus to a state where with medical respiratory assistance, it can live as a self-sustaining organism because the lungs are the last organ system to develop. The surfactant necessary to keep the alveoli open begins at 24-28 weeks and usually finishes at week 34 . Therefore, i think the best argument is made that the court cannot have jurisdiction over a group of proliferating cells nor can it grant personhood to something that is not alive.According to the current consensus the fetus and the mother are one organism, and they are not considered as two separate organisms until the fetus can self-sustain its biological systems.
The unborn is not a human being it's not a fully developed person it's just a fetus. Regardless of your opinions on abortion they should still have the right to choose whether or not if they want to terminate the pregnancy.
Thanks for explaining this man! I was a bit stuck on this topic before I saw this video! I expected nothing less from you man!
Even before watching the video, the youtube CONTEXT box tells me all I need to know to agree with the video.
Hey, I was right.
"Should a woman who was raped be able to get an abortion?"
"Absent other complications, no. That woman needs love and support and needs in order to heal, and she needs to realize and embrace her own ability to love and support others in order to fulfill that healing and move forward with her life. Murder has no part of love and support, and it's hard to show love when you don't even provide a grave for the corpse."
More of you douchebags should whine about the context box.
Thanks again for a great video Mr.B! The truth is important. This world is full of darkness, confusion, misinformation, and chosen ignorance when it comes to this issue. More people need to know the facts and see the light when it comes to this matter. People need to be real about their stance and WHAT ABORTION IS! That truth matters! Love you brother!
Nothing great about the video and its the same crap he does over and over.
Dude, you got TH-cam's attention with a "context" check. Nicely done!
There is no difference between an unborn child and an adult that justifies the killing of either
That's not the argument. Children born out rape often trigger the mother into mental illness, child abuse or suicide. Everyone really needs to put this topic in perspective. It's punishing the baby, it's preserving the mother. In any other situation where the baby poses a medical threat to the mother terminating the pregnancy is recommended, this is literally the same. -Sincerely A Christian Child abuse & Rape survivor
Exactly. We don't allow adults to utilize another person's body to live. So why should we give a foetus that right?
There's a huge difference between a born baby and a 1 hr old fetus
@@colinmatts the right to live?
@@colinmatts and before you go into the violinist argument, that analogy has long been debunked. But you’re more than welcome to prove me wrong on that
Trudeau ask him a question then doesn't let him speak. He just assumes what the other person is going to say. This way of "debate" allows only one party to argue without opposition. It's wrong. Just like abortion is ALWAYS wrong.
"Sorry" I'm pro life I just don't think that we should kill people
Even when God tells you to do it?
Pretty poor point that is likely drowning in cognitive dissonance. Killing with just cause vs murder are different. But hey, since you say it is ok to kill the unborn it should be true right? Your authority to determine juman value makes you something like God in your mind… right?
@@ayybeealternative1999 who even said anything about god? you can be agnostic or atheist and still be pro life?
@@Gadottinho you're on a Christian channel's video lol
So should we force people to let others live off their bodies?
Honestly, the pro life kid was caught off guard, but this was an easy answer. The R word is not an excuse to take life of an unborn child.
True but it’s something us Christians should expect. It’s their most overused defense.
@@shawnboahene5231 Exactly.
@shawn Boahene agreed. It's their default position, however, we were all young and inexperienced at one point. Plus, when you have your nation's leader in front of you, in a massive crowd, it becomes very difficult to think straight.
It's why I'm becoming less in favor of younger people doing these sorts of protests. They just lack the experience and steadfastness to deal with these situations. You need steel nerves built by experience to handle this sort of thing.
Well, the Church always said abortion is a grave sin. A lot of papal encyclicals and even old Church doctrines vehemently stated that whoever tries to promote this is committing murder either way. Pregnancy via rape doesn't excuse abortion. The reason why abortion isn't the way to go is because the child conceived is seen as innocent and pure as its victimized mother, and therefore must be taken care of. Life should be respected, and a child shouldn't be punished for the sins of his father. Also as a real-life observation, I've never seen real incest and rape victims be so aggressive and murderous as these pro-choice people. The last one I met was a victim of incest, and she got impregnated by her uncle. The first thing that went to her mind wasn't to kill it. Instead she wanted to take care of the baby, but her aunt beat her up so bad she got a miscarriage. It really made an impression to me how someone with her tragedy decided to chose to save the child.
That's not always how that works. Children born out rape often trigger the mother into mental illness, child abuse or suicide. Everyone really needs to put this topic in perspective. It's not punishing the baby, it's not preserving the mother.
Just flip it around on them and immediately ask if the rapist deserves to die. If not than why should an innocent baby die? They are pro-life just the wrong life
Actually, abortion relinquishes the fetus’ right to use the hosts body. No being has a right to use another persons body to sustain life. The woman has a right to choose over who and what use her body and puts her life and physical wellbeing in danger. That’s it. Anyone who opposes a women’s right to choose over what uses her own body is simply wrong. Not your body, not your choice.
☝️👨🏫⚖If rape trauma means that the Victim has the Right to Abort the Child of said Rape, regardless of the circumstances of persons involved...
Does that mean that a Male Rape victim, can _force His Female attacker to Abort_ their Child(ren)??
Should have asked if the rapist should be executed or not. If no, why kill the child but not the rapist?
