Well except the "life [only] comes from life" and "after their own kind" (20:14) that she opened with, but that wasn't delved into because Matt chose to not focus on those statements.
When the first dude to ask that question on how both of them define abortion, that was all that was needed. Her definition is born purely of emotion with zero critical thought.
Wow, her video was heart wrenching. Still, somehow she did not show children growing up hungry in poverty. She is pro-birth, not pro life. She has no answer for a poor woman/family that cannot feed all of its children. Presumably Kristine will give them a job carrying her golf clubs. All of them.
That is a myth. So many people who are pro life take those children in. Statistically speaking, who do you think a majority of the people are that adopt kids? I’ll give you a hint. They attend church every Sunday
Kristine's answer when asked how she defines the word abortion: "An act of violence that dismembers, decapitates and kills a human being" 49:08 - 49:16 She must think horror movies are just full of abortions...
John Welch How do _you_ define _abortion_, John? I bet _you_ think WALT DISNEY movies are full of wonderful, bloodless, FEMALE EMPOWERING ABORTIONS (the good kind). What a whacko piece of commentary you typed!
+TedVeron I must have missed this. As far as I know Disney doesn't have any abortions (although there may be a miscarriage implied in the opening sequence of Up, unless they were really jumping the gun in decorating the room). I'd define an abortion as a planned premature termination of a pregnancy. The point I was making that you seem to have missed is that instead of giving her definition of an abortion as requested, she gave some rhetoric plea to emotion, which didn't even mention pregnancy, foetus or even baby. This struck me as a dishonest answer to a simple question.
The argument that really make me think was when Matt say that some of the anti-abortion say that you can't abort except for when a mother is in danger of her life. So then just because the mother is in danger of her life, you are going to throw away your hole believe for the right of the baby.
+zaro33 Exactly. They want to avoid nuance at all cost. What this means is that they say abortion is morally wrong regardless of circumstance EXCEPT for a handful of cases. Obviously, these are cases where suffering of the mother is in question. The problem is that they put right to life on a pedestal above all else, and so regardless of the amount of suffering of the mother, if it's not life-threatening, they don't care.
This is where it gets more complicated most of these cases are not abortions they’re actually, ectopic pregnancies, or cases where the fetus has already miscarried. My view is that the goal should always be to save both lives, if the child dies while trying to save both the child dies we did the best we could and vice versa.
I like how Matt points out that the "person or not"- question is irrelevant. Kristine does not seem to get that though, at least she does not address it at all. Also showing this video was kind off low on her part. Matt would never use videos of women going through horrible pain or pictures of dead women as a result of pregnancy, just to provoke emotions.
I agree that she focused way to much on the whether it's human life or not bit. The whole discussion should've been way more about body autonomy. however she did actually give some responses to that. She talked about actively and intrusively terminating a pregnancy and thus "killing" a fetus is different from not being willing to give a kidney, or caring for a child. But they were still kind of foot notes for her and it really should've been her entire argument. Great point on the video too. It was totally out of place and cheap.
The bodily autonomy argument is irrelevant. If bodily autonomy is what matters then he would have to demonstrate why the baby doesn’t also deserve bodily autonomy. If the mother has the right not to be aggressed upon, why not the child?
Ryan Price - You’re actually making the point for body autonomy. The fetus doesn’t have body autonomy until it can survive on its own. Until that point, it’s technically a parasite.
I like to use this analogy for people who think that a human being starts at conception. "Hey, look at this sunflower," the woman says to her neighbor. The neighbor looks puzzled as he gazes at it. "All I see is a pot with soil and maybe a seed in it," he says. "You don't understand, Mr. Courier. It WILL be a sunflower soon."
@@ferlandpetrus2157 Oh my the stupidity in your comment amazes me, fascist laws anti-abortion laws are fascist, you literally know the second country to legalize abortion was Nazi Germany right, along with Fascist Italy and Spain.
Kristine *kept repeating* that same line of rubbish that Matt's argument only stands if the pre-born are not persons-which Matt repeatedly said was *not* the case. He explicitly said, on multiple occasions, that his argument stands *even if* we treat the pre-born as persons.
His arguement is valid for the same reason that self-defense killing is valid essenially which we as a society have deemed as justified. Both conceded that point that its ok to abort for the health of the woman. She is making the rare logical arguement that is actually quite clever that: 1.) if we value human life and the fetus is human life we should not kill it. 2.) if we are unsure or are still in debate about it we should not kill it. Matt's arguement appeals more to the present day practicallity and emotions on the issue as Kristine's position indirectly accuses people of murder who believe they are justified in aborting (which is why the crowd was more in favor of Matt's position.
I wish she had addressed his points more. Also I wish someone had asked her more questions about her position on the uterus not belonging to women that troubled me I'm not sure what the consequences would be if that were true.
@@TheMetalBison Fuck you, you pathetic shitheel. By YOUR standard, what are you doing with both your eyes, both your kidneys, and all of your liver?!?! There are people out there who NEED them, and you're selfishly hoarding them You don't get to decide if they're 'deserving', just do your duty and give up your body parts.
Douglas Thomas Hayden I’m in Charleston SC. If you’d like to make an official complaint in person, I am accepting appointments. We can discuss these issues, and who should have their eye knocked out. Thank you.
@@TheMetalBison O 'brave' keyboard 'warrior'. I'm just calling you out as the contemptible selfish coward you are, demanding from OTHERS what YOU refuse to offer. And you're not worth my time. C'mon up to Danbury, CT if you want a confrontation...just be sure you have ambulance fare back home if you're stupid enough to initiate physical violence.
I'm against the death penalty myself, but it's not really comparable to the abortion question. For one, the death penalty is done either as a deterrent or as a manner of justice. If you kill someone, then there is a need for there to be consequences, and many have found that prison is not severe enough. Others argue that it's not so much that it's justified, but that it works as a deterrent. Fewer people will kill if they know there is a chance that they themselves will be killed. So the objective is to prevent death, and or apply consequences for murder. THere's the question of authority and most in favor argue that the state is given this right, as the state is responsible for the safety of its members. Ubiquitously and undeniably, there are situations where the state has to kill(military or police) in order to defend its members from threats of violence. The death penalty is the extension of the same idea. Keep in mind, not all countries have secure prison systems. Abortion, on the other hand, is not really about punishment or deterring people from killing. Rather the debate is mostly surrounding the right to bodily autonomy vs the rights of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. The only similarity this debate has with that of the death penalty is it involves killing, though the justification and argument are entirely different. The distinction isn't really that complicated and can easily be understood from the context alone. The only reason the argument survives is I think people like to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy. That's about it. It's like saying, "oh, you care so much about endangered species, but don't care about aborted fetuses." It's sort of obvious, here that these are two separate issues, with two separate justifications being made.
I really don’t understand why people are always making the comparison between abortion and the death penalty. The two aren’t related at all. I’m pro choice and pro death penalty.
@@erinwhipple4666 The basic jist is that many pro-lifers will say they are against abortion because they feel it involves killing another human being, but will be ok with the state killing another human being via execution.
@@cassandra.wladyslava well the definitive aspect of that argument is innocence. But regardless, abortion is not a “killing”. Fetal death is not the intent, it is an understood byproduct of refusing access to your body.
@@erinwhipple4666 First off, I’m pro-choice. I’m just trying to explain the contradiction. Guilty of a crime or not, you’re still killing someone. Plus we do execute innocent people. It’s more that it’s an issue of them wanting to preserve human life while being ok with the state deciding when it should be taken away. I’m just basing this off of personal and observed interactions, btw.
Rewatching this in June 2022 after the horrific SCOTUS ruling. “Sometimes unplanned things happen”. Very Freudian. Her arguments strike me as a bit religious (the uterus was designed for a fetus, etc).
It's about consent. No human gets to use my body without my consent. Even if I initially gave consent, if I revoke it, then poof. There goes the other person's right to violate my autonomy. That's how it works. If you don't also make a father make a bone marrow donation to their already born child to save their life, you don't get to do that at any stage in the life of the dependent entity. Unborn people don't get more rights or special rights that born people don't get. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of a fetus. Cesarean sections are also abortions. Most abortions are also done before sentience could even be detected. And the ones that happen after that are done to wanted pregnancies that end up endangering the life of the woman. Don't try to boil this down to just protecting all life. Because you can't make someone be an incubator for someone else when they do not consent to it. Well, not if you say you care about bodily autonomy, anyway.
@@mileswright7294 If it's about consent then no innocent human being should be killed without their consent. The solution in a pregnancy - COEXIST. Death is permanent. A woman won't be pregnant forever (she will eventually give birth). Besides even Roe v Wade said states could restrict abortion at a certain point in the pregnancy without regard to ongoing consent. Why? Because at some point the recognized the unborn child as a "potential". Now that we know an unborn child is an ACTUAL human being, they need to be protected before and after viability. An unborn child has done nothing wrong. They are not violating anything or anyone. Comparing them to a rapist is beyond disgusting. I see the lame "donation" attempt at an analogy all the time. How can you not realize it's not even close to pregnancy? A slightly closer analogy would be that you actually DID donate bone marrow to someone else and then wanted to kill them to get your precious uter... I mean bone marrow back. That would never be allowed. Killing your unborn child to get your precious uterus back (which you already had anyway) should never be allowed. A closer analogy would be that pregnancy is dependent care. People are supposed to be responsible and provide food and shelter for their dependents (at least as long as it takes to hand them over safely to someone else), not make up excuses to kill them. The right for an innocent human being not to be killed is not a special right, it's a fundamental right.
@@mathildeyoung1823 using someone without their consent is NOT innocence. That's where you trip over yourself. Let's grant both of them the fact that they each consent to live. Fine. I grant that to each of them. But when one party does not consent, and the other is dependent upon the other, all of that stops. When having sex, and then you say stop for whatever reason, if the man continues going without that consent, the sex is then considered rape. It is a violation of your autonomy even if you initially gave consent. The man doesn't get to keep going. No one gets to use your body for pleasure or to sustain themselves without that consent. Even if you find it morally repugnant. Once you say the government can force someone to remain pregnant, it can then also turn around and say someone must have an abortion. That is why the choice ought to be left with the individual it concerns. You also wouldn't jail a parent for refusing to donate their organs to their born child. Even if we would look at that and say yeah that's shitty. Using the law to make someone donate an organ AGAINST THEIR WILL is a twisted and horrible situation. A uterus is no different than a kidney or a liver. Bodily autonomy is ubiquitous. It encompasses the whole body throughout all life stages. And that means being dependent on someone else at any time does not mean that someone can override the bodily autonomy of another WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And yet that is exactly the position you argue. You emphasise the unborn so much that you bypass the born person's consent. That is not "innocence" by any means. Doesn't matter how precious you find the dependent entity. Without consent, it is a violation. Why do you support giving a fetus rights than no born person would ever be granted? It should be incredibly obvious as to why the state shouldn't be forcing people to have their body used by someone else. Especially given the variety of complex situations that arise with pregnancy. My mother conceived me through in vitro. And she also had a miscarriage before me. I am the only one to make it. I was born 26 years ago this month. I hope you don't think she belongs in prison or should be jailed for either of those things because how are you gonna tell she ACTUALLY had a miscarriage? Or are you gonna charge her for murder of the other embryos that didn't survive? I can assure anyone who tries to apprehend my mother for this would probably find an axe near their neck very quick. :) The unborn person does not have rights over anyone else's body. The born person does not have rights over someone else's body. The unfortunate circumstances of our biology is just that, unfortunate. I also find it funny because the caricature of this is portrayed as murder, like we just want babies to be murdered. Well, if that were true, why aren't woman running around slaughtering born children en masse? Because they don't want to fucking kill children you dumb fucks. That's not what it's EVER fucking been about. It's about the unwarranted use of the body without consent. Period. Pregnancy is a condition that happens to people. It is not a choice. Some people get pregnant without wanting to. And some people can't get pregnant even tho they want to. There is little choice involved there. Consent to driving is not consent to getting into a wreck. Even if there is "risk." That heartbeat bullshit is about an electrical pulse which isn't done by a heart. The heart hasn't fucking formed yet. Brain activity comes much later and usually when there is brain activity during an abortion, that pregnancy and child were wanted. This isn't about murdering kids you fucking ass hats. It's about the right to govern your own body without having that impeded by another individual. If you wouldn't let another adult siphon off resources from another adult, you don't grant that to kids, babies, or fetuses, or old people, either. Using someone's stage of dependency as an excuse to side step the consent of another opens up a whole Pandora's box of unpleasant consequences, the likes of which you seem to not have thought through to their full extent. Bodily autonomy is not a difficult concept to grasp. We grant corpses more bodily autonomy than living people. Because scientists can't use someone's body for science just because they're not using it. That person had to have given their CONSENT. Why are you people so obsessed with VIOLATING CONSENT??
@@mileswright7294 An unborn child was placed in the woman's womb though no fault of their own. They have done nothing wrong to deserve death. Your "logic" is like saying a homeowner could kill their child if they wake up one day and say "I don't consent to you being in my house. Get out NOW" and then killing their baby if the baby doesn't get up and walk out of the house immediately. An unborn child cannot consent to being killed (like a newborn cannot). Since they cannot consent they need to be protected. IF there is a full human right to bodily autonomy then unborn children have that right and abortion would violate TWO of their basic human rights - bodily autonomy and their basic human rights (as innocent human beings) not to be killed. TWO > ONE. Therefore abortion still needs to be illegal. Really, you're comparing an unborn child to a rapist? If a woman is having sex and changes her mind and ONLY THINKS "I don't consent" without giving any other indication she doesn't consent she cannot kill her partner - because he doesn't know she revoked consent. An unborn child has done nothing wrong to deserve death and to compare then to a rapist is truly sick.
It is ironic you say that her arguments are a bit religious. Even though all she is arguing is equal rights for all people. Since Matt in this debate does acknowledge that the fetus is a human being, then he is implying not all humans have equal rights and is therefore incosistent when arguing against something like slavery. It is also interesting that you have implied the pro life movement has a religious bent. Meaning that religious people care about life, yet you prove the bible to be true. All who hate God love death
@@liquidKi I mean, her arguments are so ludicrous, it’s hard not to laugh. Sure, it wasn’t very classy of him, but he did apologize and at the end, his arguments actually have merit, which is the entire point.
Wow, I've heard a lot of pro-life claptrap over the years but I have never yet heard a pro-lifer literally say that a woman's body doesn't belong to her . . . I admire this gal for the bald honesty of her brutal craziness. And her shaky Maude Flanders voice is almost too perfect for the pearl-clutching sanctimony of her position.
Kristine made good points which I myself don't agree with but nevertheless, good points but overall, Matt won. He had the evidence, the validity, facts, and moreover, he considered all positions as to how women become pregnant and considered their health & safety over something that lives off the women's body. Whether or not you believe abortion is morally wrong, it's ultimately up to the person who's body carries that sperm & egg whether to get an abortion or not. Thanks for reading ~ [I'm a very civil person so I would not appreciate attacks but more constructive criticism and reasonable debates (: ]
Nope. Kristine is hung up on the Naturalistic Fallacy, & Matt demonstrated her attempt to invoke *personhood* was insufficent to support her assertion.
Your position is based on subjective morality too, though. The entire concept of "who has the right to decide" is based entirely on personal morality. My problem with your argument is that you're creating distinctions that don't exist. Basically, you're attempting to separate "morality" from "the law" or "morality" from "human rights" or "morality" from "freedom", etc, and you're implying that one's personal morality shouldn't form the basis for any of these things. But morality itself acts as the basis for how we decide human rights, what freedoms a person should have, etc. What you should try to understand is that with subjects like these, there isn't an objective "right" or "wrong" answer. All these arguments are based on personal value systems, that is whether you prefer freedom over one's body vs. the preservation of life. You might be uncomfortable with the law denying a woman from getting an abortion, and a pro-lifer might be uncomfortable with the killing of a fetus, but both positions ultimately rest on emotion, and you don't have any more of an objective basis than the pro-lifer has.
There is no right afforded to ANY human being to use the body of another. End of! No émotion required in making the case that it's the woman's.right to autonomy that takes priority.
Kristine's arguments are flawed because they have the Naturalistic Fallacy at their heart. Did you notice that whenever the fact that lots of fertilized eggs don't implant, or miscarriages occur, she was FINE with that? Death is death, dammit! If she was going to be consistent, EVERY fertilized egg that doesn't develop into an independent human body should be cause for her concern.
