Abortion is not, nor has it ever been murder. Humans don't have a right to be physically-dependent on another human for their survival. If your survival depends on the one person in the world who shares your rare blood type donating blood to you, you are at their mercy...that person has no obligation to you. In short - we have decided as a society that individuals should have a legal right to bodily autonomy. Heck, even DEAD individuals get this particular right, and you can bet the same people who are a part of the anti-choice brigade would be up in arms if the government passed a law requiring that people became organ donors after death. So if this is truly a matter of different people (with different political views) putting different value on various rights that we all have as people, the anti-choicers need to answer this question: *why does the bodily autonomy of dead people supercede the rights of living people (with all of the important attributes of the living - the ability to feel pleasure and pain, memories, friends and family, a place in their community, etc.) to remain alive...but the right of a fetus (who has none of those aforementioned attributes yet) to remain alive and grow into a human supercede the right to bodily autonomy of a living woman?* A rational secular answer to that question does not exist (or if one does exist, I haven't heard it yet)...only religious answers, based on some extremely convoluted reasoning, are possible. And policy in America (and most of the Western world) cannot be created based on religious beliefs. So these malcontents should either move to Saudi Arabia, and find out what life is like in a theocracy for someone who isn't part of the country's official religion...or stop trying to force their religious perspectives on people who don't share their beliefs. I have no preference as to which option anti-choicers end up choosing. After all, it's their life, and their choice. :)
It always baffles me, the examples that folks come up with. What especially gets me is that in the examples of 'Should you be forced by law to donate X', the answer _still_ becomes 'Well, no, but morally you should'. That happens even in the examples where 'donating X' is described as something easy and practically risk-free. In other words, something _far_ different than pregnancy, which comes with a whole heap of potential risks and side effects, never mind permanent changes to your body. Yet somehow it's the _more_ dangerous, real-life event where one _should_ be forced. It's bizarre.
It always baffles me that someone can't see the difference of a person not wanting to donate his organ and purposely taking a knife and hacking off your own baby's head and limbs. Those are two completely different things. It's my position that if you die that your organ should be donated because it's the moral thing to do I even believe it should be forced by law because it's morally justified. But what the hell does that have to do with someone purposely murdering their own offspring. there's a difference between someone who doesn't want to jump into an ocean to save someone drowning and someone tired a weight around someone's ankle and throwing them in the ocean. Those are not the same thing.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 Using needlessly provocative statements and treating very rare exceptions like the norm is not a good way to get people to take your position seriously. Doesn't help when you make comparisons that don't match with reality. Do better.
Is it illegal to eat human flesh ? What about drinking human blood ? What if it is consentual ? What if the owner is dead ? What if the owner recommended these actions 2000 years ago ?
@@slyjokerg 1. I know that's what I said by anti-choice You mean someone who's against the murdering of another human being specifically the mother murdering her own offspring. 2. I'm sorry you're incorrect a mother is a mother as soon as that baby is conceived. who nurtures that baby who takes care of that baby in the womb the mother because that's the mother's job. 3. Now you're arguing the mother isn't killing her unborn human baby AKA fetus that she's contract killing the baby. Don't know if that makes it any better. You described it as someone performing an abortion on her which results in the death of the fetus. Which actually means someone performing an abortion on her which results in the death of another human being her unborn baby. Look up the word fetus. You can keep trying to dehumanize that person in the woman's body by using different language the same way you do with gender but it's not going to change the biological facts. Slavery was once legal it doesn't mean it's a right, again no matter what the Democrats say.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 on your 2- a person is a mother when she takes on the role of mother and behaves as one. Plenty of people reproduce who never nurture the children at all their whole lives. Anyway, many women have no idea they are pregnant for an extended time and would not know to nurture even if they wanted to. So there doesn’t seem to be good reason to accept your definition. On your 3 I suggest you watch the video and consider the example of the baby needing a liver transplant. An abortion is the woman withdrawing access to her body, and we don’t force people to donate their bodies to further the life of another. Also go back to the video on your last sentence. Morality and legality are not necessarily tied together, but our constitution says law and religion must be kept separate. Folks used the Bible to justify keeping slavery legal, but eventually our better morals led us to outlaw it.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 Someone can be pro choice and yet otherwise believe an abortion is a mother killing her child as you seem to. Choice refers to legality, and whether or not the state has the authority to impose that particular view of abortion. So, no, anti choice doesn't mean what you've so trollishly suggested.