The r word is a small percentage of the whole like you said 0.14% and most people have consensual. And again like you said it doesn't address the question "is the person inside the mother a human?"
The kid tried to bring that up but Trudont didn't let him and steered the conversation clear since he knew his position would get shattered.
Inconsistency will expose itself during a debate. The foundation of a pro life argument is that tiny helpless human that needs to be protected.
I don't know if anyone else notices it, but the Canadian Prime Minister seems to either high or is suffering from some neurological problem. In either case, one would be justified to remove him from office.
If your wife got raped, are you really telling me you would encourage her to give birth to the rapist’s child?
Only easy if it’s not your life
💯
Great point brother
Imagine it’s his 9 year old daughter that was severely raped and beaten by a group of men or just one man.The daughter is now pregnant would he allow his daughter to proceed with the pregnancy ?
it's not easy, but it's the right thing to do. Often the right thing to do ain't easy.
Also, let's forget for a moment about the rape scenario. If you approve abortion in all the other scenarios (the majority of scenarios) then what's the point of talking about rape? Your reason for supporting abortions has nothing to do with unwanted pregnancy after a rape
Two wrongs don’t make a right. Don’t repay evil with evil. It’s already tragic enough that a rape occurred, why make it worse by killing a baby as well.
I’ve come to conclusion that this double whammy of rape-cum-abortion essentially creates sociopaths - for how could a girl/woman who’d already endured the horror of being raped reasonably juggle that trauma with the guilt of having killed the unborn also weighing heavy on her conscience? That’s such a psychological load so heavy that I struggle comprehend how anyone could possibly hope to bear it. It’s an utterly cruel predicament we force on one too many girls and women in society today all in the name of a twisted idea of liberty.
their argument is that the baby is actually not a human... but I wonder if they don't ever think that this fetus would be able to turn into a human, by their own standards if they weren't killed, then they say that then people shouldn't masturbate cuz billions of possible babies would've been killed, which isn't the same thing at all, they're full of contradictions
@@Gadottinho Indeed. If a fetus isn't a human, then by logic, doesn't that disqualify all of us human beings as human since we all are fetuses before we were born? I'd like to see how they try to literally cherry pick the stages of life just to save their skin while absolutely contradicting their point 😂
@@Gadottinho
Yes but no one actually believes that is true. Aren’t these the same people (generally speaking of course) who say that we need to normalize talking about miscarriages because of how traumatic they are, why is a miscarriage traumatic if a fetus is just cells and nothing more?
No pro choice person would try to comfort someone who had a miscarriage by saying “don’t worry, it was just a clump of cells, get over it”. Even if someone says they’d say that they aren’t being honest with themselves. I don’t care how “pro choice” you are if you were faced a woman who was weeping and grieving because she lost her unborn child you’d look her in the eyes and give her your sympathy, you’d see the loss for what it was, you’d see the pain and travail and you’d know that a mother has lost her child.
@Gadottinho That's not the argument. Children born out rape often trigger the mother into mental illness, child abuse or suicide. Everyone really needs to put this topic in perspective. It's punishing the baby, it's preserving the mother. In any other situation where the baby poses a medical threat to the mother terminating the pregnancy is recommended, this is literally the same. -Sincerely A Christian Child abuse & Rape survivor
I believe we who are pro-life should start pushing politicians really hard for improvements on everything related to social assistance, adoption and foster care. These systems should be reviewed and truly changed for the better, all across the board, so even in extreme cases like gRape, victims will feel more secure to go ahead with the pregnancy, knowing they'll have the full support from people who really care about them and their child.
And churches should be doing something like that too, especially the megachurches who have more than enough money to build shelters and hire professionals to help pregnant women in need. If Christians decide to come together, including the rich ones, we'll have solid and good alternatives that people will feel confident to pursue. Because all the pro-choice people have fear and uncertainty as their main arguments, and these arguments can be really powerful to convince someone who's scared and lost.
Thank you! I 100% agree.
Disagree. We need people to take responsibility for their own actions. Should we give everyone ipods and tvs so they dont go riot and steal them from walmart?
Pregnancy resource centers already exist. But we don't have the power of PR on our side so...
Totally. Why are pro-abortion advocates pushing widespread abortion rather than widespread child care? Instead of funding abortion clinics, let's fund pregnancy centers, the foster care system, and other supportive measures. Instead of donating to abortion clinics, let's donate to nonprofits that benefit young mothers who are victims of rape. While we're at it, let's make harsher penalties for rapists to discourage such things from happening in the first place.
There are so many things we could be doing... Why do pro-abortion people advocate for killing?
There actually are a lot of Christian agencies that do this type of work. Like most social services, adoptive services were started by the church and later taken over by the state.
Well said, and thank you for pointing this out. We don't execute children for the crimes of the father.
I don't care if the fetus is a human. If a 2 y old needs a bone marrow transplant and the mother refuses, thats it. So why is abortion different. The key argument is no one gets to use my body resources against my will. Make it make sense.
"would you be willing to ban all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother is in danger?"
this exposes real quick the argument of those citing the extremely rare pregnancy that stems from rape and/or incest.
Yes, 97% of abortions are elective. They want ALL abortions to be allowed, not just the ones for rape, incest and the mother's life.