@@douglasthomashayden2566 There is a big difference between natural death and intentionally killing. Intentionally killing a human being that has done nothing wrong should be illegal.
@@mathildeyoung1823 A fetus HAS 'done something wrong'. It's invaded an unwilling host, & it's the host's choice to evict it, and not be victimized by it for anywhere from 9 months to a lifetime, with a certainty that the parasite will cause massive undesired, unDESERVED changes to the host's body. Moochers, freeloaders, & parasites 'bodily rights' are properly ignored in such a scenario.
@@douglasthomashayden2566do babies crawl into unsuspecting mothers where you live? In the overwhelming majority of cases, an unborn child only ends up using a woman’s organs as a direct and foreseeable result of her voluntary actions. In other words, she chose to make her organs available and she can’t exactly complain when someone took her up on her offer; she has no more right to kill her unborn child then she does someone she donated a kidney to. An unborn child is not a parasite either. He/she is a human being. Human beings are not parasites
@@mathildeyoung1823 If a person is on birth control SPECIFICALLY because they don't want to become pregnant, then YES, the ZEF (fuck your 'baby' language...it's not that until it draws its first breath, *biblically* ) is a fucking uninvited guest that can be evicted with extreme prejudice and no need for remorse. If you don't think so, then let me come and live with you, eat your food (even if you have to go hungry), use up all your resources (even if it severely depletes or bankrupts you), trash your house making it the way *I* want it, and you'll accept it, then let me stay for AT LEAST 20 years while you keep paying all the bills regardless of how badly I abuse you. Same thing. FWIW, I expected you to take that tack. By YOUR KIND's standards, smokers who get cancer shouldn't be allowed surgery and/or chemotherapy, people who get sick from eating / drinking impure food / water shouldn't be helped, people who get nearsighted or farsighted should be denied corrective lenses, clothes in general would be *verboten*, so much for Type 2 diabetics, etc. YOUR KIND only rail against abortion for *religious* reasons, then try, post hoc, to fit some (ANY!) kind of supposedly secular 'justification' to excuse your prejudice. And YOUR KIND can't any more. If you could, you'd be off victimizing pregnant people rather than whining in an online forum.
no, don't cop out like that. all issues are connected, and it's a valid point to point out how pro-lifers are often so anti-helping born children. doesn't matter if the debate was initially about the topic. it's still worth discussing. all discussion is valuable.
@@nukeage9856 see the problem with the people who want to take away the choice is they refuse to help afterwards and then blame the child having a bad childhood on the parent when it wouldn’t have happened if she had the choice
+Elijah Jones She's completely out of her depth. Her entire basis seems to be emotional. That's not how she tries to argue, I'm not even sure if she understands that this is where she seems to come from... but there isn't an reasonable position you can take in favor of the anti-choice movement, and yet people hold it very strongly. It's emotional. That's all it is.
Typically, its because pro choicers act like they want to kill us. I get nervous when I'm debating the issue 10 to 1 as the only pro life athiest in the group.
There seems to be a real conflation in the comments between 'pro choice' and 'pro abortion'. I've never met a single pro-choice person that would dream of encouraging, or coercing a woman to have an abortion. I don't even know if such a person exists. However I've come across plenty of people with 'pro-life' opinions that would quite happily coerce or force a woman into carrying a pregnancy to full term against her wishes. My own view is pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm 'pro-abortion'. Just as there are plenty of people that are 'pro-life' but still believe a woman should have the choice.
Im not so much pro-abortion or pro-life i think there is a fine line within this topic But my main issue.. when reading comments is how people whill defend a fetus and basically go to all efforts to make abortion out as a murderous act.. yet they never have viable arguements for the after-math.. Like you all sound like you would rather have a child born into neglect, abuse or with a non-life-sustaining illness than have them aborted.. That makes you no better than anyone, you care more for a fetus than you ever would for a poor child living in awful conditions that no child should be in Like i said, its a sore subject, and im still very much open to both opinions and views, but thats just my take on this subject
+TheMrsmartiekid same here man. I will also raise 2 other considerations that maybe you are not aware: 1) Banning abortion won't stop abortion itself. Ireland is one example. When Ireland bans abortion, abortion did not go down. People turned to homemade inventions to try to do self-induce abortion, causing a lot of unnecessary deaths and health risks! 2) Economy. If we ban abortion, this means over 1 million babies will be born per year into poor families. Have you thought about what kind of burden this will cause on our social welfare system? I'm not necessarily pro-choice or pro-life...but these are just 2 other issues we need to think about before jumping into a legislation!
Puglous we do have over 50+ million people currently living in poverty without basic healthcare.... and Republicans' solution = remove universal healthcare???
+TheMrsmartiekid The argument about allowing a child to be born into a shitty life doesn't follow. It's arguable that giving a child a chance at life is far better than giving them no chance at life: it certainly wouldn't be considered moral to stop a child from living if their life was terrible. (Although there's then the whole debate about illness, suffering and Euthanasia)
+TheMrsmartiekid "born into neglect, abuse or with a non-life-sustaining illness" how about we also throw in poverty,disabilities, inherited genetic diseases, mutations, babies born without limbs and a gazzilion more harsh cruelties that currently and will always exist because that's a part of LIFE. Yes, I believe no child should ever be born in harsh living conditions but it does happen and you can't blame pro-life advocates for the uncontrollable factors in life. Also, your statement shows that you'd rather children be dead than experience abuse,neglect, non-life-sustaining illness since. That's a BIG slap in the face for all the victims of actual abuse, neglect and other cruel realities of life. "you care more for a fetus than you ever would for a poor child" That's a such a biased pro-abortion statement. First of all, pro-life advocates care EQUALLY for all lives including the poor, rich, wanted, unwanted, unborn and born. We believe that a fetus is already a growing human being in the early stages of life. Life begins at conception, we learned that in biology. Overwhelming majority of biologist and a bunch of pro-choicer agree that life begins at the moment of conception. An elderly, a baby and a fetus are all different stages of the human life. Pro- life: believes that it should be illegal to end the life of an individual who is a member of the human species such as a fetus, baby, teenager, adult and an elderly. Pro-choice: believes that it should be legal for a pregnant woman to decide whether or not a fetus should continue to live.
I was undecided about this issue prior to viewing this debate and a long time fan of Matt. His opening case completely blew me away in its clear and concise presentation for a right to abortion and I can say that I am now convinced. I hope Matt becomes more than simply a cherished voice in the community and ascends to the level of being revered enjoyed by Dawkins et al. He is truly the atheist intellectual heavy-weight of our time.
40:00 She's having a goddamn panic attack because he's forcing her to acknowledge that the decision to abort a fetus would be made by someone other than the mother under her model.
At 50:37 Matt summarizes Kristine's position perfectly (the whole debate captured in just a few seconds). BTW: My goodness she is nervous and all over the place.
@Forrest Walker Well I don’t like certain framing that makes any comment look like someone was offended. Kind of like what you did with that last comment What I don’t like is people praising a man who recognizes that a fetus is a human being (fetus is Latin for small child) and because of his lazy selfishness he will fully support the murder of that child. I agree, Matt is super smart. But just because you can articulate yourself in a brilliant way doesn’t give you any moral high ground. If murder is the natural result of your position? It is not a good position and you are in step with the Nazis and southern slave owners that this country had a couple centuries ago
@@andrewdavidson8167 A fetus is a clump of cells not an “infant”. Until late in pregnancy, it has less brain activity than the standard of “brain dead, pull the plug” for an injured patient. So you are giving a clot more rights than an adult human. It’s absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a fetus, which can not survive outside of a woman’s body, can have more rights than the adult, aware woman carrying it.
A woman has sex, she knows she might get pregrant for having sex, she uses protection, she gets pregant anyway. (some) Prolifers are saying she still is to blame and she has to live with it. A skier skies, he knows he might get hurt by skieng, he uses protection, he breaks his back or a leg. By analogy, he is to blame and he has to live with it. We will not treat his back or leg, he knew the risk.
a pregnancy does indeed come a quite a cost to a woman's body and can indeed be considered a collection of MANY injuries. Perhaps the immoral prejudice stand with you against women. It can be hard to remember the value of autonomy when you literally have no skin in the game.
Torrriate She sounded pretty pathetic to me. Matt noted numerous times that his argument on bodily rights applied even when the embryo is considered human and quite frankly he's right, she sounded... really bad. Then there was PZ Meyers backhanding her at the end. She did not win by any stretch of the imagination.
I participated in a fund raiser with 10 doctors i know personally and over 100 i didnt know as well as volunteer landlords that raised ovwr 35k dollars in one day to fund bringing women in states with strict abortion laws to get abortions done in states where its legal. They coordinate with a team of attorneys to go thru the process legally. There are many loop holes. The landlords donate rooms, houses, condos etc with leases for the women to show they live in the states part time. There are HUNDREDS of canadian drs who provide abortions there for women as well. They are a non profit and the women get flights, hotel, and the procedure free. If they become illegal all around they have huge boats that are setup to be floating drs offices. And there are 3 countries that will perform them out of us jurisdictions as well as hospitals that will be setup to perform them. So if they ever become illegal they will perform them for everyone who files. They had a fundraiser where 3 anonymous billionaires donated 75 million in one day to stockpile moeny to make sure the women have the ability to get it even if they have no moeny. Im working constantly with one team and they arr preparing just in case to be able to offer hundteds of thousands of abortions per year in the event they evee get banned. They did over 50000 for women in strict law states. They still stick by the 22ish week limit or close. Its not like a woman who is 8 months pregnant. But they are prepared to make sure no one is forced to birth a child they dont want. They raised 200 million in one month. Its wonderful to see. Because here's the same. If I have a child and I smoke cigarettes in the garage to stay away from the child but the child plays in the garage and ends up getting lung cancer, which is directly my fault and the child will die if I do not donate a lung, the state cannot force me to do so. Even though legally I can't be punished because lots of parents smoke in the vicinity of their children and even though it's directly my fault, my bodily autonomy says that you can't force me to give up an organ. But let's go with a much less invasive situation. Let's say that I'm riding my bicycle through the park and my child is on the seat in the back and I get distracted by a girl jogging and I did a stick and we fly off in my child is severely injured. We get to the hospital and my child is minutes away from bleeding out and they don't have the blood type stocked up (which absolutely happens) If I do not donate blood my child will die. You cannot force me to give blood to sustain the life of another person. You can't punish me for not doing so either. Because of bodily autonomy. And this is a procedure that is much much much safer than carrying a child to term and delivering. you know how many women die every year when they are in great health and there was Zero sign whatsoever that anything was going to go wrong but their blood pressure and they died? You are talking about forcing a woman into holding a baby she doesn't want for almost a year and then risking her life to give birth to a child that she doesn't want and it will forever change her body, potentially cause serious psychiatric damage, and then overload the already ridiculously overloaded foster homes and orphanages. Not to mention it will Not help our overcrowding situation. You don't have to like abortion, but it's not going anywhere. And if it does, there will be billions of dollars set aside to make sure that every woman who wants an abortion and can't get one, still here yet one. It's controlling women and not men. Because if it was happening to men it would never even be close to Actually happening. But luckily abortion is not going anywhere. One way or another they will still happen and they will still happen in a way that you cannot be punished. And abortions are not going to become illegal So the money that is being donated will end up going to Planned Parenthood and places like that to ensure that women still get free birth control and health care. It's wonderful seeing people come together to make sure that women are still taken care of. I used talk to text and youtube lags BADLY. Its a good 30 seconds behind what i say so i apologize for any mistakes. Im not going back thru this entire post
Here's my two-cents: in general abortion is not "taking away the right to life". Picture a scenario in which I am hooked up to another person, only my blood type can sustain them for the following nine months. If I take them off this support I am not taking away their right to live, I am taking away their right to use my body -- a right which no body has inherent -- I find it agreeable that a foetus or embryo may have some innate right not to have their future taken away, but there are scenarios in which that right is triumphed (not that it doesn't exist), but triumphed by the woman's right to her own body. There are real cases in which abortion no longer becomes an elective, but a necessary medical procedure.
Andrew Wells So, the mother should have the right to abstain from keeping the child alive even when there is literally nothing else that can do so in her stead? Isn't that kind of like saying it's legal for a fireman to drop the person they're carrying in the middle of a rescue because he simply decides he doesn't want to carry the person out of the building?
Hi Edvard. I don't think that is the same. As it currently stands it is illegal for a fireman (or indeed anyone) not to help someone unless they would be put into immediate danger themselves. That final clause is important. A fireman has enrolled to do a service. It is his swarm duty to serve and protect. A better analogy I feel would be the obligation of a normal civilian witnessing a house fire. He is under no obligation to risk his own life to jump in and try and rescue the person inside. Either lawfully or I think morally. If he chooses to it is an act of bravery or charity, but he shouldn't be compelled to. He does have a moral obligation to perform certain acts which do not cause him any harm e.g., calling the fire brigade. Perhaps a couple have a similar moral obligation to use birth control if they do not wish to get pregnant.
Andrew Wells I more-or-less agree, even if the embryo is a person; it does not in any way invalidate the bodily rights argument. The question itself, is a fetus a person? Is an interesting moral possibility; however I find it to be completely irrelevant to the concept of abortion and pregnancy in general.
+Sabrina Fairchild Function implies intent. Nature does not instill function (for it has no intent), nor does nature or any sentient being obligate us to fulfill function with our body. The function of our own blood is whatever the heck we want it to function as. As with blood, nature doesn't own a woman's body; she does. She decides when and what her own body should function as, not nature.
Sabrina Fairchild It's connected as well to what is moral. There is something in philosophy called the naturalistic fallacy -- where a moral argument hinges on the fact that something is perceived as 'natural'. Kristine's uterus, 'body part of purpose' argument is making this very same error. By appealing to nature, we could say eating apples is a moral act, or natural selection in every form is moral.
I agree with Matt. If the life of a fetus trumps women's right to bodily autonomy, then that means women are equivalent to cattle, slaves, second-class citizens who, for 9 months of their lives, are nothing but human incubators. NO ONE has the right to FORCE another human being to give up her body for the sake of his own life. And the boat analogy is pure bullshit. If I become pregnant and no longer wish to be pregnant and end up getting an abortion, the death of the child is simply the by-product of terminating the pregnancy. It's not like I'm a bloodthirsty monster. I don't want that fetus in my body anymore and if it can't survive on its own, well that's just too bad. If a 7-year-old kid is a stowaway on my yacht, I'm not gonna throw him overboard because he's not leeching off my own body, he's not a parasite, he's not violating my bodily autonomy. He's just getting a free ride on my boat. Killing him would make no sense at all. I wouldn't be required to give him water and food while waiting for the Coast Guard to arrive. I'd be a dick if I didn't feed him but I'm not legally required to (but I guess that depends on the laws of the land, Good Samaritan laws, etc). Anyway, it's just a silly analogy. My point is, nobody should be REQUIRED to play host to a parasite. Murder for no reason is bad, yes, but not when it's in defense of your own body, either from harm or just from being used without consent. And, fyi, all this is coming from someone who is the mother to one beautiful 4-year-old boy whom was purposely conceived and carried to term of my own free will. I've been through pregnancy and a cesarean section and I would NEVER wish that experience on any woman who didn't WANT it.
That's like saying that if the law tells someone that they cannot leave their unwanted baby to die that means we are treating people like babysitters. When the law tells a man or a woman not to k-ill their child, born or unborn, it's not about treating them like slaves, babysitters, bank accounts etc it's about protecting defenseless human beings from being k-illed.
@@mathildeyoung1823you're confusing care for a with body autonomy rights which aren't the same. You can drop off a new born at pretty much any hospital or fire department. That's still taking care of it without the use of body autonomy. But you can't drop off a fetus, a fetus can't live without using the body of the mother. Why is this simple concept so beyond your level of understanding?
@@tannermclaughlin5001 Having to drop off a newborn may involve a poor, poor, person having to do something with their body against their precious will - boo hoo... And say that person was in a situation with their unwanted child (e.g. a natural disaster) where they could not drop off their unwanted child - how long should they be "forced" (boo hoo) to use their body against their will to care for their unwanted child before they can k-ill them? minutes? hours? days? longer? If you put a defenseless human being in a position of dependence on you then you need to BE RESPONSIBLE for that new human being at least as lpooonnnnngggggg as it takes to hand them over SAFELY to someone else - whether that handoff takes 1 second or 9 months.