Another analogy would be the scenario that a woman has sex and contracts an std... is she obligated to forego treatment because the std is a consequence of her having sex? Then why would there be an issue with her having an abortion?
AceOfTheWorld72 - Unless it was forced sex, Lord forbid, the mother consented to an act that resulted in a loving human being developing in her womb. It didn’t break in or anything. She (and the father) is responsible for it being there. Once there there is another living human being to consider. You are incorrect that human beings are not allowed to use someone else’s body. Even Roe vs Wade ‘forced a mother to use her body’ after 24weeks. So, you’re mistaken about that. Bodily autonomy is not a just reason to kill someone.
@ianalan4367 ...that is AWESOME news... with all the people on waiting lists for liver and kidney transplants I guess we can FORCE you, your spouse, kids and grand kids to donate their second kidney and partial livers...
@@ianalan4367 you started that with a tautology. Yes, if she wasn't forced, then that means she consented. What happens if the parents do not consent to having a child?
Makes sense, humanity accumulates more knowlege over time. Except if you are part of a dogmatic cult, whose holy text is thousands of years old. Then you got stuck there.
@@TrettinR I, disagree on this, partially. Sometimes our views on Morality or the Morality of a Society and hopefully Humanity changes for the better of all.
@@hegyak *Morality of a Society* Isn't the morality of a society just the society's understanding of morality? I think we agree, but just might be misunderstanding each other slightly
@@TrettinR I think it's Society's Moral Standards that changes, not the understanding of Morality. Though you are welcome to explain what you mean by "understanding of morality" Because I don't quite get it.
Do please ask any man who feels he has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot choose how he would feel if a woman told him that he does not have the right to have a gun?
Thought the episode was over so i Googled it if anyone cares about the Supreme Court Lemon Test Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
@@Kardashev1 Yea, it's all about the delay coming from doing this over the internet. If it is just a caller on a phone calling the studio you don't get the delay so audio is going to be better.
Someone doesn’t get to use someone else’s body without consent. I will agree that a fetus has human dna and you could argue is human and it is entirely irrelevant. No one OWES someone their body to preserve their life. NO.
Is not running into a burning building to save your child immoral? No of course not. The H.I.V analogy was so stupid and it is illegal here to have sex with someone while you have H.I.V without informing the other person.
@@hegyak that's funny coming from you. You're capable of honestly arguing anything. Matter of fact we debated about the meaning of atheism. I supplied the defined meaning from reputable sources like the Oxford English and Webster Merriam dictionaries both describing atheism with a disbelief. I then described atheist having an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true and no quality of evidence can convince someone of something they don't have the willingness or ability to accept as true. I then supplied testimonial evidence based on physical evidence of atheism having nothing to do with evidence and being an.unwillingness or inability to accept God as true regardless of evidence. You told me I'm lying I'm wrong you refuse to supply any defined meaning for your made-up definition of atheism being a rejection of a claim due to lack of evidence. I also asked you if it was your position the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than God and if it is to prove it. And of course you refuse to answer. All you can do is call people bigots because you're incapable of defending your positions.
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Abortion is not, nor has it ever been murder. Humans don't have a right to be physically-dependent on another human for their survival. If your survival depends on the one person in the world who shares your rare blood type donating blood to you, you are at their mercy...that person has no obligation to you. In short - we have decided as a society that individuals should have a legal right to bodily autonomy. Heck, even DEAD individuals get this particular right, and you can bet the same people who are a part of the anti-choice brigade would be up in arms if the government passed a law requiring that people became organ donors after death. So if this is truly a matter of different people (with different political views) putting different value on various rights that we all have as people, the anti-choicers need to answer this question: *why does the bodily autonomy of dead people supercede the rights of living people (with all of the important attributes of the living - the ability to feel pleasure and pain, memories, friends and family, a place in their community, etc.) to remain alive...but the right of a fetus (who has none of those aforementioned attributes yet) to remain alive and grow into a human supercede the right to bodily autonomy of a living woman?*
A rational secular answer to that question does not exist (or if one does exist, I haven't heard it yet)...only religious answers, based on some extremely convoluted reasoning, are possible. And policy in America (and most of the Western world) cannot be created based on religious beliefs. So these malcontents should either move to Saudi Arabia, and find out what life is like in a theocracy for someone who isn't part of the country's official religion...or stop trying to force their religious perspectives on people who don't share their beliefs. I have no preference as to which option anti-choicers end up choosing. After all, it's their life, and their choice. :)
It always baffles me, the examples that folks come up with. What especially gets me is that in the examples of 'Should you be forced by law to donate X', the answer _still_ becomes 'Well, no, but morally you should'. That happens even in the examples where 'donating X' is described as something easy and practically risk-free. In other words, something _far_ different than pregnancy, which comes with a whole heap of potential risks and side effects, never mind permanent changes to your body. Yet somehow it's the _more_ dangerous, real-life event where one _should_ be forced. It's bizarre.