Even staunch pro-lifers agree that life of the mother is a legitimate reason. You try to save both, but if you can't, then you save the one that you can: which is almost always the mother. That brings it down to only about 2% of abortions that could even possibly be considered under the "exceptions to the rule" case. But that's not what they want. They want abortion on demand as a form of birth control when the guy is too selfish to wear a condom.
well put sir
The question is really should the child pay for crime of his/ her father or mother with their life?
it's not a child cause it's not a human yet at that point
@@lukesavage3067 so what species is it at that point?
@@gdobsessed it's a fetus who is dependent on somone's else body to keep growing, it's not a viable being
Apart from anything else, why execute a baby for someone else's crime? When a child is conceived this way, there are two victims of the crime and they BOTH need to be cared for.
eye for and eye leaves everyone blind. Life is a blessing
I personally know a woman who was raped by one of her classmates back in high school, ended up pregnant and kept her son.
She never even thought of not keeping him.
.
The baby shouldn't pay for it's father's crime.
I hope the classmate was punished, and I’m glad that she can still love her child after that, a lot of people couldn’t
Situation's does not degrade human value.
There’s still a clear medical difference between the pre and post natal
The baby should not have to pay for the crimes of the father! Yes we can all agree rape is an act of evil, but so is murdering unborn babies. The whole "rape" card essentially boils down to "two wrongs make a right", which is malarkey! I HATE the rape argument so much!
My brother, but then u would have to start with the logic that an abortion is a wrong in the first place. Without that and without someone believing that fetus is a living being, it just basically boils down to I believe that and thats what u have to deal with now.
He allowed Trudeau to control the conversation. He needed to question Trudeau's assumption. For example, "Are you ok with killing children for the crimes of their fathers?"
Are you okay with forcing people to give up their bodily autonomy so someone else can live off of them?
@@colinmatts How do you justify abortions for the 99.9% of women who consented to sex?
@@colinmatts Are you OK with killing children for the crimes of their fathers?
@colinmatts Rape makes up a small percentage of abortions. The largest age group that wants it are college age women that sleep around. That is what the stats reflect. If you get rid of hook up culture, there is literally no need for abortions.
@@colinmatts did you even watch the video lol If you're not even willing to listen to a sound argument don't come into the comments trying to challenge people with faulty logic that's already been debunked in the very video you're commenting on.
It's not very convincing.
How comes born-women have rights but the unborn-women don’t. ALL Humans INCLUDING the unborn have the RIGHT to live. Great video as always MrB❤
@@Excusemebut123 the unborn should also have equal rights.
@Excuse me but How does a change in location of 8" confer rights on a human being?
How do two human beings have an offspring that isn't initially human but later becomes so?
Do you know of any human beings that are not persons?
The 14th Amendment protects the life of the unborn.
Do you support partial birth abortion?
@Excuse me but I tapped out,
" I find the crass objectification of the inside of a woman body as a mere location to be particularly dehumanizing and offensive...."
Yet you dont find the mrdr of a human being based upon his/ her location dehumanising or objectifying?
"...I concede that a human embryo is a living human organism at the earliest stages of the human life cycle...."
Therefore you must concede to be consistent that killing a whole living, individual human being irrespective of his / her size, level of development, location or degree of dependency as mrdr?
"...I do not believe that human beings in the earliest stage of their life cycle are eligible for human rights...."
Based upon what arbitrary property?
I believe that human beings have intrinsic rights based upon the kind of substance that we are not some arbitrary property that we possess.
"...My belief is the majority view and yours is an extremist fringe view..."
_citation needed_
Science and morality isn't determined by majority opinion, havent you learned from Ignac Semmelweis or Hitler's Germany?
Over 90% of biologists, including 69% of “very pro-choice” biologists and 80% of “pro-choice” biologists, affirm a human life begins at fertilization.
As early as 1868 Dr Horatio Storer lobbied successfully to abolish abortion in America as the science of embryology grew with the discovery that human life begins at conception, not when the mother felt "quickening."
"...I do not consider embryos to be persons if "persons" denotes an entitlement to human rights. .."
On what arbitrary basis?
Give some examples of human beings that are not persons.
"...Your interpretation of the 14th amendment is also a fringe minority view and is inconsistent with longstanding jurisprudence...."
What are your reasons for believing this?
"...I don't know what partial birth abortion is...."
Look up Kermit Gosnell
Even if you got pregnant from R*, the chance of you getting injured or killed from that is almost impossible smh.
Yes. To effectively argue Pro life, keep it focused on the primary argument: the unborn child is a human being, a separate life. Argue that, and pro-abortion crumbles. You can use the fact that the unborn child is genetically unique from the mother to completely demolish “my body my choice;” if it’s genetically unique, it is not a part of the mother’s body and is thus a separate human being. Keep it on that thread and walk them backward in time: “Is it ok to murder a 2 year old? 1 year old? 6 month old? 14 day old? 1 day old? Newborn? Then why is it ok to murder a child seconds away from birth? Then why days away from birth?” And so on. Pulling that thread completely unravels the pro-abortion side.
The "primary argument" is, should the government have the right to force a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy
@@colinmatts no. The primary argument is “Does a woman have the right to kill her child?”
@@medleysa A woman has the right to remove anything from her body that she doesn't want there
@@colinmatts even if it results in the death of an innocent human? Even if it intentionally ends a human life?
The first objection that popped into my mind was when Trudeau stated that women get assaulted in that particular way all the time. My first response was,
"Excuse me, but where's the scientific evidence that proves your claim?"