It amazes me how even though Matt repeated his argument multiple times, she still did not get it at all. Her closing summary, saying Matt's argument only stands if the "pre-born" are not human beings. FACE FUCKING PALM
***** That's because that's all Dillahunty has. Opinions aren't strong enough to decisively end arguments in the same way facts can. Dillahunty offered his philosophical _bodily autonomy opinion_ and Kristine is rejecting it just like I do.
***** All she has is opinion too. These are two people arguing over ideology basically. The difference I was pointing out of course being, she is arguing against a position that Matt does not hold, and she does not know how to address Matt's actual position, so she just keeps repeating the same strawman bullshit over and over again.
Name Display Actually, she's repeating her scientifically inspired moral opinion (that an unborn child is a person) as he repeats his non-scientifically based _philosophical_, moral opinion that an unborn child is not a person until man declares it a person and that he thinks that would be pretty stupid. BTW, calling her argument a _straw man_ argument seems to insinuate that her argument is no argument. You're not arguing that, are you, *Name Display*?
***** You misunderstand the concept of a strawman. Also, you are wrong about the scientific aspects you just mentioned. Either way, no matter what justification these people propose for their opinions, they are just that. Opinions. Based on ideology. Science does not say it is wrong to abort a fetus. That is a philosophically born concept.
Kristine's so terrifyingly nervous, it threatens the credibility of her argument. If she didn't have her Powerpoint she'd probably have no idea what to say. I don't think she really understands her premise as much as she thinks she does. In either case, I side with Matt because I don't agree with hijacking a woman's body for the sake of a blob of cells that aren't aware they exist. If the woman, however, lets this blob of cells become a fetus capable of living outside her womb, then she's spent long enough thinking it over and should really just finish it out. On the fetus itself...size isn't the point of what makes it valuable. It's the capacity for it to survive on its own (and thereby not be parasitic to the woman) and it's development. A born person is fully formed. A 9 week old embryo is not. EDIT: Towards the end Kristine starts to go on about how the uterus is specifically designed to hold a fetus, and while this is true, the woman did not get to choose her own gender and therefore did not opt in to HAVING a uterus. If a female fetus could flip switches in its genome so a uterus would not form, I would've signed up for that shit immediately, supposing I couldn't choose to be male instead to begin with.
Kristine is nervous, and she doesn't understand her premise as much as she thinks she does, but you don't understand the implications of your thesis either. First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size. I couldn't help but wonder whether you thought about what you wrote before you posted your comment. Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion. You say that it's all about dependency, but I'm fairly certain that if you had thought about it a little bit, you would see just how problematic that argument is. This is not even about me taking either side of the debate, rather I'm puzzled by the way in which you think you propose a good argument, and critize Kristine, when in fact what you say entails very bad ethics. Let me clarify. Your argument, I think, is that women are entitled to an abortion because a fetus is solely dependent on them, and if they want to, they can choose to get rid of it. Don't you realize the implications of this argument? If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort. For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families. Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids? Absolutely not. The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself
***** Sorry, but you must be terribly uneducated about the goings-on of a free, civilized socieity.. do you live in a third-world country where people are forced into slave labor, and not allowed to choose their own destiny..? Noone is forced to become a nurse, parent, doctor, caretaker.. a provider of any kind.. anyone can quit their job if they don't like, and be replaced easily. Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa.. You cannot adopt a uterus, or embryo or fetus.. all you can do is sign papers and struggle.. for 9 permanent months. The developing blob of cells, and eventually shell-body-husk-without-a-mind is just that.. until consciousness is turned on after birth, when the fetus, developed enough TO be physically capable of consciousness physically AND independence physically((unless something is wrong with it, in which case- see above about adoption and people CHOOSING to be care providers..)) CAN actually be adopted. You can't say that's a person, or even a completed task until birth, or very late-term, without either being uneducated about basic human development, or just being a liar. It's not a finished product. ..and basic development and AGE are two different things.. so, no, it's not about size.. it's about development- a wad of cells or half-formed body with no mind or memory does not constitute anything remotely close to a person. ..so, that being said.. if the pregnancy proves to be risky or unwanted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with terminating it, b/c there's literally next to no loss whatsoever. It was a potential, not an actual. Not to mention, the whole 'no consent' thing.. consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.. so forcing an unwanted pregnancy to continue is literally a form of rape from afar, seeing as how there is no 'person' present in the woman's body, and it is someone ELSE'S pleasure/desire to force her through it for personal or religious satisfaction- using someone's genitals/body against their will is rape and slavery, depending on the circumstances/details.. seeing as how this involves a woman's reproductive system- using her genitals against her will/with no consent is rape. ..so.. your response is VERY poorly-thought-out.. B/c those comparisons make absolutely no sense. In any direction..
ryddelwearsahat That's ludicrous. If anything, it's obvious that don't come from an academic background. I on the other hand know what I'm talking about. I'm a New Yorker you imbecile. It has become apparent by the way in which you construct your periods, and the way in which you argue that you are a layman. Nothing but attacks on my personality. My arguments would not be any less valid if I lived in South Africa. " Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa.. " Adoption is not "purchased". That sentence pretty much sums up why people are opposed to us. The education and literacy level on our country is horrible by comparison to that of the Europeans, Australians and some Asian countries. You boast, and yet you're a morally bankrupt buffoon who has no idea of formal logic. I do not see how most of what you have said is relevant as to the matter at issue. I managed to extract a few points that you've made and extrapolate from there into formulating a few arguments, just barely. So your sole point being that since the fetus is not conscious, and since it's dependent on the mother, we have the right to kill it until it's conscious, and no longer dependent upon the mother. Sigh... The fetus does have access to consciousness and rationality, it just doesn't have IMMIDIATE access to consciousness and rationality. If we are allowed to kill anyone who is not conscious, but has the capacity to be conscious, then your logic would entail that we have the right to kill people who are asleep, in a comma, or people who have received REPAIRABLE brain damage. I don't think you want that, but who knows. Let us proceed to the second criterion. Dependency. You're confused. If I deceive you to come to my home, and then I get you into the same room with my brother, who is suffering from cancer, and request your bone marrow for him, while you have the right to decline and leave the building in which my brother is located, you don't have the right to bash my brother's head with a baseball bat. During an abortion, the second act is committed. Even though dependency would entail that you have the right to stop helping the embryo, it does not entail that you have the right to murder the embryo (abortion). More specifically, addressing your point that the embryo is not a person, a baby isn't a person either. Do you support infanticide too? If we are allowed to kill anyone who isn't a person, then infanticide would be morally permissable, but infanticide is _not_ morally permissable, and we know that through intuition. "consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.." That's ridiculous. Let me form an analogy for you: I'm playing baseball with my kid. I manage to hit a food stand, and I go towards the owner to retrieve my ball. When he, being angry, asks me give my information so as to file a report, and pay for the damage, I respond by informing him that I did not conscent to the repercussions of playing baseball, and therefore I won't be paying to restore any damages. This is absurd. Pregnancy is a direct consequence of having intercourse. But if you don't conscent to sex, in the case of rape, the situation is slightly different. In the case of rape, while this argument does not stand, we have to examine whether or not killing the fetus would help the mother who has been raped. It's not the baby's fault. The baby is not a devil. It has done nothing. You have no reason to want to get rid of it. If you deserve to live, then so does the fetus. You might not be as developed as the fetus, but are you claim that since kids are not fully developed, that therefore we have the right to kill them? Tell that to your teenage son or daughter. If ANY response is poorly thought out, it's yours, for heaven's sake.
***** You accuse me of not thinking my opinions through and yet you don't seem to understand half of what you're saying, yourself. 1, "First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size." That's correct. The point is completely coherent. I fail to see how you misunderstand it. The blob of cells, regardless of their size, do not get to hijack a woman's body. I think the argument you were trying to make is with regards to when I said that I would be opposed to the freedom of abortion when the fetus has developed far enough that it's viable. Roe vs Wade already established that abortions are fine and legal until 28 weeks of gestation. This is because it's a reasonable amount of time for a woman to figure out if she wants to sustain the pregnancy, because an abortion after about 30 weeks is really just preterm birth. 2, "Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion." See the above. I do support abortion. I also support common sense. Once the fetus is legitimately an infant, the abortion should lead to a live birth, not the death of the infant. 3, "You say that it's all about dependency...[excised for simplicity] ...If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort. Incorrect. A fetus is dependant on the bodily function and fluid of another human being and is therefore parasitic to that person. A person dependent on the state is not attached to someone else's body. Your point would be correct if you had suggested that if you go into kidney failure, you would, by law, be entitled to take a kidney from whoever matches your tissue type by proximity to yourself. But you have no right to demand a kidney from someone. In that vein, a fetus also has no right to demand a space of residence within a woman's body, and drain her of nutrients and other vital fluids. 4, "For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families." Yes, children are dependent on their families, but they are not entitled to their family's organs, tissues or bodily fluids. Money isn't the same as a heart or liver or kidney or womb. 5, "Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids?" Of course not. Don't be retarded. Abortion is not the same as murder. Abortion is the conscious decision to stop a pregnancy. If it's at 1 day to 28 weeks, the unfortunate result of the abortion is that the fetus is likely to die or cease development. However, a fetus is not considered a person, in law or in religious doctrine. A fetus only attains personhood when it takes its first breath. I simply give it the credit it deserves by giving it a chance once it's developed far enough that it COULD take a breath were it to be taken out of the body. Up until that moment, it has no right to exist against the woman's will. 6, "The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself." My argument has nothing do with financial or emotional dependence. As I said above, it's parasitic dependence. A child that has been born has attained the rights of a living individual person. A fetus is considered a part of the woman's body until it's born. You cannot override the rights of a woman's bodily autonomy because you have an emotional attachment to an unborn fetus. The state of Texas recently did this with Mrs Munoz, keeping her body on artificial 'body function maintenance' after she was brain-dead, solely because she was pregnant. Mrs Munoz had an advanced directive stating she never wanted to be put on machines. Her autonomy was violated because, people like you, who are perfectly fine with favoring the unborn over the already-born, decided Mrs Munoz's choices didn't matter anymore because she had a barely-developed embryo inside her. At 14 weeks, the developing fetus can't even be gender-typed yet. It's not even the size of a banana and could legally be aborted for another 12 weeks. That fetus had no right to demand its dead mother's body should be used as an incubator when NO ONE wanted to do it to her. Not her, not her husband, and not her family, all of whom fought to get her taken off the ventilators. In the end, the fetus grew to about 20 weeks, and was deemed nonviable due to non-development of the fetus' lower body, heart deformities and water on the brain. It was only after the state of Texas deemed the pregnancy worthless that they let Mrs Munoz die like she should have when she originally dropped from that pulmonary embolism. Perfect strangers decided for her that she didn't have the right to die. It's a violation of her personal liberty and a disgusting usurping of a natural process, even if unfortunate. You lose.
ryddelwearsahat I criticized you in that manner because you're a racist who made an attack on my education and place of origin, thinking I was from a third world country. That in your mind makes my arguments invalid. That's not how logic works. I won't bother addressing you any longer. By reading your response I was stunned by the way in which you managed to misinterpet my arguments. Furthermore you don't seem to know what analogy is, and how it's supposed to be used. I'm a nice guy, and so I'm going to assume that you're a young lad who has no manners as of yet, and does not know how the flow of argumentation functions. Since argument from analogy is taken away from us, and since it's the only tool we could use in a debate about abortion, there is nothing to talk about.
for 40 mins she talks about the cells and a full person being the same thing. then 42 mins in she says "of course there is a difference. they are younger" seems to me at that point she should stood and bowed out.
Your dna doesn’t change from the time you’re a fertilized egg to now. So yes, younger. I know prolife atheists. Their arguments are better than hers. They’re correct. A single celled organism on Mars would be considered life and protected. And any intentional ending of life is murder. A human zygote is indeed human. It is murder. If prolife people agreed to the .0000003% of abortions, could we end the rest? If no, you’re all the hypocrites. And new studies say babies in the womb could possibly feel pain at 8 weeks gestation, and definitely as early as 12 weeks. When you have to rip arms and legs off of babies to end their lives it’s inhumane. And if the baby is her body, then she is 50% male when pregnant with a male. The natural place for a zygote is it’s mother’s womb. Taking the baby out of the mother doesn’t take the title mother way. They’re a mother of a dead child. I don’t claim that even a born baby is equal to an adult. They’re much better. Innocent. Bodily autonomy when you use abortion as birth control is a fallacy. Don’t have unprotected sex. Those abortions are the 99% of abortions. Not rape. Not ectopic pregnancies. And to kill a viable child inside its mother because she might die is stupid. If she can undergo a late term abortion she could give birth to the child alive. Babies at 22 weeks gestation (20 weeks from fertilization) can live. And we’re getting better at keeping them alive and without brain damage. But many babies are aborted, live through it, and are either left to die by nurses and doctors or are rescued by nurses. They are typically the ones who have the saline abortions but one who had his arm ripped off came out alive and was rescued. Abortion is a horrifying action. If we teach people responsibility, make rape laws incredibly harsh, and enforce the rape laws to make it so the rapist gets no parental rights we can make it better without murdering innocent children.
@@junelledembroski9183 uh, no. Most abortions are just popping a pill. How the FUCK is abortion being an option as your right to bodily autonomy a fallacy? Explain that b.s. to me. And over 50% of women who get abortions USED CONTRACEPTION. Seems like you're a stereotypical anti choice buffoon
@@junelledembroski9183 to add to this, you contradict "pro life" when you say there is no exception to save the WOMAN'S life. If her life is not in your equation, you are not pro life.
@@TrashBunBun childish word play. Apparently you don’t even know someone who has committed suicide or other atrocities because they had an abortion. Men created abortion for men. Plain and simple. Just because I didn’t say blah blah doesn’t mean I don’t agree with blah blah. And all of you who want to kill babies for birth control, shame on you. Name calling, really? My plan isn’t perfect, but it’s better than not having one. You are boring, your arguments are stale. I am following new science. New science says babies can feel pain as early as 8 weeks but definitely as early as twelve. I think you may be talking stats from the 90’s, because so far since raising the gestational age to whenever, the trend is killing babies older and older.
@@junelledembroski9183 I don't care. As a suicide survivor, screw you :) Do you know how many women DIED for their rights? And you wanna make their hardship and sacrifice amount to NOTHING. Shame on you.
Matt: I'm expecting the "right to life" argument, but the abortion is a bodily autonomy issue. Kristine: Matt is right, but only if the fetus is not a human being. Matt: I grant you that the fetus is a human being, but the abortion is a bodily autonomy issue. Kristine: Matt is right, but only if the fetus is not a human being.
To say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue is partially incorrect. People who support abortion root their position on the fundamental (first principles) belief that nobody has the right to use another person's body against that person's will. Having this first principle makes abortion a bodily autonomy issue. But, people who do not support abortion root their position on the first principle that nobody has the right to end a human life. For these people, abortion is a right to life issue. So to say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue as a pro-choice person is to ignore the whole reason for a pro-lifer being pro-life. Furthermore, arguing that everyone has the right to bodiliy autonamy in effort to convince a prolifer is a ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with their position in abortion. Arguing that every human has a right to live as a prolifer is an ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with a prochoicers reason to being pro-choice. The abortion argument is like a group of scientists arguing that an object can be moved because an unstopable force will be applied to it, but another group is arguing that when that force is applied to the object it wont move because it is an immovable object. This gets even more complicated. When does the child gain bodily autonomy rights? Removeing it from the womb would violate those rights eventually.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 Fetus has no right to use someone else's body against their will. The issue of abortion is the womb owner's private issue; not yours, nor the government's.