It always baffles me that someone can't see the difference of a person not wanting to donate his organ and purposely taking a knife and hacking off your own baby's head and limbs. Those are two completely different things. It's my position that if you die that your organ should be donated because it's the moral thing to do I even believe it should be forced by law because it's morally justified. But what the hell does that have to do with someone purposely murdering their own offspring.
there's a difference between someone who doesn't want to jump into an ocean to save someone drowning and someone tired a weight around someone's ankle and throwing them in the ocean. Those are not the same thing.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 Using needlessly provocative statements and treating very rare exceptions like the norm is not a good way to get people to take your position seriously. Doesn't help when you make comparisons that don't match with reality. Do better.
Is it illegal to eat human flesh ?
What about drinking human blood ?
What if it is consentual ? What if the owner is dead ?
What if the owner recommended these actions 2000 years ago ?
Fun fact, cannibalism isn't technically illegal in the usa
Their is just no way to obtain the meat legally
I may be mistaken, but there was a fad among the elite around 100y ago to use ground up Egyptian mummys as alternative medicine
There is no way to rationally justify being anti choice. A zygote is not a baby, no matter what your religious cult manifesto claims.
@@slyjokerg
1. I know that's what I said by anti-choice
You mean someone who's against the murdering of another human being specifically the mother murdering her own offspring.
2. I'm sorry you're incorrect a mother is a mother as soon as that baby is conceived. who nurtures that baby who takes care of that baby in the womb the mother because that's the mother's job.
3. Now you're arguing the mother isn't killing her unborn human baby AKA fetus that she's contract killing the baby. Don't know if that makes it any better.
You described it as someone performing an abortion on her which results in the death of the fetus. Which actually means someone performing an abortion on her which results in the death of another human being her unborn baby. Look up the word fetus. You can keep trying to dehumanize that person in the woman's body by using different language the same way you do with gender but it's not going to change the biological facts. Slavery was once legal it doesn't mean it's a right, again no matter what the Democrats say.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 So, when a human takes another human life, it's bad. When God does it, not a SINGLE problem. Right?
Typical Cult mentality.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 on your 2- a person is a mother when she takes on the role of mother and behaves as one. Plenty of people reproduce who never nurture the children at all their whole lives. Anyway, many women have no idea they are pregnant for an extended time and would not know to nurture even if they wanted to. So there doesn’t seem to be good reason to accept your definition.
On your 3 I suggest you watch the video and consider the example of the baby needing a liver transplant. An abortion is the woman withdrawing access to her body, and we don’t force people to donate their bodies to further the life of another.
Also go back to the video on your last sentence. Morality and legality are not necessarily tied together, but our constitution says law and religion must be kept separate. Folks used the Bible to justify keeping slavery legal, but eventually our better morals led us to outlaw it.
@@blorglmentheskeptic8134 Someone can be pro choice and yet otherwise believe an abortion is a mother killing her child as you seem to. Choice refers to legality, and whether or not the state has the authority to impose that particular view of abortion. So, no, anti choice doesn't mean what you've so trollishly suggested.
A fetus is a human being. Don’t you think human beings should have legal protection from being killed?
The sad thing is that Keith was right with his hypotetical question about the Supreme court! :/
Another analogy would be the scenario that a woman has sex and contracts an std... is she obligated to forego treatment because the std is a consequence of her having sex? Then why would there be an issue with her having an abortion?