(I am Canadian, by the way, and I have been thoroughly disappointed with my current Prime Minister undoing everything that his dad, Pierre Trudeau, did...)
For the probirth movement (and yes it is probirth and not prolife) to have any credibility it needs to give satisfactory and objective answers to the following Qs....not personal opinions
1. What in nature confers intrinsic value on human life
2. Why anyone should have more say on a womans body than she herself
3. why human lifeforms should have the same level of rights all all stages in their development i.e. from conception thru to death
Without satisfactory, objective answers to these Qs, the Prolife movement doesn't have a leg to stand on
@Excusemebut123 Did you even read my comment? My comment had nothing to do with the existence of God, at all. My whole comment was asking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the peer reviewed literature that proves his claim. So this statement of yours is a red herring.
@drackoni-han13 This is an interesting argument, but as a member of the faith that is also pro-life, here are a few rebuttals to your questions.
One: While there is nothing in the whole of nature that seems to indicate human worth, if we take a look at a lot of what's been revealed through the psychological examinations of human connections, we find that human nature, especially women, is wired to care and protect the young. Through this, it is rather reasonable to assume that people of all ages are valuable and, therefore, worth protecting.
Two: This is a more complicated question to answer, but the assumption behind this is that it presumes that the child in the womb is either a part of the woman or isn't, which is a false dilemma. The real answer is that it's both. The mother and child are separate in identity and genetics, but they're connected by the child being attached to the woman's womb, so closely, in fact, that both the woman and child will die if the woman is fatally harmed. With this in mind, it is important that a pregnant woman gets to learn all of the facts surrounding the procedure (and not just the pro-abortion propaganda), and make sure that she doesn't do something that she will regret.
Three: This argument is also an assumption that human life isn't valuable in any stage, but this is faulty, given what i mentioned earlier about the many studies concerning the psychology of mothers and developing children.
These are logical, objective answers, and I can get into more of the scientific, logical, Biblical, and philosophical nitty gritty that supports the pro life case. But I think the basics should suffice for now.
@@Excusemebut123 Really? So you're taking Trudeau at his word without any actual investigation?
@@drackoni-han13 It's pro-life, because pregnancy centers are interested in aiding the mother and the children. If you claim that the same pro-life people are pro-gun and thus don't really care about children, thus they are pro-birth, you have failed to consider any genuine pro-gun arguments (that shouldn't be left-right divide) which point out that guns do save lives and prevent people from becoming victims. But red herring. Back to the meat of your argument.
Now about your claim that pro-life has no legs to stand on:
1. From a materialist viewpoint, nothing. This is a argument against pro-"choice" in actuality, since there is no evidence in nature that confers intrinsic value on freedom/ability to make choices, the very antithesis of pro-choice. Thus it's up to evolution to decide, and given general stances of pro-lifers, that's a dangerous proposition.
2. Consider the opposite question: why should a woman have a say on her body than anyone else? If personal autonomy is not a right (see 1), then the pro-choice position is not "morally better," notwithstanding the non-existence of such metrics (see 1 again). But here's an idea; why should parents have a right to give their children vaccination shots, when their kids don't want to get the needle? For their future benefit/growth. Likewise, why should people have a say about a woman's body? Because not every woman is a rational agent (no human for that matter), thus more rational agents should be able to intervene.
3. Why can't the function of human rights with respect to time be a sine function? Jokes aside, that's what makes human rights...human rights. That they are applied evenly across time without discrimination.
Thus, with objective answers as mine, the pro-life movement has in fact, 3 legs to stand on. Though I suppose you'd probably abort that if it was a kid.
Here's some things the pro-choice should consider:
a. Is morality objective? If so, who or what decides the standard, or the principles that morality operates off of?
b. Are human rights objective? Are they intrinsically valuable or simply a tool? If it's a tool, why should it be respected? i.e. is-ought
c. Is freedom of choice a human right? Or is it limited?
d. Why is there a one-way banning of political protest outside abortion centers, while no such protection is afforded to arguably more helpful and resourceful pregnancy resource centers? It should be applied to all, or none
e. Abortion started (and continues to be) an excellent eugenics program for black people. But genocide/mass killings was 20th century/for the cartels? Just kidding, it's intrinsic to all of us.
"Without satisfactory, objective answers to these questions, the pro-choice movement doesn't have a leg to stand on."-Yours truly.
Because a person that is born and has had a life is not the same as someone who is not even self aware at all. A fetus without a brain and nervous system is not aware of anything around it. It cannot ACTUALLY suffer - a fully formed human being can and does suffer and is self aware. Also a fetus has no social connections to anyone - the only people who might miss it are potentially the parents. When you are born you have already had an impact on people and society at large. A fetus is only really important to the one carrying it and possibly the other parent.And the fact that fairly small number of women get pregnant by an act of sexual assault is not an argument. You are still forcing these women by law to go through something that they might find devastatingly painful all in order to "protect" a fetus with no name, no actual influence on society and no awareness or ability to suffer at all. I don't see any compassion in that. Also this guy doesn't tell us whether he does support abortion in cases such as pregnancy resulting from rape, incest, or there being a real danger to the mother's life if she goes through with the pregnancy to the end.