@@macieyid I'm curious about a few things. First off, why do you think some people are pro life? I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on why people are against abortion. Second, if a women put a little person in her vagina (like an adult with dwarfism), and that person did not consent to that, would she have the right to kill it to get it out? If there was no way to take it out, would the dwarf have the right to rip the woman apart to get out? Also, what is the difference in the value of an adult dwarf and a one month old baby? Should one have more rights under the law then the other? Remember the baby never consented to being created, and put inside the mothers womb. Also, I would argue that the women has no right to end the life of a human she chose to create inside of her.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 Several red flags detected. 1) "I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on" - not pro-abortion, pro-choice. Nobody is arguing for people to abort fetuses, just for the right to choose. If you don't want it - don't do it. people can be against abortion rights for many reasons including religious reasons or naive ideas of equal rights for fetuses, while it is about their special rights, and after being born nobody particulary cares about children... 2) Strange analogy. Woman has not put fetus into herself, it is just the result of biological processes outside her control in many cases, aside from her aiming to become pregnant specifically. And the problem is with unviability of the fetus, not with necessity of killing it during abortion. 3) Humans acquire more rights with age due to more responsibility and more cognitive abilities, generally adults have priority even over newborn for being functional members of society, we value socially and intellectually capable people more than potential intelligent agents in newborn, so pregnant women usually have priority in saving their lives if there is a choice during delivery. 4) So, again. Women going to abortion usually did not choose to create life inside, it is the result of natural processes and we should not bow to nature in our ethics and morality. 5) Prohibition of abortions is so damaging to society that even if we consider abortion immoral we should not make it illegal.
She simply does not want to get it does she? It truely doesn't matter if the foetus is a human being or not, no human being has the rights she wants to grant...
Well, I think that Carlin could be very funny, especially if he said something that was true but that people usually wouldn't acknowledge. I think that that particular joke was just him being stupid and probably not realizing that he was generalizing based on his surroundings (ie, living in Hollywood, the 'beautiful people' were pro-choice, but if you look at the country as a whole, that doesn't apply). I mean, there's no shortage of hot women who're pro-life, and there are plenty of unattractive ones who're pro-choice. George HW Bush (the father) was once confronted by an angry feminist protesting about abortion who yelled, "Stay out of my uterus." She was a rather large and mannish woman and he said, "Lady, I wouldn't touch your uterus with a 10 foot pole."
Absolutely! Fundamental individual rights supercedes all. I wish these militant "pro-lifers" would get that the mother has rights to her own body. Period!
@@CountSnackula7 Imagine you are connected to other person's body against your will to provide life support with several risks to your health and potentially your life. Do you have the right to refuse to remain in such a condition even if the other person would die if you disconnect? If you can do whatever you want with your body you should have such a right, abortion is essentially the same, just that fetus is not a conscious being yet.
Damn that was intense. That woman with the question about christines video offended her? For one she was warned ahead of time and she went to the event. And 2 why are there kids at this kind of debate? Come on people.
I'm a 2nd year medical student who has a debate on this next week, which I shall be assessed on. I think both sides argued very effectively, and have not yet made my mind up on which side to come down on. Brilliant debate.
@@Mmmmiloyou seem like the type of person that struggles with understanding the difference between ‘you’re wrong’ and ‘I disagree with you’ I’d challenge you to think of a single person that has different opinions than you on one topic or many topics, but they’re also smart and make good points. If you can’t think of a single person then I think you have something to work on
The very simple point that Matt was making, and was flatly ignored by Kristine, is that when two people’s rights are in conflict with each other, one of the two parties rights must trump the others. This is the raw uncomplicated fact of the matter. And this is very much granting the worst case scenario, which is at the moment of conception an embryo is granted the status of "Personhood". Given these two persons, the question is who’s rights trump whoms? And more importantly, who is in charge of deciding? What are the criteria for making that decision? That IS the debate. I believe Matt was prepared to make the case that the woman has the greater position of priority, and therefore her rights trump the rights of the single cell embryo. Alas, he never got to make the case because Kristine refused to debate. She instead wasted everybody’s time by lecturing everyone with her opinions on the matter and her own personal world view, a fact that clearly annoyed Matt. There are plenty of rational reasons why granting personhood status a single cell at the moment of conception is as Matt stated, "Stupid". But that was not what this debate was about. Matt explicitly and repeatedly for the sake of THIS debate, concedes that the status of personhood can be granted at the moment of conception, and it has Zero bearing on his argument. Kristine NEVER answered to Matt's argument. She never at any time spoke to the woman’s rights. So without explicitly saying so, Kirsten in fact ignored Matt's entire argument, as if by not acknowledging his argument it some how negates it. It does not; Kristen did not participate in a debate. Put another way, Kristen could have done exactly the same speech with out the need for Matt to be there. Where Matt delivered an actual debate, Kristine delivered a lecture. You can't win a debate by simply refusing to debate your opponent. From a debate technical standard, Kristine should have lost by a 100% margin for simply refusing to debate. But putting debate standards aside, there are plenty of other reasons Kristine lost this debate. We must conclude, indeed we are forced to conclude in spite of her refusal to specifically say so, that her view is that the single celled embryos rights trump the rights of the mother. Her entire argument is based completely on this implied assertion. Why then does Kristine imply this assertion instead of stating it plainly? Why are we forced to conclude this on our own? IT'S HUGELY IMPORTANT. Kristine can't state her assertion properly without than being compelled to explain why her assertion should be the case. That is opening a can of worms she is not in any way prepared to handle. The answer is not straight forward and would be difficult to prove in favor of the embryo. By ignoring this point, she has removed her obligation to explain it while at the same time making it the crux of her argument. That is dishonest and is another reason why Kristine loses this debate pretty much 100%. Her position only becomes harder if Matt chooses to argue rather or not an embryo should be granted the designation of "personhood" at the moment of conception. Given the maximum wiggle room, Kristen still utterly fails to establish a rational for curtailing a woman’s right to choose for her what is best. That is the meat and potatoes of it. But Kristine really goes off the rails when she employs other dishonest tactics, turning this from a bad debate into a venue to lecture the audience about her own world view. The woman that brings up the video as being offensive is absolutely correct. Did the video have something to add to her argument in the way of facts? Or was it purely propagandistic? Clearly, the videos only purpose was to play on the emotional strings of people. People retreat to propaganda and tugging on heart strings when they lack facts to support their unsupportable position. In the same vein, she repeatedly referred to "Decapitation", "Dismemberment" and "Disembowelment" as though this is the way all abortions are carried out, when in fact, such grizzly details are only relevant in cases where abortions are done with a coat hanger in a dingy back office. And when do those types of abortions tend to happen? WHEN THE RIGHT TO A PROPER ABORTION HAS BEEN DENIED!!!!!!!!! Her own video shows a fully intact, non decapitated, non dismembered, non disemboweled abortion. TALK ABOUT IRONY! She is not only using these very graphic words completely out of context, but they are used out of context deliberately to play on emotions rather than the facts, as if it’s not bad enough already to refuse participation in the real debate. Her “argument” is a joke. All those words and wasting everyone’s time just to say, “I don’t like abortion and it’s contrary to my world view”. Ok, thanks for your opinion Kristine, we sure needed another one of those. Conclusion. Kristine’s lecture only supports the idea that there is no way to rationally justify taking away the right of a mother to choose what’s best for her, based on reason, evidence and facts. Kristine illustrates that the primary justification TO deprive a mother of her right to choose is based purely on emotional pleading, personal values and opinions despite a half hearted attempt to employ the word Science in her defense. Even when an actual scientist in the field called her out as being dead wrong, her strategy was simply to ignore him and repeat the same lies over and over, as though doing so somehow makes the lie true. It does not. She says that she has over 20 text books that state that science agrees that humanity starts at the moment of conception. This is a bastardization of the content of the books, rightly pointed out by the scientist in the audience. She is misrepresenting very much on purpose the information in those books. Does she acknowledge this? No of course not. Her argument depends completely on not acknowledging reality, and dogmatically sticking to her own personal world view. Kristine did not just lose this debate. She absolutely got crushed and all but laughed off the stage. Anyone that thinks her dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge Matt’s entire argument was a brilliant tour de force for the right to life faction are likewise simply refusing to acknowledge anything that does not fall within their own world view. Anyone that has the ability to see things pragmatically has to see Kristine for the sham that she is. This debate (NON DEBATE) did not alter my views on abortion at all. It only strengthened my assertion that the Right to choose is the only correct answer in this fight, and the right to life faction has nothing to offer but emotional pleading and weapons grade bullshit.
Are you really denying the biological fact that women, by virtue of their anatomy are baby-makers? Why is this controversial? Am I a "pre-determined" food-eater? Yes. I was given a stomach. Women were given uterus'. They are there for specific biological functions.
Quite apart from the fact that food is essential for the individual's survival, while procreation is not, I am more concerned with the implication that ability equals duty.
@@anonymouscoward2491 Why do you think so? I figure uterine replicators would work wonderfully, without any negative influence on the fetus' development, or its relationships to its parents. If anything, some mothers will have a better time of connecting to their baby if they have not given birth to it, as there would be no postpartum psychosis or depression. Now, all of that could work only if we view the decision to have a baby from a replicator as an entirely trivial decision. In other words, if we do not, like you did, jump to catastrophic thinking that even trying this sort of technology out will literally be the end of mankind because it is trying to "override nature". I cannot accept this argument, given that both of us are communicating across time and space, which is unnatural; given that I have survived at least two diseases that should have killed me thanks to modern medicine; given that I have broken the cardinal rule of land animals, and flown in an airplane; etc. "Natural" is a concept which we contrast to "man-made", and thus I am surrounded by unnatural things.
@@saveusmilkboy While procreation is not essential for a woman’s survival, it is essential for the survival of the human species in the same way that the need to eat is essential for the survival of the species (or in other words the need to eat is essential to the survival of every individual of our species.) Women must give birth for us to survive, this does not mean that each individual woman must have a child but there certainly must be women that do it.
@@williamwalters211 What you said is correct, but how should it inform our current policy towards abortion? How does it address the comments I made about prederemined baby-makers? When the human species begins to die out due to the unwillingness of women to carry pregnancies to term, I will revisit my opinion on abortion. For now, I strongly support the idea that safe, available abortion is accessible to any person who comes to ask for it before the final trimester, and under special circumstances after that.
Yes if you can follow a logical stance in ''bodily autonomy'' so again i will ask. If a women in a 3rd world country decided that she can let her child starve to death from not breast feeding her child she has every right correct? Because if not then your logical stance of ''bodily autonomy ' does not follow. Because the child who breast feeds is using her body to live and grow correct? I notice when i give pro choicer a example of there logical stance this is where they dont agree lol. Meaning your logic backfiring and you really dont believe in ''autonomy''
***** I do believe in autonomy. I'm not like a lot of Pro-Choicers. I believe in absolute freedom regarding one's own body. So yes, if a female does not wish to feed her offspring using her own body, she should not have to. If the baby proceeds to die, that's unfortunate but justified. Bodily autonomy trumps right to life at the expense of it. I will never budge on this issue. Anyone who threatens the right to bodily autonomy is my enemy, and I will oppose them with the same unrelenting brutality that they face me with. I have not forgotten what Pro-Lifers have done to heroes like George Tiller, and I will reciprocate with equal savagery. I am a female, but when I reproduce, I am going to encourage any and all of my male descendants to rape Pro-Life females at any and every opportunity they get. You vermin wish to violate my right to reproductive freedom, I will violate yours in turn, and encourage as many other Pro-Choicers as possible to do the same. To Anti-Choicers everywhere: consider any and all offspring-by-rape fathered by any of my descendants to be my gift to Pro-Lifers everywhere. I hope you see the face of the male who sired them every time you look at them, and that they make your lives a misery and tear your families apart.
***** You logic is very flawed. We have certain rules in a society and one of those rules is to not let people needlessly die. I think your right to bodily autonomy ends when you decide to not only get pregnant, but have the child. Without these basic rules, humanity would never have survived long enough for you to form your very flawed opinion. I think abortions should only be given in emergency situations or at least have a limit on the number of abortions someone can have. I say this because one mistake is understandable, 3 really isn't. You have the right to use a condom and other forms of birth control that would take care of this problem.
"Right to bodily autonomy > Right to life." Really??? So if you had a choice between life and a small loss of bodily autonomy, for one second, then you would choose death??? Death is a PERMANENT choice. Loss of bodily autonomy need only be temporary. And, frankly, that loss of bodily autonomy is how nature works. BY definition, pregnancy ALWAYS results in loss of bodily autonomy. Does that mean we should never have children??? Btw, my personal viewpoint is that a fetus has the genetic code and the ability to become a fully developed human being if it is not killed. Therefore, killing a fetus is killing a human being at an earlier stage in their life. Let's just hypothesize for a minute we create a transporter, like on Star Trek. It disassembles and reassembles the molecules. While in transport, the person operating the transporter decides your molecules are not human, so they toss out your molecules and DNA and keep only your brain on a storage drive. Technically, they didn't kill you, because you were only molecules and information. But isn't that what a fetus is??? A fetus is actually MORE. In fact, it's not just molecules. It's cells and information. Anyways, just to let you know, I am an agnostic Atheist and a secular humanist. I am just trying to look at this from the most rational and logical viewpoint, and frankly, I don't think EITHER side is doing that at the moment.
ThinkTank255 Btw, my personal viewpoint is that a fetus has the genetic code and the ability to become a fully developed human being if it is not killed. ^you said this *become* a fully developed human being. As in, it's not yet a human being, even by your standards.. it's still in-process.. 'Not yet' is not in any way, shape, or form the same as 'is'. You want logic, yet you can't even properly use the english language.. or, you are, but you don't even realize what you yourself are saying and already know.. Also, you're treating this as if the only factor at all in a woman's choice to abort is that a fetus or embryo exists to begin with.. which is not at all rational or logical. There is context, circumstance, that justifies a need to abort, or not. You're leaving out literally 99% of the story to focus solely on one singular factor that isn't even yet it's own self, according to your own words.
A Skeptical Human virtually all analogies are faulty and if one is resorting to one to prove a point, they don't have a very strong point (or aren't arguing it well).
So both pro-choice and pro-life is wrong at the same time? Both sides use analogies to try and prove their points, so neither side must not have a strong point.
Her argument that a kidney is not the same as a uterus is ridiculous as a fetus uses the mother's entire body to live, including her kidneys, heart, lungs, liver etc.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 of course it does. All major organs that sustain the body of the woman like the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and so on are absolutely necessary to sustain the fetus by virtue of keeping the mother alive so that she can keep the fetus in her uterus alive. If a pregnant person experiences biological death, i. e. all cells of her body die and more importantly all of her organs fail then the fetus WILL die along with it. But even further than that I can't think of an organ that doesn't somehow directly participate in keeping the fetus alive and healthy. The heart and lung are pretty obvious as they pump blood with the necessary oxygen in it to the fetus. The kidney, liver and urinary tract get rid of the waste products the fetus produces and they regulate blood composition (i. e. electrolytes and so on) that are also necessary for the fetus. The stomach and digestive system do their usual job of taking up nutrients to feed both the mother and the fetus, therefore they are also participating. The spleen is responsible for renewing the red blood cells in the mothers blood and therefore also in the fetus' blood because that blood will eventually flow into the fetus' body. Furthermore the immune cells in the spleen and anywhere else in the body might very well end up in the fetus' body due to the fact that immune cells are able to pass through the placenta and they also support the fetus by virtue of protecting the mother from disease which can very well kill or hurt the fetus if the immune system would let them. There are plenty of pathogens that can cross the placenta. I would be more interested in an organ that isn't getting used or contributes to the fetus' continual existence.
+Joakim Nybäck I admired her for debating Matt. She's wrong, but she has Chutzpah. Sadly, it's a big deal in the US although typically it's the right wing and religious people.
+jhon doe Correlation is not causation. But statistics depend on good data collection, anyway. Nobody else in the world counts the same way as they do in Sweden. "In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm. II. As everyone who has ever studied criminology knows, in the case of rape, there is insane latency rates. If there is willingness to report rape, the number will skyrocket in any country." This is why I track murder rates. Let me tell you, Sweden is an incredibly safe country.