Because an STD is not a living human being.
@ianalan4367 No other living human beings get to use any other body without consent. You're wrong.
AceOfTheWorld72 - Unless it was forced sex, Lord forbid, the mother consented to an act that resulted in a loving human being developing in her womb. It didn’t break in or anything. She (and the father) is responsible for it being there. Once there there is another living human being to consider.
You are incorrect that human beings are not allowed to use someone else’s body. Even Roe vs Wade ‘forced a mother to use her body’ after 24weeks. So, you’re mistaken about that. Bodily autonomy is not a just reason to kill someone.
@ianalan4367 ...that is AWESOME news... with all the people on waiting lists for liver and kidney transplants I guess we can FORCE you, your spouse, kids and grand kids to donate their second kidney and partial livers...
@@ianalan4367 you started that with a tautology. Yes, if she wasn't forced, then that means she consented. What happens if the parents do not consent to having a child?
Morality does change with the times.
Our understanding of morality changes with the times. A small but important distinction.
Makes sense, humanity accumulates more knowlege over time.
Except if you are part of a dogmatic cult, whose holy text is thousands of years old. Then you got stuck there.
@@TrettinR I, disagree on this, partially. Sometimes our views on Morality or the Morality of a Society and hopefully Humanity changes for the better of all.
@@hegyak *Morality of a Society*
Isn't the morality of a society just the society's understanding of morality? I think we agree, but just might be misunderstanding each other slightly
@@TrettinR I think it's Society's Moral Standards that changes, not the understanding of Morality. Though you are welcome to explain what you mean by "understanding of morality"
Because I don't quite get it.
Oh gosh...these were the days...when abortion was legal everywhere, and when the Lemon Test was still the standard.
Yes, what a difference a year makes.
Religious schools get government money now and I'm sure that same sex marriage will be banned soon.
Do please ask any man who feels he has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot choose how he would feel if a woman told him that he does not have the right to have a gun?
Thought the episode was over so i Googled it if anyone cares about the Supreme Court Lemon Test
Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.
How is it these past shows have fully working audio & the newer shows seen to have more problems?
Because these shows were filmed in a studio where both hosts were in the same location.
@@TheLegendOfRandy True, I meant more with the guests audio, but being in studio probably helped that too.
@@Kardashev1 Yea, it's all about the delay coming from doing this over the internet. If it is just a caller on a phone calling the studio you don't get the delay so audio is going to be better.
Someone doesn’t get to use someone else’s body without consent. I will agree that a fetus has human dna and you could argue is human and it is entirely irrelevant. No one OWES someone their body to preserve their life. NO.
Are the hosts forgetting the Hyde Amendment?
Is not running into a burning building to save your child immoral? No of course not. The H.I.V analogy was so stupid and it is illegal here to have sex with someone while you have H.I.V without informing the other person.
And again, all comments are deleted. 😡
They are Hidden. Check for "Newest First."
And prepare for pain.
@@hegyak Weird. Is this a common thing on their uploads?
@@TheLegendOfRandy Sometimes. These videos tend to get a LOT of trolls who can't or won't argue honestly.
What's the matter? Is your communist system not working out for you.
@@hegyak that's funny coming from you. You're capable of honestly arguing anything.
Matter of fact we debated about the meaning of atheism. I supplied the defined meaning from reputable sources like the Oxford English and Webster Merriam dictionaries both describing atheism with a disbelief. I then described atheist having an unwillingness or inability to accept God as true and no quality of evidence can convince someone of something they don't have the willingness or ability to accept as true. I then supplied testimonial evidence based on physical evidence of atheism having nothing to do with evidence and being an.unwillingness or inability to accept God as true regardless of evidence. You told me I'm lying I'm wrong you refuse to supply any defined meaning for your made-up definition of atheism being a rejection of a claim due to lack of evidence.
I also asked you if it was your position the origins of Life came into existence because of a non intelligent occurrence rather than God and if it is to prove it. And of course you refuse to answer. All you can do is call people bigots because you're incapable of defending your positions.
How cute - "abortion has been ruled by the Supreme Court to be legal"
As Hannibal Lecter said 'not anymore' 😳