The abortion debate is such a nonsensical debate. A woman has a right to her body, period. And no one else does: not her boyfriend, fiancé, husband, whatever. The issue is about bodily autonomy and nothing else. It does not matter if the fetus is a life, it doesn’t matter if the fetus is a human being, it doesn’t matter if the fetus should have constitutional right. These are all distractions from the real issue which is bodily autonomy. The fetus is living, parasitically, inside the woman and she has a right to remove it if she wants. This is what bodily autonomy is. If I was brain dead and my organs could save several individuals on the transplant list, but in my will I said that I don’t want my organs to be donated to save someone, then that’s the end of the story. It’s my body and if I say no to organ donation then it’s a no and those individuals die. If my blood could be used to save several people but I don’t want to donate my blood, then my blood doesn’t get donated and they die. If someone had leukemia and they needed some of my bone marrow to live but I say that I don’t want to donate my bone marrow then that’s the end of the story as well. It doesn’t matter if any of these patients are living human beings with constitutional rights; my right to bodily autonomy supersedes whatever right you want to argue that these individuals have. It’s the same thing with abortion; if a woman doesn’t want the fetus parasitically living inside of her, then she and only she has the right to remove it.
Its only nonsensical because you make those bold moral proclamations as if they were fact. But others simply don't have the same moral values that you do. They don't feel that bodily autonomy trumps everything else. In their view, a human life has greater value than a person's right to choose. After all we generally observe this maxim in our day to day life; you have a right to free will only insofar as it does not affect the free choices of others. You can fire your gun at the range but you can't fire it at others because it threatens their lives.
In the case of abortion its tricky. Because your free will to not allow your body to be used threatens the life of another being. And meanwhile, that being is living off your body and violating your autonomy, which is also not allowed if it is non-consensual. In both directions something is happening that shouldn't happen, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy.
The only way to resolve it is to objectively look at the value of one compared to the other. On one side we have discomfort of the mother, and the pain of childbirth, plus the restriction of her free rights. On the other side we have a human life that will be killed against its will. It seems obvious, at least to me, that the human life outweighs the discomfort of the mother and the restriction of her rights. Its just a simple moral calculus we have to perform to see what creates less harm.
And if you refuse to entertain the idea of doing any kind of moral balancing, then your position just becomes absurd if we exaggerate the case to multiple lives. Suppose that in the future, you have a rare blood type, and doctors just need a small sample of it, after which they can replicate it and use the blood transfusion to save the lives of tens of thousands of people. Do you have a right to refuse? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. The moral harm that comes from holding you down and pin pricking your body to get a tiny sample of blood is exceedingly less than the moral harm from allowing tens of thousands to die. Its a similar argument for mandating vaccines during a deadly pandemic. If you can't see that then I don't know what to say, except your views are more fanatical than the religious side :P. Arguing in terms of absolutes, in general, is a kind of fanaticism that I think almost no one agrees is the correct way to determine morality.
people who are pro-choice, needed to be taken to clinic and show them how abortion is actually done
They ripe baby apart. Horrific. Mothers womb is his little home for 9 months were he or she is being created and protected. How horrific to ripe apart a baby.
"It's just a cluster of cells."
- Every pro-choice argument.
Well, you're technically a cluster a cells too.
He's going to burn
Rape is a horrible crime, as is abortion. Unrepentant rapists and unrepentant abortionists will be side by side in hell.
No they won't coz your magic man in the sky doesn't exist
Or better yet how about punishing the criminal rather than the victim. The pro choice would rather punish the victim rather than the criminal in the instance of rape. The Pro Life argument should say no, the woman should not have the right to abort the baby because of the actions of the criminal, but rather the criminal should suffer the full brunt of the law and should be sentenced to the death penalty.
@@Excusemebut123 The woman has all rights. But she doesn't have the right to murder another human life. In society that is called murder and is punishable by death. What is in the womb if not a human?
@@Excusemebut123 Are you a Christian?
@@Excusemebut123 How early in the development stages? Actually I would be calling for several parties to be imprisoned. The mother, the doctor, the person who drove them to the murder factory and the criminal. However in the instance that the woman was just engaging in sex outside of marriage, and then falls pregnant and decides to murder the innocent baby in the womb then the mother, the doctor and the guy (if he has been made aware and actively supports the death of the unborn baby) then they would be imprisoned. That would be justice.
@@Excusemebut123 "abortion is not murder" oh yes it is. There are plenty and I mean an absurd amount of documented footage of women entering and exiting abortion mills happily proclaiming that their intention is to murder the innocent human life in the womb.
So to say that abortion is not murder is disingenuous on your part.
Prolifers who don’t make rape exceptions will always come across as disingenuous. What makes rape wrong? Someone using another persons body against their will for their own benefit. What is forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term against her will after being impregnated against her will? Saying that a woman should be forced to use her body for the benefit of someone against her will. And if you’re ok with forcing a woman to do what she does not want to do for the sake of someone else then admit, you don’t think rape is really all that wrong because you’re find it perfectly acceptable to do the same.
👏 👏 👏
If every pro-life advocate came your way and agreed that abortions were permissible if rape was the cause, would you then agree that all other cases, primarily elective or “convenience” abortions should be prohibited?
@@Tyler-Hoskins No, because the person needs to be able to give consent for their body to be used by another.
If you caused a car accident should the paramedics be able to forcibly take your blood to give it to the injured?
@@Jesse622 then the argument is a disingenuous appeal to emotion.