+8bit chess I actually think it shows that non religious countries like Sweden are clearly lacking in Moral depth. Kill a human and pretend its good, maybe you need religious people there to challenge that wickedness
A lot of Kristine(I believe that is how you spell her name)'s analogies are horrible. Most don't even apply to the situation we're talking about: "I'm on a plane and the pilot has power over me because he is the only one who can fly the plane. He decides he doesn't want me and other passengers on the plane. Can he just kick us out, mid-flight?" Uh, no, dummy. That situation is completely different from a pregnancy. There is a person INSIDE of another person in a pregnancy. You are NOT inside of the pilot. "If you're in a boat, about a day or so away from the shore, and you come across a child who has been dumped in the water, you have an obligation to get that child out of the water and take care of them. You have an obligation to let them use your resources." I actually agree with everything on this one. Yes, you do have an obligation not to let that child die out in the water, but - again - that situation does not apply to pregnancy. In this analogy, the child is not inside of another person. Bottom line: It doesn't matter what you call the fetus. It doesn't matter if the fetus IS a person and it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive. If it is inside of another person, that person has the right to decide whether or not to keep it there. It would be extremely stupid to take away that right. If abortion is made illegal, we should have to get permission for every surgery we have. You want to take a tumor out of your own body because it is damaging you? Well, too bad. We're going to have to let a doctor and a judge hash that out. Want to donate your kidney to someone? Too bad; the law says you don't have the right over your own body. It would be unfair to tell women that they don't have the right to decide what is or isn't inside of their own body when everyone else can decide what they do or do not want in theirs.
right on girl! being a man and pro choice here and ive always wondered why men werent more empathetic towards a woman, i bet that if men knew what nine months of pregnancy and 12 hours of labor were like i firmly believe that abortion would be 100% legal without question, a pro life slogan is "the body inside your body is NOT your body" my response: neither of the bodies are yours to begin with hypocrites!
It does matter if its alive! A tumor isnt. So that example is stupid! Plain Stupid The fetus didnt on his own will arrive to the uterus of the woman, so who is actually RESPONSIBLE? Donnating a kidney doesnt really apply either to an acurate analogy, because you are never going to get your kidney back.
Aborting a child that you didn't plan for IS being responsible. You acknowledge the situation you are in and take care of it to the best of your ability. And it really doesn't matter if it is alive or not. It is inside of another person. Both the mother and the child have equal rights; the child may have a right to life, but the mother's right to decide what does and does not happen to her body allows her to take the child out of her body, even if it means killing it. The child may have a right to life, but it doesn't have a right to be born. It's right to life is the same as everyone else's right to life: we live until we die. So the child is living in the mother's body until the mother decides she doesn't want it there anymore and has an abortion. It DID live, it just wasn't born.
One of the the few things I disagree with Matt on is where he said: "Pregnancy is something that happens to women which they have no control over." (Paraphrasing) You can choose whether or not to have unprotected sex, unless you're raped.
John DinDompa Perhaps Matt was referring to the fact that every method of contraception has a failure rate. Heck....even abstinence....just ask the [former] Virgin Mary.
***** As a citizen of the United States of America, I have the same basic civil rights and liberties as a male in this country, which includes medical privacy and the right to make all medical decisions concerning my body. It is none of anyone's business. but the woman herself, whether she wishes to gestate or not. PERIOD. Females are not obligatory brood mares.
John DinDompa Matt cleared this up in a facebook post. By involuntary, he meant that women cannot necessarily choose to become pregnant, as some women will not get pregnant even if they try while other women will get pregnant even with using the safest contraceptive methods out there (not including abstinence of course...)
Listening to this debate the second time, I find it even harder to take Kristine seriously. It's all very well to be pro life and to call an embryo a human being, but how does a person like Kristine think this protection of an embryo's right to existence could actually work? What she is saying is the embryo has the right to grow in the body of a woman, even if it was conceived through rape, or incest, or a faulty condom, or stupidity. What she's also saying, is that a woman who has already several children and can barely cope, has no right to terminate another unwanted pregnancy. She says that a human being begins to exist at the time of conception, and that therefore that at any time of gestation, an embryo has the right to live, and it is responsibility of he woman, (who after all has an uterus for this purpose) to bring a pregnancy full term. This means according Kristine, all women, regardless if they were raped, or are too young to be a mother, or have been impregnated by a family member, or have already given birth to ten or more children, must carry an embryo to full term and give birth. So what she is advocating is to make abortions illegal again. I don't think that Kristine has thought about the consequences of making abortions illegal. Granted that women are less likely to commit suicide, as they have done in the past, the fact remains that women will have abortions, legal, or not. So what is going to happen if we make abortion illegal? I don't think I have to give an answer here, because we all know what is going to happen - and one of things not going to happen, is less abortions. I think Kristine is dangerously naive about her pro-life way of thinking. Now I would think more highly of her, if she was to say, ok I realise having a child means responsibility for the rest of your life, all you have to do is carry the human being in your uterus, (made for this kind of stuff) and after you've given birth I take over and do all that is required for this human being for the rest of it's life.
+Christa Stempel So we should make murder legal then? Because people are always gonna keep murdering each other. The fact that horrific things happen regardless of legislation is not a valid reason to make them legal. I think the bald guy had already lost the argument when he conceded that a fetus is a person; because the "boat analogy" that Kristie puts forward is impossible to refute if you concede that a fetus is a person. If someone abandons a newborn let's say in your cabin, just because you didn't consent to have the child there and take care of it doesn't give you the right to slit its throat, or chop it into pieces , or bathe it in chemicals.
+David Espinoza hi David, thank you for your reply. I already wrote a lengthy reply to Kristine, so I really do not want to repeat the same things over. All I can say to you is, if we make abortions illegal again, we are not preventing abortions, we will just push them underground again. We really need to think as a society about what is going to happen to unwanted children. Or, what do you want to do? Perhaps tell people that should not fuck unless they are prepared to not only bring a pregnancy to term _ which of course only applies to women_ but to be parents to the child for as long as they live? I am just saying because we all know that contraceptives do not always work, and not all people in this world have access to contraception. But here is another solution, everybody from the age of being able to produce children, could be sterilised. I suggest we start with boys, not girls, since a vasectomy is so much easier than a sterilisation of girls.
+Christa Stempel you haven't answered the question. If someone abandons a newborn in your cabin, do you think you have the right to kill it just because you didn't consent to having it there? I don't know if you think that a fetus is a person or not, but the bald guy didn't fight that point, if you concede that a fetus is a person you have already lost the debate. 2) Sex should be an adult activity which all the risks that it entails. If you believe that a fetus is a person then not killing it is the only moral choice; beyond that, women have been giving children for adoption for a long time now. 3) Not even vasectomies are 100%, so that wouldn't be an option either, what is an option is educating people as much as you can.
+Christa Stempel I just read your answer to Kristine, you say : "a fetus has no conscious thought of a life, and it does not know if it is a life worth living. " So, this leads me to believe that killing a newborn is also OK, since a newborn also doesn't have a conscious thought of a life. Am I correct in assuming that?
+David Espinoza, hi David. I'm sorry I haven't answered your question, but I shall try and answer it now, plus respond to point 2 and 3. If I found a child abandoned in my 'cabin', I would take care of it immediately. I would then inform the police and would hope that they would do everything to find out why there is a newborn left in my 'cabin'. I would not just give the newborn over to social services, which I would be legally bound to do, but I would find out what is actually happening to the child. No, I don't think a fetus is a person. A fetus is what is evolving from a female egg and a male sperm, within the uterus of a female. Yes David, life is in every cell of the human body, and when sperm and egg meets, life begins in a more complex form. You got the wrong person to attack here, because I don't want any woman to have an abortion, but I have no right to tell another woman not to abort as long as it is within the legal period. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Abortions will occur wether we like it or not. The problem is that if we make abortions again illegal, we are forcing them underground, and that is not a solution. What has occurred in the past when abortions were illegal, was that not only the fetus was killed, but the mother often died because of complications. It is just not that easy to say, let's protect potential life. If it was that easy, I would say by all means, let's protect potential life. As to your number 2. Sex SHOULD be an adult activity, with all the risks it entails? Now you give me an answer to this question, WHY SHOULD sex be an adult activity? Is there a rule that says 'all adults SHOULD have sex'? This is more ridiculous than saying to women, if you are not willing to bring a pregnancy to full term, than don't have sex. And to your number 3. As far as I know Vasectomies work 100%. But that is not the issue. I was obviously being facetious when I talked about sterilisation. Of course that can not be a solution, although I really wish that some people would consider this very seriously.
Off topic, but just wanted to thank you for yet another quote to use. ("Of course it wouldn't hurt you if I killed you in your sleep, but It would cause immense suffering to your friends and family.") You really make a great point. Killing another human life involves more people than just the mother. I'll be referencing your wisdom with others. Thanks again for the material. ;)
I wish Matt had pointed out the differences between a human and a human being. He would have won the debate within the first 10 minutes. By definition, an embryo is human from conception, because the egg and sperm are both from humans. A human being however, must be born. So glad Kristina now wants abortion to be legal!!
I'm sorry to say but I don't see how this was a "gotcha" moment. He "proved" that an embryo and a born human are not the same - he did NOT prove that an embryo is not a human. Every human is different - but still human. She didn't deny that, and she pointed out in fact that children are different than adults, but no one considers these differences to be a justification for "terminating" one and not the other. So then why is a fetus ok to terminate?
@@RoyFlush716 Because it demonstrates a clear flaw and fallacy in her argument. If an embryo is considered human, and a human is considered human, she's okay with freezing an embryo "human" provided its "used". Could we not do the same for humans? She disagreed with this, demonstrating a case of special pleading for an embryo under the guise of "they're younger", which one can say the same exact distinction exists between an humam adult and a human child. Both are considered human. Definitely a "gotcha" moment.
She seems to use alot of emotionally charged language, examples, and arguments. Even the video she played to demonstrate the different stages had music in background that serves to emotionally manipulate the audience.
I would ask Kristine "If you had a daughter and she had 3 kids, got pregnant again and decided to have an abortion because she was unable to take care of the child. Would you take her to court and try to put her in jail?"
Pure logic and objective legal basis, versus dishonest appeals to emotion. And I expected the "secular" pro-life would make at least a solace of sense... What was I thinking. This bollocks makes "god says so" a tangible argument.
Apparently the group who sent her is a secular pro life group. They threw her under the bus on this. As far as i know, she changed her stance after the debate.
the reason that the woman in the "violinist" story can sever the tubes without violating the violinist’s dignity is because he does not have a "right not to die". The tubes are an extraordinary means of preserving his life, and he is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the woman may not stab the man in the heart and only then sever the tubes. In this case, she would be violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. This latter scenario most closely resembles an abortion, in which the fetus is ripped or burned to death while still in the womb and only then removed.
It's the morality vs. legality question. I feel personally feel that a woman has a moral obligation to provide for her unborn child, but I generally don't support legislation that would enforce my moral evaluations upon another person. I like when Matt said that pregnancy is the process of changing from non-personhood to personhood or something to that effect. I think the morally correct standard of justification for terminating pregnancy increases over the course of the pregnancy. At the beginning, that standard is very very low, and I think neurological development has to be one of the primary considerations. In the first 5 weeks (before the brain develops) I see it as morally acceptable to terminate the pregnancy for any reason, even simply a desire on the part of the mother to avoid the risk and inconvenience of pregnancy. On the other extreme, when the fetus is viable without extreme medical intervention and stands a good chance of leading a healthy and normal life, I find it morally reprehensible to willfully end its life under any circumstances. At 34 weeks this standard is clearly met and I would support abortion being equivalent to murder. My daughter was born at 34-35 weeks 16 years ago and is completely normal with no ongoing health problems, and she required very modest medical intervention when she was born. In between those two extremes is a large moral grey area, but I would draw the line at 24 weeks on the basis that there is compelling evidence of the fetus's ability to feel pain at that point, so I would support making abortion illegal in such cases except when continuing poses a clear and serious threat to the mother's life in the professional opinion of a board-certified MD, AND in those cases measures to mitigate the fetus's pain should be required. There are few situations that I can imagine that would warrant such action, but I'm guessing they do exist.
Sonny Patterson Now if you ''draw the line' it goes back on a contradicting stance of the pro choice stance because no matter when you kill this innocent human being it is morally a immoral act or not. it cant be ''after so so time'' because no matter when you kill the unborn its killing the unborn from the 1st month to the last month. The only difference is the stage of development of this human being and if we can kill someone who is less developed then anyone can kill anyone from this logic. The problem with the pro choice side is they cant follow logical reason why we can kill a human being and prove any contradictions in their stance.
***** Agree a pure pro-choice standpoint has problems, and risks putting a zero value on life. A pure pro-life standpoint can also have logical and moral problems -- e.g., banning contraception seems to take the idea of the sanctity of life into the realm of the absurd. It also risks putting a zero value on freedom. However, the 'Line' is drawn based on two competing and fundamental rights -- the right to life, and the right to decide one's creation of life. We need to consider both life and freedom, whatever we decide.
>>>I agre on the point where we need to care about the mother but the problem is showing that we care does not mean she should have the right to kill her child .
33:40 - so why do I not have my mother's uterus now? It doesn't belong to me, and never did. The very fact that the child becomes separate from the mother's uterus at birth demonstrates that the uterus belongs to the mother, not the child. She has made a fallacious argument here.
Neither does a child own his parents home. However if the parents evict a child from his home when he cannot survive on his own and the child dies, are the parents not responsible for the childs death?
@@dannielz6 replace evicted with won't donate a kidney by her argument you wpukd have to strap the parent down and remove there kidney or do fetuses get special rights because emotional waaah waah argument?
@@dannielz6 only if the parents have custody of the child, and that is because they have freely chosen to have custody over that child and therefore legally promised to see to its welfare. that's a function of custodial law, not parenthood. plenty of people have custody of other people who are not their children, and plenty of parents don't have custody over their children. you are conflating apples with oranges.
This is a tough issue and I agree with Matt that the sides might be irreconcilable. As a atheist I fall into the category of being pro contraception, pro the morning after pill and pro abortion up to a point. I do not have the religious dogma and baggage to say those things are wrong because of a god. However after this point I do not know where the boundaries between a fertilized egg and a human, 1 week, 6 weeks, 10 weeks...? For me this is the central part that I admit I really struggle with. I am for choice of the woman to control her own body but at what point does society decide to step in. I just don't know. This is a profound moral issue and even the most strongest advocates of abortion struggle with it. There are no absolutes here, no winners, only losers in a desperate situation.
Oners82 Well because I do not see a single cell fertilized egg as a human there obviously needs to be a place where we draw the line somewhere between there and birth. When do we say that with this bundle of cells yes it's ok to abort or no it's not. My view is that it should be earlier that 20 weeks but where? Do we distinguish on a case by case basis and if we do what is the criteria? Also there is a distinction between elective abortion and medical reasons for abortion. The medical reasons will necessarily be later, for example if the woman's life was in danger.
At least you are willing to speak the absolute truth about aborting unborn infants. As Kristine accurately said: "If killing an unborn isn't controversial and certainly a critical decision,,, then there would be NO DEBATE!!! So, the fact that the matter had to go right up to the supreme court! And the court said,, we are staying away from that issue! Let the states handle it! So,, abortion is and has always been the stopping of the development of an individual human being from coming full term! Also,, remember this fact,, every doctor MUST fill out a DEATH CERTIFICATE for every abortion! Why? Because the life of an unborn child, was ended! That's how simple the issue really is! Complication comes people trying to insist on what they want to have happen in life! All issues in life have solutions,, but do we always want to pay the price for honesty?!?! Bottom line,,, people suck!!! All of us can be Saints,,, and/or,,, Sinners!!!
Oners82 You are lucky that we allow you to drool out comments here on youtube. You really do suck, don't you!?! If you can't see what drives people to have abortions,, you'll progress from ape to human! What the fuuuck is wrong with you??? Maybe I can shake up the few living brain cells in your noggin,,, first off,,, you have to look at abortion at the other end of it,, not at the beginning, numbnuts! The absolute proof that abortion kills humans, NOT BABIES,,, OOH,,, I SEE YOU FOAMING AT THE MOUTH NOW,,,,! WHAT ABORTION DOES IS KILL THE MAN OR WOMAN THAT WOULD CERTAINLY COME FROM THE BABY,, GET IT??? ASSLICKER! OR,, HAS YOUR LAST BRAIN CELL JUST GONE OUT?!?! THERE IS NO ABORTION DEBATE, IDIOT FROM HELL!!!! WE CAN TALK AND SQUAWK AND BALK TILL YOU DEVELOP FROM A CHUMPANZEE,, TO,, A HYENA,,, WHICH WON'T DO MUCH FOR THE HYENA'S,,,,,!
Oners82 I agree with you but where is the point to set that marker? Like I said I am ok with the things like the morning after pill but at 20 weeks I am less convinced.
In her opening, Kristine insists that the differences (though large) between an embryo and a new born baby are no different than the differences between a newborn and an adult 22:55 . Then when asked "what about freezing embryos" 42:05 she flip-flops saying "it's because they're younger...they're younger". Her argument doesn't even hold up to her own standards and beliefs.
*_MATT AGREES: WE are BIOLOGICALLY HUMAN at CONCEPTION!_* 44:34 "If you're going to define 'human' as biological then we are biological from the instant of conception." (See also 1:05:33) *_MATT AGREES FETUS has SAME RIGHTS as the MOTHER!_* 45:52 Unborn humans "have, I would say, equal bodily rights as the woman." Therefore, no woman can take away the unborn human's rights by killing the child.
Did you even fucking listen? Yes, the fetus has equal bodily rights as the woman and all humans. And since no human is allowed to use someone else's body without their consent, then neither is the fetus. I can't take a kidney away from you without your consent, and if you just can't use a woman's body without hers. Same bodily rights. That has been his argument from the beginning if you would actually listen.
ZeiggleBear I did listen & yet he is still wrong. That argument is wrong. Why? Because regardless of cause, a mother can't drown her 1yr old baby for the same reason -- society holds her accountable & responsible for caring for her child. If she doesn't want to then she can take the steps to legally separate herself from it & abdicate her parental rights & put the baby up for adoption. Every human being, regardless of age (1 hour old or 1yr old) is entitled to life. So the argument fails both legally & morally.
Which was already corrected in the video. An abortion is not taking away the rights of a fetus. Because of fetus doesn't have the right to use somebody else's body against their will
Well, I'm not saying that Matt won, but I'm pretty sure Kristine lost. Matts performance was sub par compared to other debates he's been in. Though he made some very good points I had not previously heard of, he failed to adequately expose some of the more obvious fallacies in pro-life arguments. The commonly used SLED acronym strikes me as probably being the most obvious missed opportunity for Matt as an argument to pick apart. In the context of distinguishing the difference between persons and human beings, we are not talking about "level of development," we are talking about "sentience" on a base level, and "consciousness" on a more deeper level. Likewise, we are not talking about "dependency," but rather "autonomy." A fetus, especially those that are unviable, removed from the life support provided by the body of the mother and left alone in a room will die in a very short time period. An infant on, the other hand, left alone in a room for even an extensive length of time will at the worst, get hungry. The L and D refutations against differentiating between "persons" and "human beings" are straw men.
***** _A fallacy ? please give me a example_ Let's start with the "pro-life" logic chain. The "pro-life" logic chain typically works out to be something like the following: (Human) life begins at conception. Humans have a right to life. Abortion should be illegal because it ends a human life. In an intellectually honest debate, terms must be defined and ultimately agreed upon in order for any truths to be discovered. The terms "life," "human," "person," and "being" are all fairly vague and typically get thrown around by both sides of the reproductive rights debate without having any sort of meaning formally attached to them. The term "Life" is especially ambiguous as it has over 20 definitions listed in most dictionaries. Since "pro-life" is the group making the positive claim that "life begins at conception," the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that supports this claim, first by defining what they mean by "life" and then by explaining how this definition should inform how rights should be applied in the real world. _Because i can give you a list of fallacy, illogical, and contradiction the pro choice side gives._ I'm sure you can, pro choicer's say a lot of stupid shit.
***** I think failing to point out the naturalistic fallacy in Kristine's uterus argument was perhaps the most glaring. Just annoying that the audience ends up having to dissect her premise instead of the arguer.
She has very poor listening skills. Three or four times Matt said "personhood is irrelevant" and she STILL tried "w-well he's right IF...!" No, he's right regardless.
@@anonymouscoward2491 Yes it is. My rights do not end so a fetus can get special privilege. Morality has nothing to do with my right to my own fucking body. And morality IS subjective, a glance at history proves that to be true.
@Kick With Nick People talk about the fetus getting special privileges to use a woman's body without her consent like it was the will of the fetus to enter the womb and use it as an usurper. The fetus is in there as a direct result of the couple's actions. Yes, not all sexual relationships are meant to end in pregnancy, but it is a potential result, one the couple is responsible for, and I'm talking about both man and woman to make it very clear. In which other situation they grant rights to someone to use someone else's body against their will they ask. I wonder in which other situation do we grant the right to someone to terminate the life of an innocent?
@@alejandrovillalba3143 It IS a special privilege to force someone to harbor it for 9 months when it doesn't even HAVE a will. Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility. Just one people are uppity about because it's all about controlling women. I've yet to hear of a decent argument that doesn't end in taking women's rights away. Also, consent to sex IS NOT consent to carrying a pregnancy to term
@@anonymouscoward2491 You fail to understand how morality being subjective works and it's painful to see you try SO HARD to pretend like you need someone to tell you something you should have a natural ability to determine. Honestly, that's sad and I almost want to pity you. Your lack of humanity doesn't get to dictated the choices of others. Her rights aren't stripped because of your lack of humanism.
Would like to mention, I don't like or support abortion(I can't take away people's choice to have one). But I'll admit that Kristine did terrible in this debate. She said if the baby is human, Matt's argument fails. No one argues that it's not human, it's whether or not it's alive. Also, Whether or not you're pro life or pro choice, the definition of abortion is pre term termination of a pregnancy.
Whether or not it's alive? Of course it's alive, you scientific illiterate. The purpose of abortion is to kill and evacuate a living embryo or fetus. You can't kill the dead.
There is a massive hole in Kristine's logic, as Matt pointed out "This argument assumes that all sex is consensual and all sex is consent to pregnancy", she is unintentionally advocating that raped women should be forced to have their rapists child unless it would kill the woman to give birth, and all women should be forced to birth an unplanned child, weather or not they were actively trying to avoid getting pregnant or not, like if the condom breaks or the man lied about having been "Snipped". This almost literally turns women into cattle, just like they were 5000 years ago. I really wish people would think their own arguments though before they make them.
Eden Grey And your point is? No one is saying that sex and pregnancy aren't intrinsically linked, what i am saying is that we should not remove the rights of women to do what they want with their own bodies. I'm going to flesh out your logic here, let me know if i miss something: Sex is both required for pregnancy and is it's purpose, therefor anytime a woman willingly has sex, they are also agreeing to get pregnant if that does in fact happen, and they should not be allowed to prevent said pregnancy because they agreed to have sex. And i presume they are also agreeing to carry said pregnancy to term, correct?
Eden Grey Abstinence is the best way? Tell that to Texas, oh wait...Highest rate of "repeat" teen pregnancy, oops, maybe they're just doing it wrong? - That wasn't relevant, i just like poking fun at Texas! xD No it doesn't, but your missing the point, we are not talking about a child that is already born, we are talking about a clump of cells that isn't even a person yet. I fully agree that she shouldn't kill it, if she can't support it, put it up for adoption, not that that's much better mind you. "Freedom comes with responsibility, and rights come with obligations", indeed they do, but so what? Abortion IS taking responsibility for a child and what YOU think is an obligation doesn't make it so. "Right To Life" does not apply simply because it is far to inflexible of a sentiment, a nice one, but utterly useless, under this blanket statement raped women will be forced to birth and care for their rapist child, married couples will never be able to get intimate without bringing a child into the family and teens will be forced to throw away their whole lives for a single mistake. And you think this is an adequate system? I think not. No no, i didn't say there is a right to sex, i am saying that there is a right to choice. I see, so you value the supposed rights of a potential human over the rights of an already established, fully mature human being, no matter what circumstances this adult may be in? I'm sorry, but children are a choice, the parents choose when, where, how and with whom them make a child, some even go as far as to choose the sex of said child by aborting the sex they do not want, i do not agree with that, but who am i to dictate what others do with their own bodies? In fact, who are "You" to dictate what people can and cannot do with their own bodies? Again, i'm sorry but...You really have no idea what your talking about. People said the exact same about many other things before abortion, and they were dead wrong, we have no reason to believe that this is any different, besides, abortion is what will destroy us? Not how we treat those of us that are already here? Or fucking with the planet? None of that? Your just worried about abortion? I honestly can't help but think your just another painfully ignorant Christian throwing his/her opinion around as if it should be law.
Eden Grey I would like links to multiple studies that support your blind assertion that crime has risen by a factor of four since abortion was legalized. I would also like links to charts of crime rates since at least the 1950's to now for cross referencing. You are the one that claimed it, i am not going to do your work for you.
Eden Grey Really? You claim that crime has increased due to abortion and you link me to articles talking mainly about single parents? I mean, i'm not complaining or anything, your doing my job for me, but that's not fun for me! xD
@1:06:14 Matt conceded his whole argument. Abortion is not a demonstration of responsibly and is actively killing a human being. Kristine called him out on it; Matt's argument IS NOT independent of person-hood.
exactly. if the foetus is not fully developed or viable and not born it is being produced by the womans body so they should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
I am not against abortion. However, I think that the attempt at dehumanizing the foetus is arbitrary and used for convenience. If no one knows when a entity starts to be human, on what grounds do we prohibit murder of people of any age ? Who's to say we don't start being ''human'' at age 40 ? We should have compassion for women who have unwanted pregnancies but at the same time we should not be so cavalier when talking about the life of the unborn...
HobbsO Of course the killing of life that is not conscious (and I don't know to what degree and with what precision we can determine if life is conscious or not) may be less morally reprehensible. The killing of a 5 week old lump of cells will probably create less suffering on all sides than the killing of a 25 year old adult. But if consciousness is the only factor, does that mean killing an adult in his sleep ( in deep sleep when consciousness disappeared) is less morally reprehensible than killing it in it's walking state ?
Marc Soucie You're equivocating. You are comparing something that has lost conciousness to something that has never been concious. Something that has had experiences and thoughts to something that has not.
HobbsO I don't think I am equivocating. Unconsciousness is the same wether you are 40 years old, or 2 weeks old. The context of this unconsciousness is different (and my last comment did recognize this difference) but the absence of consciousness is qualitatively the same. The point I was making is that the degree of consciousness is a factor in the question of abortion but cannot be the only indicator of personhood...
I'm surprised the point that human tissue is not a human being. There is a logical line where abortion shouldn't occur, but because that line hasn't gained 100% consensus doesn't mean there isn't a line.
Why are you surprised by the statement that human tissue isn't a human being? Your skin is human tissue, but if you scrape your knee and human tissue gets ripped off and dies, it's not a human that dies. It's just human tissue that dies.
the problem with Kristines ENTIRE argument is that it is a "what if" and "an embryo/fetus is A human". we don't make laws on what if's. and an embryo/fetus is not A human, it is human, but it is not A human yet. and I don't mean that in the sense of A-typical etc. I'm just emphasizing the letter.
@@steven6986 the second an egg is fertilized it becomes a complete human unit. Because that is exactly what it is, albeit at the earliest possible stage.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 not scientifically its not, its just a fertilized egg, and after that it will be nothing more than a cluster of cells for quite some time. It will be literal months after conception before it is actually a viable human. Also, most fertilized eggs don't attach to the cell wall of the womb and are flushed out during a womens period, so is that considered a miscarriage, an abortion, or just a natural body function?
@@steven6986 A fertilized egg actually is a complete human at the earliest possible point. It is a complete fertilized human egg. This is undeniable and scientifically rigid. Are you saying it is not a complete human fertilized egg? That would be a natural human death as part of the natural human development process. Its kind of like how people die at old age because thier body decays, only in these cases the death is caused by a different natural factor in human development. So why is your position on abortion that women should be able to get them? Is it that nobody has the right to end a human life, but a fertalized human egg is not a human nor is an embryo or a fetus up until a point, so abortion should be legal up until a certain point in a pregnancy. Or is it that nobody has the right to use someone's body against their own will, so abortion should be allowed up until pregnancy?
Kristine never left her strawman that Matt and science say that the fertilized egg is fully human. She wouldn’t address his argument of bodily autonomy. I’m glad Matt got to address her hypotheticals of the baby on the boat and the broken window. Gave Matt a chance to put Kristine’s argument in proper context.
I know. I can't believe we are such a narrow minded society that we would have laws at all that control our actions. I mean I want the right to punch someone in the face if they piss me off. Or if I see something I want and should have the right to just take it. What a messed up world we live in.
I love atheists so much. Kristine admitted that embryos do not feel pain and Matt concedes that embryos and fetuses are human beings. Why can't everyone in this debate be more like this. And every debate. I just love atheists.
@@Aisatsana1971 I meant more that it is human and it is a being, I think he clearly does not think it is a person... Just juxtaposing to activists whom I have heard scream at the top of their lungs that a fetus is not human.
1:02:20 Matt says, "If you put a baby on my front porch, I'm not obligated to take care of it" to which Kristine says, "Yes but you are obligated to not kill them." And Matt agrees "yes, you are obligated to not kill them." Can somebody please explain why this admission doesn't undo his entire argument?
pregnancy is hardly similar to "putting a baby on my front porch". you do not have the right to harm anyone that is not infringing your bodily autonomy. but once someone does that, you have the right to do what you can to get yourself out of that situation.
I mean think about it. The analogy is about a baby, obviously born and no longer using the mothers body so in the eyes of the law it has rights guaranteed to it. The situation has changed entirely. It doesn't undermine anything matt says earlier on.
35:53 "Autonomy for nine months verse the life of the fetus forever". Boy oh boy. Kristine seems like she means well, but to downplay pregnancy as just a quick little thing that happens for nine months and is over right after birth is so wrong. I'm in the minority here, but as a trans man, if I were ever to get pregnant, it wouldn't be me sacrificing nine months of autonomy. It would be sacrificing my body, mental health or even life for good. Even thinking about pregnancy makes me sick to my stomach. Without an abortion, I do not think I would be able to survive nine months of pregnancy.
I think if Bill Nye can go three hours without calling Ken Ham an idiot or saying that he is full of shit, then this lady deserves at least that level of respect.
this was actually a good debate. What made it good was the fact that religion wasn't involved.
saying 'nature designs wombs' is the unsubstantiated claim of a religious-freak. christine said nature designs wombs
hey I hope you're still alive
Well except the "life [only] comes from life" and "after their own kind" (20:14) that she opened with, but that wasn't delved into because Matt chose to not focus on those statements.
When the first dude to ask that question on how both of them define abortion, that was all that was needed. Her definition is born purely of emotion with zero critical thought.
Wow, her video was heart wrenching. Still, somehow she did not show children growing up hungry in poverty. She is pro-birth, not pro life. She has no answer for a poor woman/family that cannot feed all of its children. Presumably Kristine will give them a job carrying her golf clubs. All of them.
That is a myth. So many people who are pro life take those children in. Statistically speaking, who do you think a majority of the people are that adopt kids? I’ll give you a hint. They attend church every Sunday
She’s anti-woman. Don’t be confused.
Adoption is normally the response given.
A bad response obviously.
Perhaps she also will adopt ALL the children who are born and are orphans.
@@goldencalf13 It's actually a perfectly acceptable response
Kristine's answer when asked how she defines the word abortion: "An act of violence that dismembers, decapitates and kills a human being" 49:08 - 49:16
She must think horror movies are just full of abortions...
John Welch In a sense they are. I don't watch horror movies because I can't stand violence.
John Welch How do _you_ define _abortion_, John? I bet _you_ think WALT DISNEY movies are full of wonderful, bloodless, FEMALE EMPOWERING ABORTIONS (the good kind). What a whacko piece of commentary you typed!
***** How was it whacko?
+TedVeron I must have missed this. As far as I know Disney doesn't have any abortions (although there may be a miscarriage implied in the opening sequence of Up, unless they were really jumping the gun in decorating the room). I'd define an abortion as a planned premature termination of a pregnancy. The point I was making that you seem to have missed is that instead of giving her definition of an abortion as requested, she gave some rhetoric plea to emotion, which didn't even mention pregnancy, foetus or even baby. This struck me as a dishonest answer to a simple question.
You do understand the topic is about babies
The argument that really make me think was when Matt say that some of the anti-abortion say that you can't abort except for when a mother is in danger of her life. So then just because the mother is in danger of her life, you are going to throw away your hole believe for the right of the baby.
+zaro33 Exactly. They want to avoid nuance at all cost. What this means is that they say abortion is morally wrong regardless of circumstance EXCEPT for a handful of cases. Obviously, these are cases where suffering of the mother is in question. The problem is that they put right to life on a pedestal above all else, and so regardless of the amount of suffering of the mother, if it's not life-threatening, they don't care.
@@ThePharphis this is completely disingenuous, and saying they don’t care about all the suffering women is completely disingenuous.
This is where it gets more complicated most of these cases are not abortions they’re actually, ectopic pregnancies, or cases where the fetus has already miscarried. My view is that the goal should always be to save both lives, if the child dies while trying to save both the child dies we did the best we could and vice versa.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I didn't say they didn't care, I said they put the right to life of the fetus above all other concerns in the debate
@@ThePharphis well that’s not true, The value the life of a fetus in the mother equally.