@@Tyler-Hoskins no, it’s a pretty consistent argument. Everyone has a right to their own bodily autonomy and you can’t force anyone to use their body against their will.
I DISSAGREE I was raped and had an abortion at 14 years old. i would have died if i had given birth, now you guys are saying if there was a two year old, she is living life outside of the womb obviously no im not going to unalive them thats silly but a embryo that is not yet infact said two year old or even a day old it is my choice what to do with it. I don't want to hear it even if someone aborted and regretted they could always try again, theres that or adopting a surrogate mother or father.
Im pro lifer but I agree that if your going to die you should be able to abort
There are people who have given birth at 14. Sorry for the loss of your kid
@@fallon-may0935 what is wrong with you a 14 year old shouldnt have to give birth. just because 14 year olds HAVE given birth doesnt mean they SHOULD
Hearing this logic is the only sound more satisfying than the sound of the red pen clanking into the mug.
The child shouldn't be the one punished for the crimes of the assaulter. The assaulter must be the one to get punished.
And should the government force the woman to go through with a pregnancy she doesn't want?
they pick dummies who don’t know how to debate instead of those who can actually debate.
Your explanation is concise and sufficient. This is a great video, and should be memorized by everyone, especially those debating abortion.
Blah, blah, blah. I'm surprised you didnt toss in how much you love his "work"
Embrio is not a human, as an egg is not a chicken
An egg isn’t a chicken because it isn’t fertilized, if it was, then it would be a chicken
Embryos can be frozen for 10 or more years. Can we freeze people?
From the NIH, “Embryonic human persons. Talking Point on morality and human embryo research” written by Robert P. George and Patrick Lee.
“Embryos are whole human beings, at the early stage of their maturation. The term ‘embryo’, similar to the terms ‘infant’ and ‘adolescent’, refers to a determinate and enduring organism at a particular stage of development.”
If the raped woman chooses to have an abortion, she has her right to. She could also make the choice of keeping the bay or putting it for adoption. But it is really a hard dilemma to solve in cases of rape.
To anyone who was told that there's a fetus and not a baby inside you, fetus is Latin for baby/offspring. They're lying to you if they're saying that a fetus isn't a baby.
Fetus is a scientific term with a specific meaning. It doesn't matter that the word is originally from another language in which it had a different meaning.
Just like it doesn't matter that the word pineapple has apple in it. A pineapple isn't an actual apple, no matter it's name
@@denzellmovies I looked up the English definition of fetus, and here's what I came back with:
www.google.com/search?q=fetus+definition&client=ms-android-tmus-us-rvc3&sca_esv=fe09e3d337d2e27f&sxsrf=ACQVn09xMkAPnrmpC3CfGAL49eQ750-c_g%3A1708382936818&ei=2NrTZd-8MfOy5NoP-eCYqAk&oq=fetus+de&gs_lp=EhNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwIghmZXR1cyBkZSoCCAEyERAAGIAEGIoFGJECGLEDGIMBMg4QABiABBiKBRiRAhixAzIQEAAYgAQYFBiHAhixAxiDATIFEAAYgAQyBRAAGIAEMgUQABiABDIIEC4YgAQYsQMyBRAAGIAESJkZUK8JWJcOcAF4AZABAJgBY6ABjwKqAQEzuAEByAEA-AEBwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICDRAAGIAEGIoFGEMYsAPCAgoQABiABBiKBRhDwgILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwGIBgGQBhE&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp
@@denzellmoviesso blob of blob with no brain is more important than a grown woman?
When you account for the inherent value of life in the womb, it should be obvious to us that two wrongs don't make a right. Killing the unborn will not undo the damage caused by sexual assault. It only causes more harm by creating another victim
No children are killed, fetuses are aborted
What about the mother's "inherent value"? Why should she be forced to give up her bodily autonomy?
I completely disagree with Trudeau but this was probably the most coherent argument he has ever made 😂
Its not coherent though. If you just say "Ok, if we agree abortion on rape is ok, then can we outlaw every other abortion?" He will say no. So bringing up rape is pointless to the arguement.
@@mastershake4641 I meant coherent in the sense he got a full sentence out and didn't immediately deflect to a completely unrelated topic
If rape is becoming that rampant in their country saying "Women get raped all the time", then I guess it should ring a bell to them that there is an emergency for the higher-ups to beef up their services in mitigating such violence against women, rather than supporting more violence through the act of abortion
Killing is Killing is Killing! Can a woman who is pregnant use Coke or any other illicit drug? They will oppose that and say it's bad for the baby, Wait! What happened to her body her choice? Again Killing is Killing is Killing! God bless you brother and your ministry!
Yes, yes, yes!
The fundamental question is whether or not the unborn baby is a human being.
And yes, r*pe is an absolutely terrible crime, and this question needs to be answered compassionately, as well as reasonably.
I would 100% be in support of extremely harsh penalties for people who commit r*pe.
Bible says do not pay evil with evil.
Forcing someone to have sex is wrong because it uses their body in a way they do not consent to. Forcing someone to remain pregnant when they do not consent to remain pregnant violates their bodily autonomy and grants one human being (the unborn) special rights over another human being (the one bearing the unborn). The question if the unborn is or is or is not a human being, a human life in early development, is a person or not a person, has value or does not have value has never been the political debate by those educated on the subject. It's about consent!
Forcing a parent to feed their newborn when they do not consent to feeding them violates their bodily autonomy and grants one human being (the newborn) special rights over another (the parent).
Trudeau, a politician, is demanding a yes or no response immediately, how precious 😂
Also what is going on in Canada for him to say that women get raped all the time?
I knew a woman at my Church who
In her early Christian walk was raped and became pregnant. She choose to have and keep the child. That little girl was beautiful, bright and sweet - I watched her during Church daycare for several months. Mother and daughter had a great loving relationship too. The woman stayed a single Mom for several years until she started dating a great guy. He was tall, good-looking, strong, financially secure and very humble as he served tirelessly at our church setting up the electronics. He was a great guy and he was the product of his Mother having been raped. He was also my roommate before I got married. He and the child bonded easily and I see on Fb they are still a family to this day (20+ years later).
I wouldn't force victims of rape to have the child, but I'd encourage them to - its not the child's fault how they were conceived, but they are still innocent and will likely offer their Mother unconditional love as they grow and flourish.
God makes the best lemonade.
Truth! A life is a life, no matter how they came about. It's a they and not an it.
I wish this guy would have been standing in front of Turdeau.
My mother’s birth was the circumstance of a stranger rape. My mother was adopted by a first cousin and her husband. My mother brought great joy to her adoptive parents, who otherwise would have not had a child and eventually grandchildren to love.
I have a brother, sister, children, nieces and nephews. We comprise doctors, PhDs, ministers, and business persons.
My mother ministered to female inmates in prison, jail and ICE detention for fifty years. Because she was not destroyed in the womb she did amazing things and brought amazing people into the world!
Why should a child be executed for the crime of a father/rapist?
Killing babies is evil, and I am surprised you don’t know that Mr. Trudeau 😢
he knows. these kinds of things rarely come from a place of ignorance.
Pray for these people
Evil does not overcome evil. Love overcomes evil.
Empowering the mother is supporting her ability to show love and compassion toward her child.
No babies are killed, fetuses are terminated
Hay TH-cam, your biased explanation of abortion under this video is insulting.
Punish the rapist not the child!
Anytime TH-cam tries to do a content warning, you know some truth is about to be spoken
Anytime someone whines about the content warning, that person is likely a douche.
Just substitute the word abortion every place the word slavery appears, and this statement perfectly defines the pro-choice position in America today. Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ pro-choice position on slavery was, “He cannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says whoever, or whatever community, wants slaves, they have a right to them, he is perfectly logical if there is nothing wrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do a wrong.”
I think I was 13 when I first heard the "except in cases of rape and incest" clause in certain anti-abortion positions. Even at that young age, it was immediately obvious to me why that logic was, in fact, completely upside down. Either it's not a human life and abortion shouldn't be regulated/restricted at all. Or, it is a human life and abortion should be eliminated under all circumstances. There is no middle ground -- either innocent life is protected or it's not ... the innocent life doesn't care how it was conceived and that life's value is not diminished by the manner of conception.
The problem with that exchange is that Trudeau was being *VERY FREAKING RUDE* because the pro-lifer was trying to explain his point, and Trudeau kept interrupting him and the young prolifer was intimidated by a man like Trudeau who is a government official, the _Prime Minister_ of all people. The young prolifer allowed Trudeau to interrupt him over and over again. He was TRYING to say that over 95% of abortions are NOT because of sexual assault. But Trudeau knew what he was trying to say and kept interrupting him. Anybody who interrupts his opponent automatically loses a debate in my eyes. Don't talk over your opponent. The only time someone does that, is when they know that's the only way they can win.
But Trudeau would never debate an adult who knows how the rules of logic.
he's literally a politician. Debating is part of his job...
@@denzellmovies and yet he will only debate children and street folk.
Every time in human history where we decided that a portion of our species were less deserving of rights, or is ‘not quite human’ it has been looked back on with horror by later generations. Whether it was the poor, women, foreigners, or people of colour being lied about and described as ‘less evolved’ to justify enslaving them, it was always a mistake.
…for our generation it is the unborn children.
And this time we finally found a group to define as ‘not fully human’ without any risk of them fighting back, protesting, or demanding to be treated as equal to the rest of us.
What will our ancestors say about us? Oh thats right…nothing…because we are killing them in their millions.
The fetuses dosnt have less rights. You want to give them extra righs. People dont hve the right to support their life by using others body.
@@klas7988 the law gives us the right of protection, to not be murdered or killed without it being a crime. Fetus’s don’t have that right of protection under the law.
Also we all literally eat the body of animals and plants to survive! Plus the fetus doesn’t forcably take from the mother, the mothers body actively sends nutrients to the fetus, the fetus has no choice. It is a fact of biology, not a right under the law!
@@Veran1337What if the mother decides to stop providing her body to the fetus?
@@justapotato2434 She would then be intervening in the child’s natural development, presumably, resulting in its death. Which in any legal system would be murder. Just as if the mother decides to deny feeding her child once it was born resulting in its death.
Edit: to clarify, a parent has a duty of care to their child, whether the child is born or not. If a man who kills an unborn child in the mothers womb is guilty of murder, i don’t see why it would be any different if the mother chose to kill the child! In the UK 80-85% of abortions are NOT related to R@pe or health risks! Thats the vast majority being killed because the mother couldn’t face the consequences of her own actions!
@@Veran1337 Do you think autonomy and consent should be ignored while caring for your child? For example if your child could not live without their parents blood should the parents be able to say no?