I like how Matt points out that the "person or not"- question is irrelevant.
Kristine does not seem to get that though, at least she does not address it at all.
Also showing this video was kind off low on her part. Matt would never use videos of women going through horrible pain or pictures of dead women as a result of pregnancy, just to provoke emotions.
Well put Sir.
I agree that she focused way to much on the whether it's human life or not bit. The whole discussion should've been way more about body autonomy. however she did actually give some responses to that. She talked about actively and intrusively terminating a pregnancy and thus "killing" a fetus is different from not being willing to give a kidney, or caring for a child. But they were still kind of foot notes for her and it really should've been her entire argument.
Great point on the video too. It was totally out of place and cheap.
She said she supports abortion when theres high risk to the womans health try to pay attention.
The bodily autonomy argument is irrelevant. If bodily autonomy is what matters then he would have to demonstrate why the baby doesn’t also deserve bodily autonomy. If the mother has the right not to be aggressed upon, why not the child?
Ryan Price - You’re actually making the point for body autonomy. The fetus doesn’t have body autonomy until it can survive on its own. Until that point, it’s technically a parasite.
I like to use this analogy for people who think that a human being starts at conception.
"Hey, look at this sunflower," the woman says to her neighbor.
The neighbor looks puzzled as he gazes at it.
"All I see is a pot with soil and maybe a seed in it," he says.
"You don't understand, Mr. Courier. It WILL be a sunflower soon."
What sort of insane straw man is this?
@@pythondrink What is being misrepresented or characterized poorly about the argument?
@@XisoLate "it WILL be sunflower"
Prolifers believe the fetus or embryo, making this a straw man
“A kidney is yours.
A uterus is public property.”
How the audience didn’t laugh her out of the auditorium at this is beyond me.
And as frauditors usually learn the hard way, people can be evicted even from public property.
it has an unreal ring to it right?!, but its true when looking at these fascist laws that are now being promulgated in the USA
@@ferlandpetrus2157 Oh my the stupidity in your comment amazes me, fascist laws anti-abortion laws are fascist, you literally know the second country to legalize abortion was Nazi Germany right, along with Fascist Italy and Spain.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 um… so watch the video?
@@Mmmmilo What?
Kristine *kept repeating* that same line of rubbish that Matt's argument only stands if the pre-born are not persons-which Matt repeatedly said was *not* the case. He explicitly said, on multiple occasions, that his argument stands *even if* we treat the pre-born as persons.
His arguement is valid for the same reason that self-defense killing is valid essenially which we as a society have deemed as justified. Both conceded that point that its ok to abort for the health of the woman. She is making the rare logical arguement that is actually quite clever that:
1.) if we value human life and the fetus is human life we should not kill it.
2.) if we are unsure or are still in debate about it we should not kill it.
Matt's arguement appeals more to the present day practicallity and emotions on the issue as Kristine's position indirectly accuses people of murder who believe they are justified in aborting (which is why the crowd was more in favor of Matt's position.
I wish she had addressed his points more. Also I wish someone had asked her more questions about her position on the uterus not belonging to women that troubled me I'm not sure what the consequences would be if that were true.
She was too busy making empty emotional appeals with gore.
Michelle Size do you know what a uterus even is? It’s not for you. It’s only yours in the sense of it’s attached to you.
@@TheMetalBison Fuck you, you pathetic shitheel. By YOUR standard, what are you doing with both your eyes, both your kidneys, and all of your liver?!?!
There are people out there who NEED them, and you're selfishly hoarding them You don't get to decide if they're 'deserving', just do your duty and give up your body parts.
Douglas Thomas Hayden I’m in Charleston SC. If you’d like to make an official complaint in person, I am accepting appointments.
We can discuss these issues, and who should have their eye knocked out.
Thank you.
@@TheMetalBison O 'brave' keyboard 'warrior'.
I'm just calling you out as the contemptible selfish coward you are, demanding from OTHERS what YOU refuse to offer.
And you're not worth my time. C'mon up to Danbury, CT if you want a confrontation...just be sure you have ambulance fare back home if you're stupid enough to initiate physical violence.
WOW! This woman is against the death penalty AND against abortion, that is rare, but more consistent!
I'm against the death penalty myself, but it's not really comparable to the abortion question. For one, the death penalty is done either as a deterrent or as a manner of justice. If you kill someone, then there is a need for there to be consequences, and many have found that prison is not severe enough. Others argue that it's not so much that it's justified, but that it works as a deterrent. Fewer people will kill if they know there is a chance that they themselves will be killed. So the objective is to prevent death, and or apply consequences for murder. THere's the question of authority and most in favor argue that the state is given this right, as the state is responsible for the safety of its members. Ubiquitously and undeniably, there are situations where the state has to kill(military or police) in order to defend its members from threats of violence. The death penalty is the extension of the same idea. Keep in mind, not all countries have secure prison systems.
Abortion, on the other hand, is not really about punishment or deterring people from killing. Rather the debate is mostly surrounding the right to bodily autonomy vs the rights of zygotes, embryos and fetuses. The only similarity this debate has with that of the death penalty is it involves killing, though the justification and argument are entirely different.
The distinction isn't really that complicated and can easily be understood from the context alone. The only reason the argument survives is I think people like to accuse their opponents of hypocrisy. That's about it. It's like saying, "oh, you care so much about endangered species, but don't care about aborted fetuses." It's sort of obvious, here that these are two separate issues, with two separate justifications being made.
I really don’t understand why people are always making the comparison between abortion and the death penalty. The two aren’t related at all. I’m pro choice and pro death penalty.
@@erinwhipple4666 The basic jist is that many pro-lifers will say they are against abortion because they feel it involves killing another human being, but will be ok with the state killing another human being via execution.
@@cassandra.wladyslava well the definitive aspect of that argument is innocence. But regardless, abortion is not a “killing”. Fetal death is not the intent, it is an understood byproduct of refusing access to your body.
@@erinwhipple4666 First off, I’m pro-choice. I’m just trying to explain the contradiction.
Guilty of a crime or not, you’re still killing someone. Plus we do execute innocent people.
It’s more that it’s an issue of them wanting to preserve human life while being ok with the state deciding when it should be taken away.
I’m just basing this off of personal and observed interactions, btw.
Rewatching this in June 2022 after the horrific SCOTUS ruling.
“Sometimes unplanned things happen”. Very Freudian.
Her arguments strike me as a bit religious (the uterus was designed for a fetus, etc).
It's about consent. No human gets to use my body without my consent. Even if I initially gave consent, if I revoke it, then poof. There goes the other person's right to violate my autonomy. That's how it works. If you don't also make a father make a bone marrow donation to their already born child to save their life, you don't get to do that at any stage in the life of the dependent entity. Unborn people don't get more rights or special rights that born people don't get. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Not the killing of a fetus. Cesarean sections are also abortions. Most abortions are also done before sentience could even be detected. And the ones that happen after that are done to wanted pregnancies that end up endangering the life of the woman. Don't try to boil this down to just protecting all life. Because you can't make someone be an incubator for someone else when they do not consent to it. Well, not if you say you care about bodily autonomy, anyway.
@@mileswright7294 If it's about consent then no innocent human being should be killed without their consent. The solution in a pregnancy - COEXIST. Death is permanent. A woman won't be pregnant forever (she will eventually give birth).
Besides even Roe v Wade said states could restrict abortion at a certain point in the pregnancy without regard to ongoing consent. Why? Because at some point the recognized the unborn child as a "potential". Now that we know an unborn child is an ACTUAL human being, they need to be protected before and after viability.
An unborn child has done nothing wrong. They are not violating anything or anyone. Comparing them to a rapist is beyond disgusting.
I see the lame "donation" attempt at an analogy all the time. How can you not realize it's not even close to pregnancy? A slightly closer analogy would be that you actually DID donate bone marrow to someone else and then wanted to kill them to get your precious uter... I mean bone marrow back. That would never be allowed. Killing your unborn child to get your precious uterus back (which you already had anyway) should never be allowed. A closer analogy would be that pregnancy is dependent care. People are supposed to be responsible and provide food and shelter for their dependents (at least as long as it takes to hand them over safely to someone else), not make up excuses to kill them.
The right for an innocent human being not to be killed is not a special right, it's a fundamental right.
@@mathildeyoung1823 using someone without their consent is NOT innocence. That's where you trip over yourself. Let's grant both of them the fact that they each consent to live. Fine. I grant that to each of them. But when one party does not consent, and the other is dependent upon the other, all of that stops. When having sex, and then you say stop for whatever reason, if the man continues going without that consent, the sex is then considered rape. It is a violation of your autonomy even if you initially gave consent. The man doesn't get to keep going. No one gets to use your body for pleasure or to sustain themselves without that consent. Even if you find it morally repugnant. Once you say the government can force someone to remain pregnant, it can then also turn around and say someone must have an abortion. That is why the choice ought to be left with the individual it concerns. You also wouldn't jail a parent for refusing to donate their organs to their born child. Even if we would look at that and say yeah that's shitty. Using the law to make someone donate an organ AGAINST THEIR WILL is a twisted and horrible situation. A uterus is no different than a kidney or a liver. Bodily autonomy is ubiquitous. It encompasses the whole body throughout all life stages. And that means being dependent on someone else at any time does not mean that someone can override the bodily autonomy of another WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT. And yet that is exactly the position you argue. You emphasise the unborn so much that you bypass the born person's consent. That is not "innocence" by any means. Doesn't matter how precious you find the dependent entity. Without consent, it is a violation. Why do you support giving a fetus rights than no born person would ever be granted? It should be incredibly obvious as to why the state shouldn't be forcing people to have their body used by someone else. Especially given the variety of complex situations that arise with pregnancy. My mother conceived me through in vitro. And she also had a miscarriage before me. I am the only one to make it. I was born 26 years ago this month. I hope you don't think she belongs in prison or should be jailed for either of those things because how are you gonna tell she ACTUALLY had a miscarriage? Or are you gonna charge her for murder of the other embryos that didn't survive? I can assure anyone who tries to apprehend my mother for this would probably find an axe near their neck very quick. :) The unborn person does not have rights over anyone else's body. The born person does not have rights over someone else's body. The unfortunate circumstances of our biology is just that, unfortunate. I also find it funny because the caricature of this is portrayed as murder, like we just want babies to be murdered. Well, if that were true, why aren't woman running around slaughtering born children en masse? Because they don't want to fucking kill children you dumb fucks. That's not what it's EVER fucking been about. It's about the unwarranted use of the body without consent. Period. Pregnancy is a condition that happens to people. It is not a choice. Some people get pregnant without wanting to. And some people can't get pregnant even tho they want to. There is little choice involved there. Consent to driving is not consent to getting into a wreck. Even if there is "risk." That heartbeat bullshit is about an electrical pulse which isn't done by a heart. The heart hasn't fucking formed yet. Brain activity comes much later and usually when there is brain activity during an abortion, that pregnancy and child were wanted. This isn't about murdering kids you fucking ass hats. It's about the right to govern your own body without having that impeded by another individual. If you wouldn't let another adult siphon off resources from another adult, you don't grant that to kids, babies, or fetuses, or old people, either. Using someone's stage of dependency as an excuse to side step the consent of another opens up a whole Pandora's box of unpleasant consequences, the likes of which you seem to not have thought through to their full extent. Bodily autonomy is not a difficult concept to grasp. We grant corpses more bodily autonomy than living people. Because scientists can't use someone's body for science just because they're not using it. That person had to have given their CONSENT. Why are you people so obsessed with VIOLATING CONSENT??
@@mileswright7294 An unborn child was placed in the woman's womb though no fault of their own. They have done nothing wrong to deserve death. Your "logic" is like saying a homeowner could kill their child if they wake up one day and say "I don't consent to you being in my house. Get out NOW" and then killing their baby if the baby doesn't get up and walk out of the house immediately.
An unborn child cannot consent to being killed (like a newborn cannot). Since they cannot consent they need to be protected. IF there is a full human right to bodily autonomy then unborn children have that right and abortion would violate TWO of their basic human rights - bodily autonomy and their basic human rights (as innocent human beings) not to be killed. TWO > ONE. Therefore abortion still needs to be illegal.
Really, you're comparing an unborn child to a rapist? If a woman is having sex and changes her mind and ONLY THINKS "I don't consent" without giving any other indication she doesn't consent she cannot kill her partner - because he doesn't know she revoked consent. An unborn child has done nothing wrong to deserve death and to compare then to a rapist is truly sick.
It is ironic you say that her arguments are a bit religious. Even though all she is arguing is equal rights for all people. Since Matt in this debate does acknowledge that the fetus is a human being, then he is implying not all humans have equal rights and is therefore incosistent when arguing against something like slavery.
It is also interesting that you have implied the pro life movement has a religious bent. Meaning that religious people care about life, yet you prove the bible to be true. All who hate God love death
Balls to sit up there with Matt. The man is so clear thinking and able to communicate it to an audience like no other
@@liquidKi I mean, her arguments are so ludicrous, it’s hard not to laugh. Sure, it wasn’t very classy of him, but he did apologize and at the end, his arguments actually have merit, which is the entire point.
Wow, I've heard a lot of pro-life claptrap over the years but I have never yet heard a pro-lifer literally say that a woman's body doesn't belong to her . . . I admire this gal for the bald honesty of her brutal craziness. And her shaky Maude Flanders voice is almost too perfect for the pearl-clutching sanctimony of her position.
Kristine made good points which I myself don't agree with but nevertheless, good points but overall, Matt won. He had the evidence, the validity, facts, and moreover, he considered all positions as to how women become pregnant and considered their health & safety over something that lives off the women's body. Whether or not you believe abortion is morally wrong, it's ultimately up to the person who's body carries that sperm & egg whether to get an abortion or not. Thanks for reading ~ [I'm a very civil person so I would not appreciate attacks but more constructive criticism and reasonable debates (: ]
Nope.
Kristine is hung up on the Naturalistic Fallacy, & Matt demonstrated her attempt to invoke *personhood* was insufficent to support her assertion.
Your position is based on subjective morality too, though. The entire concept of "who has the right to decide" is based entirely on personal morality.
My problem with your argument is that you're creating distinctions that don't exist. Basically, you're attempting to separate "morality" from "the law" or "morality" from "human rights" or "morality" from "freedom", etc, and you're implying that one's personal morality shouldn't form the basis for any of these things. But morality itself acts as the basis for how we decide human rights, what freedoms a person should have, etc.
What you should try to understand is that with subjects like these, there isn't an objective "right" or "wrong" answer. All these arguments are based on personal value systems, that is whether you prefer freedom over one's body vs. the preservation of life. You might be uncomfortable with the law denying a woman from getting an abortion, and a pro-lifer might be uncomfortable with the killing of a fetus, but both positions ultimately rest on emotion, and you don't have any more of an objective basis than the pro-lifer has.
Wrong.
There is no right afforded to ANY human being to use the body of another. End of! No émotion required in making the case that it's the woman's.right to autonomy that takes priority.
It is such a relief to actually hear arguments against abortion which do not come from religious "morality" drama. I'm still pro choice though.
Kristine's arguments are flawed because they have the Naturalistic Fallacy at their heart.
Did you notice that whenever the fact that lots of fertilized eggs don't implant, or miscarriages occur, she was FINE with that? Death is death, dammit! If she was going to be consistent, EVERY fertilized egg that doesn't develop into an independent human body should be cause for her concern.
@@douglasthomashayden2566 There is a big difference between natural death and intentionally killing. Intentionally killing a human being that has done nothing wrong should be illegal.
@@mathildeyoung1823 A fetus HAS 'done something wrong'. It's invaded an unwilling host, & it's the host's choice to evict it, and not be victimized by it for anywhere from 9 months to a lifetime, with a certainty that the parasite will cause massive undesired, unDESERVED changes to the host's body.
Moochers, freeloaders, & parasites 'bodily rights' are properly ignored in such a scenario.
@@douglasthomashayden2566do babies crawl into unsuspecting mothers where you live? In the overwhelming majority of cases, an unborn child only ends up using a woman’s organs as a direct and foreseeable result of her voluntary actions. In other words, she chose to make her organs available and she can’t exactly complain when someone took her up on her offer; she has no more right to kill her unborn child then she does someone she donated a kidney to.