I read through a study on rape stats and abortion. Over 80% of rape victims that were impregnated refused abortions. The remaining 20% said that the abortion experience was as bad if not worse than the actual rape. Those that argue for abortion on the issue of rape as this gentleman mentions, are pushing the killing of children of a relatively small percentage of actual abortions. They use the exceptions to push the full option of everyone being able to abort.
This is the same argument that was brought out with marijuana use as well. It's for medical benefits, which was a very small percentage of the actual use (most being illegal). Now they find that the marijuana smoking is worse than cigarettes and it still has not addressed the crime issues.
The argument for open abortions based on either medical or rape situations, which are less than 4% of all abortions, does nothing to solve the problem of abortion having become a major method of dealing with pregnancies, whether from doctors warnings about child issues, child not being the gender parents want, or just laziness in not using the vast number of other methods to prevent pregnancies. Now we have groups requesting the ability to euthanize a born child that they no longer want. When does the insanity end?
It takes unbelievable faith, to carry to term and let someone else adopt. Someone who yearns with all their heart, for a tiny baby to love. Be merciful. Be responsible with your body.
Don’t let that rapist end your life too. You WILL recover in merciful time. ❤
I know what I think the best response to rape is.....murder.
But not to the rapist....but to the, resultant, innocent baby.
For the probirth movement (and yes it is probirth and not prolife) to have any credibility it needs to give satisfactory and objective answers to the following Qs....not personal opinions
1. What in nature confers intrinsic value on human life
2. Why anyone should have more say on a womans body than she herself
3. why human lifeforms should have the same level of rights all all stages in their development i.e. from conception thru to death
Without satisfactory, objective answers to these Qs, the Prolife movement doesn't have a leg to stand on
Each of your points contradict its predecessor, so I’ll address them in reverse order.
3. Disregarding stages of life, where do rights come from in the first place?
2. This argument only works in cases for abortion. Why is that? Why are we not using this same logic to advocate for suicide or self destructive behaviors like physical harm or drug abuse?
1. If humans have no intrinsic value, then things like murder, rape, and violence aren’t really wrong. They’re just not popularly preferred.
Lastly, who determines what is satisfactory or objective?
Questions are not answers.
You provided no premises no conclusions. In fact all you provided were assertions, with absolutely no causal link between the stages explaining any rationale
I'm trying to focus on the objective -that is, facts we can easily observe and agree on in the natural world. This takes away the noise of conflicting personal opinions, of the "oh yes he did", "oh no he didn't" pantomime variety
1) We see nature doesn't give human life any intrinsic value. From the fact that we die of ailments, diseases natural disasters and wild animals hunting and eating humans where possible. Thus any value we give ourselves is arbitrary relative and subjective and is based on the epoch and culture
2) We also see that nature has given the woman biological and physical control during gestation, which supports a prochoice stance
3) On this Q there is no objective support either way but we observe that rights and duties are conferred in society based on some criteria: commonly age. This social precedent supports the notion that rights should not all be granted "all in one go" at point of conception, but spread progressively with the development of the human lifeform
That said, it is not the case that arguments based on emotion or opinion can't be made, but the prolife case is severely diminished - as there is no objective case for it
@@drackoni-han13 you’re right that questions aren’t answers. If I intended on giving answers, I would have done so. My questions were intended to get your to consider your position more carefully. But I can easily boil it down to one point: there is fundamentally no difference between a fetus and an adult that justifies killing either.
@Excuse me but by all means… go on…
@Excuse me but word salad. Make your point. It shouldn’t take a novel to answer a question as simple as the one I presented
See this is the problem with arguing abortion in Canada. They also support and promote euthanasia for issues as simple as the need for a chair life or your girlfriend dumping you. Life is cheap in Canada.
I write in my free time, and I wrote a story called Arresting The Manager. It's about a 17-year-old Pastor's daughter named Audrey who is r*ped by her boyfriend.
She gets pregnant and mentions to her parents that she might consider an abortion. Her father asks her this: If a store manager's store got robbed in a stick up, should the police arrest the robber or the manager?
Audrey says: "The robber, the manager literally did nothing wrong." Her father agrees and says: "Aborting this baby would be like arresting the manager."
After this, they make a deal for her to wait 3 months and go to the doctor and a counselor before deciding to get an abortion. If she decides to have the baby and raise them, they'll help her. If she wants to give it up for adoption, fine.
But if she wants to get an abortion after the 3 months, then her father will pay for it himself.
There's more to the story, but that's the "summary" synopsis.
It's a shame that people aren't any good at debating and allow weak politicians with even weaker arguments to walk all over them when they have the rare occasion of speaking to them
Absolutely not. You don’t kill a child bc the actions of their father.
Yes you do. If it was actual r*pe yes you do.
@@talalh7247Why stop at unborn children? Are you going to allow the mother kill toddlers conceived through rape too?
Another way to overcome this issue is to say “suppose I grant abortion in the case of rape. For the other over 99% of cases would you agree to outlaw abortion? If not then your underlying issue isn’t the rape case so why bring up the rape case and not your underlying issue?” So many people bringing up the rape case aren’t doing so because rape is their actual concern. It’s because they support abortion in general and use the rape case to win emotional points. If for the sake of the convo you grant rape you remove the emotional weight and force them to defend abortion in general.