An unborn child is not a parasite either. He/she is a human being. Human beings are not parasites
@@mathildeyoung1823 If a person is on birth control SPECIFICALLY because they don't want to become pregnant, then YES, the ZEF (fuck your 'baby' language...it's not that until it draws its first breath, *biblically* ) is a fucking uninvited guest that can be evicted with extreme prejudice and no need for remorse. If you don't think so, then let me come and live with you, eat your food (even if you have to go hungry), use up all your resources (even if it severely depletes or bankrupts you), trash your house making it the way *I* want it, and you'll accept it, then let me stay for AT LEAST 20 years while you keep paying all the bills regardless of how badly I abuse you. Same thing.
FWIW, I expected you to take that tack. By YOUR KIND's standards, smokers who get cancer shouldn't be allowed surgery and/or chemotherapy, people who get sick from eating / drinking impure food / water shouldn't be helped, people who get nearsighted or farsighted should be denied corrective lenses, clothes in general would be *verboten*, so much for Type 2 diabetics, etc.
YOUR KIND only rail against abortion for *religious* reasons, then try, post hoc, to fit some (ANY!) kind of supposedly secular 'justification' to excuse your prejudice.
And YOUR KIND can't any more. If you could, you'd be off victimizing pregnant people rather than whining in an online forum.
Instead of saving fetuses who arent even conscious of life, how about feeding and educating the ones that made it.
Allegra Yang separate argument. Irrelevant to the debate.
David McClanahan True
no, don't cop out like that. all issues are connected, and it's a valid point to point out how pro-lifers are often so anti-helping born children. doesn't matter if the debate was initially about the topic. it's still worth discussing. all discussion is valuable.
westingtyler ideas True too
@@nukeage9856 see the problem with the people who want to take away the choice is they refuse to help afterwards and then blame the child having a bad childhood on the parent when it wouldn’t have happened if she had the choice
I think a women has the right to decide. I felt bad for the pro life debater. She seemed so nervous.
+Elijah Jones
She's completely out of her depth. Her entire basis seems to be emotional. That's not how she tries to argue, I'm not even sure if she understands that this is where she seems to come from... but there isn't an reasonable position you can take in favor of the anti-choice movement, and yet people hold it very strongly. It's emotional. That's all it is.
X- Com
Yeah, I didn't think she did well. I also don't like her cause.
+Elijah Jones totally agree pro choice all the way
He debated a nervous student. Would like to see him actually debate someone such as Scott Klusendorf.
Typically, its because pro choicers act like they want to kill us. I get nervous when I'm debating the issue 10 to 1 as the only pro life athiest in the group.
"Sometimes we have unplanned things happen in our lives." Matt's face lol
There seems to be a real conflation in the comments between 'pro choice' and 'pro abortion'.
I've never met a single pro-choice person that would dream of encouraging, or coercing a woman to have an abortion. I don't even know if such a person exists. However I've come across plenty of people with 'pro-life' opinions that would quite happily coerce or force a woman into carrying a pregnancy to full term against her wishes.
My own view is pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I'm 'pro-abortion'. Just as there are plenty of people that are 'pro-life' but still believe a woman should have the choice.
Hagan1233 The key is in the word CHOICE.
Hagan1233 Pro-Death (there is a death involved)? Or should we brush that aside?
***** Abortion and abortion doctors SUCK! Literally...
Why not why don’t you like abortion what do you see wrong with it.
It's projection
And Matt usually wins the morality debate.
Im not so much pro-abortion or pro-life i think there is a fine line within this topic
But my main issue.. when reading comments is how people whill defend a fetus and basically go to all efforts to make abortion out as a murderous act.. yet they never have viable arguements for the after-math.. Like you all sound like you would rather have a child born into neglect, abuse or with a non-life-sustaining illness than have them aborted.. That makes you no better than anyone, you care more for a fetus than you ever would for a poor child living in awful conditions that no child should be in
Like i said, its a sore subject, and im still very much open to both opinions and views, but thats just my take on this subject
+TheMrsmartiekid same here man.
I will also raise 2 other considerations that maybe you are not aware:
1) Banning abortion won't stop abortion itself. Ireland is one example. When Ireland bans abortion, abortion did not go down. People turned to homemade inventions to try to do self-induce abortion, causing a lot of unnecessary deaths and health risks!
2) Economy. If we ban abortion, this means over 1 million babies will be born per year into poor families. Have you thought about what kind of burden this will cause on our social welfare system?
I'm not necessarily pro-choice or pro-life...but these are just 2 other issues we need to think about before jumping into a legislation!
Puglous we do have over 50+ million people currently living in poverty without basic healthcare....
and Republicans' solution = remove universal healthcare???
+TheMrsmartiekid The argument about allowing a child to be born into a shitty life doesn't follow. It's arguable that giving a child a chance at life is far better than giving them no chance at life: it certainly wouldn't be considered moral to stop a child from living if their life was terrible. (Although there's then the whole debate about illness, suffering and Euthanasia)
+La Puerta You do the killing then since your morals are god.
+TheMrsmartiekid "born into neglect, abuse or with a non-life-sustaining illness" how about we also throw in poverty,disabilities, inherited genetic diseases, mutations, babies born without limbs and a gazzilion more harsh cruelties that currently and will always exist because that's a part of LIFE. Yes, I believe no child should ever be born in harsh living conditions but it does happen and you can't blame pro-life advocates for the uncontrollable factors in life. Also, your statement shows that you'd rather children be dead than experience abuse,neglect, non-life-sustaining illness since. That's a BIG slap in the face for all the victims of actual abuse, neglect and other cruel realities of life.
"you care more for a fetus than you ever would for a poor child" That's a such a biased pro-abortion statement. First of all, pro-life advocates care EQUALLY for all lives including the poor, rich, wanted, unwanted, unborn and born. We believe that a fetus is already a growing human being in the early stages of life. Life begins at conception, we learned that in biology. Overwhelming majority of biologist and a bunch of pro-choicer agree that life begins at the moment of conception. An elderly, a baby and a fetus are all different stages of the human life.
Pro- life: believes that it should be illegal to end the life of an individual who is a member of the human species such as a fetus, baby, teenager, adult and an elderly.
Pro-choice: believes that it should be legal for a pregnant woman to decide whether or not a fetus should continue to live.
20:07
I was undecided about this issue prior to viewing this debate and a long time fan of Matt. His opening case completely blew me away in its clear and concise presentation for a right to abortion and I can say that I am now convinced. I hope Matt becomes more than simply a cherished voice in the community and ascends to the level of being revered enjoyed by Dawkins et al. He is truly the atheist intellectual heavy-weight of our time.
*Christopher Hitchens was right about abortion, Dillahunty and the ACA are utterly wrong and are immoral pieces of shit.*
I like how Matt's opponents always use a PowerPoint, as if it gives their presentation more credibility.
40:00 She's having a goddamn panic attack because he's forcing her to acknowledge that the decision to abort a fetus would be made by someone other than the mother under her model.
At 50:37 Matt summarizes Kristine's position perfectly (the whole debate captured in just a few seconds). BTW: My goodness she is nervous and all over the place.
What a great explainer and quick witted thinker. Love listening to this man
Yes he is those things. And on top of that he is completely immoral for believing you can murder your child
@@andrewdavidson8167 and your immoral for believing you can rape women..
@@andrewdavidson8167 what's wrong, don't like when people make the framing around your stance so rediculous that no one takes you serious..
@Forrest Walker
Well I don’t like certain framing that makes any comment look like someone was offended. Kind of like what you did with that last comment
What I don’t like is people praising a man who recognizes that a fetus is a human being (fetus is Latin for small child) and because of his lazy selfishness he will fully support the murder of that child.
I agree, Matt is super smart. But just because you can articulate yourself in a brilliant way doesn’t give you any moral high ground. If murder is the natural result of your position? It is not a good position and you are in step with the Nazis and southern slave owners that this country had a couple centuries ago
@@andrewdavidson8167
A fetus is a clump of cells not an “infant”. Until late in pregnancy, it has less brain activity than the standard of “brain dead, pull the plug” for an injured patient. So you are giving a clot more rights than an adult human.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to pretend that a fetus, which can not survive outside of a woman’s body, can have more rights than the adult, aware woman carrying it.
PZ nailed it, too bad the microphone guy was a slacker and didn't get the mic back to him for the follow up.
Matt nailed the closing.
She's very brave for debating him.
A woman has sex, she knows she might get pregrant for having sex, she uses protection, she gets pregant anyway. (some) Prolifers are saying she still is to blame and she has to live with it.
A skier skies, he knows he might get hurt by skieng, he uses protection, he breaks his back or a leg. By analogy, he is to blame and he has to live with it. We will not treat his back or leg, he knew the risk.
So you are basically seeing a child as a "Injuring" man you pro abortioners are immoral perks that need to be deported.
*****
should those who commit petty crime such as jaywalking and vandalism be thrown in jail instead of being given tickets?
a pregnancy does indeed come a quite a cost to a woman's body and can indeed be considered a collection of MANY injuries. Perhaps the immoral prejudice stand with you against women. It can be hard to remember the value of autonomy when you literally have no skin in the game.
I just love it when a group of men want to argue abortion.. not one of you has any amount of say. Ever.
Both the man and the woman played a part in it.
How can it be ageism when your age isnt counted before AFTER you are born.
THANK YOU!
Ebony Skeptic. Well, my dear friend, we certainly cannot be skeptical about you undoubted and abundant beauty! :)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
You said it. Your age is "counted" after yo are born. That's a human plan. There is aging going on in reality.
42:34 shouldn't have been cut off for the arbitrary sake of time. I would've LOVED to hear them continue that discussion uninterrupted...
poor girl, in way over her head
Not at all. She made astounding arguments, while Dillahunty resorted to logical games partly off reality.
nope, wrong again bob
Torrriate If you rephrased "logical games" as "logical arguments based upon reality" then you'd be right about Matt...
Torrriate She sounded pretty pathetic to me. Matt noted numerous times that his argument on bodily rights applied even when the embryo is considered human and quite frankly he's right, she sounded... really bad. Then there was PZ Meyers backhanding her at the end. She did not win by any stretch of the imagination.
My thoughts exactly.
25:47 appealing to emotions with a movie speaks volumes as to the confidence in the sophistication of the own arguments
I participated in a fund raiser with 10 doctors i know personally and over 100 i didnt know as well as volunteer landlords that raised ovwr 35k dollars in one day to fund bringing women in states with strict abortion laws to get abortions done in states where its legal. They coordinate with a team of attorneys to go thru the process legally. There are many loop holes. The landlords donate rooms, houses, condos etc with leases for the women to show they live in the states part time. There are HUNDREDS of canadian drs who provide abortions there for women as well. They are a non profit and the women get flights, hotel, and the procedure free. If they become illegal all around they have huge boats that are setup to be floating drs offices. And there are 3 countries that will perform them out of us jurisdictions as well as hospitals that will be setup to perform them. So if they ever become illegal they will perform them for everyone who files. They had a fundraiser where 3 anonymous billionaires donated 75 million in one day to stockpile moeny to make sure the women have the ability to get it even if they have no moeny. Im working constantly with one team and they arr preparing just in case to be able to offer hundteds of thousands of abortions per year in the event they evee get banned. They did over 50000 for women in strict law states. They still stick by the 22ish week limit or close. Its not like a woman who is 8 months pregnant. But they are prepared to make sure no one is forced to birth a child they dont want. They raised 200 million in one month. Its wonderful to see. Because here's the same. If I have a child and I smoke cigarettes in the garage to stay away from the child but the child plays in the garage and ends up getting lung cancer, which is directly my fault and the child will die if I do not donate a lung, the state cannot force me to do so. Even though legally I can't be punished because lots of parents smoke in the vicinity of their children and even though it's directly my fault, my bodily autonomy says that you can't force me to give up an organ. But let's go with a much less invasive situation. Let's say that I'm riding my bicycle through the park and my child is on the seat in the back and I get distracted by a girl jogging and I did a stick and we fly off in my child is severely injured. We get to the hospital and my child is minutes away from bleeding out and they don't have the blood type stocked up (which absolutely happens) If I do not donate blood my child will die. You cannot force me to give blood to sustain the life of another person. You can't punish me for not doing so either. Because of bodily autonomy. And this is a procedure that is much much much safer than carrying a child to term and delivering. you know how many women die every year when they are in great health and there was Zero sign whatsoever that anything was going to go wrong but their blood pressure and they died? You are talking about forcing a woman into holding a baby she doesn't want for almost a year and then risking her life to give birth to a child that she doesn't want and it will forever change her body, potentially cause serious psychiatric damage, and then overload the already ridiculously overloaded foster homes and orphanages. Not to mention it will Not help our overcrowding situation. You don't have to like abortion, but it's not going anywhere. And if it does, there will be billions of dollars set aside to make sure that every woman who wants an abortion and can't get one, still here yet one. It's controlling women and not men. Because if it was happening to men it would never even be close to Actually happening. But luckily abortion is not going anywhere. One way or another they will still happen and they will still happen in a way that you cannot be punished. And abortions are not going to become illegal So the money that is being donated will end up going to Planned Parenthood and places like that to ensure that women still get free birth control and health care. It's wonderful seeing people come together to make sure that women are still taken care of. I used talk to text and youtube lags BADLY. Its a good 30 seconds behind what i say so i apologize for any mistakes. Im not going back thru this entire post
We need this debate here in Brazil!!!
+Claudio Lima Fly me in. I'll do it, ;-)
+Claudio Lima Sim, precisamos sem dúvida!
Here's my two-cents: in general abortion is not "taking away the right to life". Picture a scenario in which I am hooked up to another person, only my blood type can sustain them for the following nine months. If I take them off this support I am not taking away their right to live, I am taking away their right to use my body -- a right which no body has inherent -- I find it agreeable that a foetus or embryo may have some innate right not to have their future taken away, but there are scenarios in which that right is triumphed (not that it doesn't exist), but triumphed by the woman's right to her own body. There are real cases in which abortion no longer becomes an elective, but a necessary medical procedure.
Andrew Wells
So, the mother should have the right to abstain from keeping the child alive even when there is literally nothing else that can do so in her stead?
Isn't that kind of like saying it's legal for a fireman to drop the person they're carrying in the middle of a rescue because he simply decides he doesn't want to carry the person out of the building?
Hi Edvard. I don't think that is the same. As it currently stands it is illegal for a fireman (or indeed anyone) not to help someone unless they would be put into immediate danger themselves. That final clause is important. A fireman has enrolled to do a service. It is his swarm duty to serve and protect.
A better analogy I feel would be the obligation of a normal civilian witnessing a house fire. He is under no obligation to risk his own life to jump in and try and rescue the person inside. Either lawfully or I think morally. If he chooses to it is an act of bravery or charity, but he shouldn't be compelled to. He does have a moral obligation to perform certain acts which do not cause him any harm e.g., calling the fire brigade.
Perhaps a couple have a similar moral obligation to use birth control if they do not wish to get pregnant.
Andrew Wells I more-or-less agree, even if the embryo is a person; it does not in any way invalidate the bodily rights argument. The question itself, is a fetus a person? Is an interesting moral possibility; however I find it to be completely irrelevant to the concept of abortion and pregnancy in general.
+Sabrina Fairchild Function implies intent. Nature does not instill function (for it has no intent), nor does nature or any sentient being obligate us to fulfill function with our body. The function of our own blood is whatever the heck we want it to function as. As with blood, nature doesn't own a woman's body; she does. She decides when and what her own body should function as, not nature.
Sabrina Fairchild It's connected as well to what is moral. There is something in philosophy called the naturalistic fallacy -- where a moral argument hinges on the fact that something is perceived as 'natural'. Kristine's uterus, 'body part of purpose' argument is making this very same error.
By appealing to nature, we could say eating apples is a moral act, or natural selection in every form is moral.
I agree with Matt. If the life of a fetus trumps women's right to bodily autonomy, then that means women are equivalent to cattle, slaves, second-class citizens who, for 9 months of their lives, are nothing but human incubators. NO ONE has the right to FORCE another human being to give up her body for the sake of his own life.
And the boat analogy is pure bullshit. If I become pregnant and no longer wish to be pregnant and end up getting an abortion, the death of the child is simply the by-product of terminating the pregnancy. It's not like I'm a bloodthirsty monster. I don't want that fetus in my body anymore and if it can't survive on its own, well that's just too bad. If a 7-year-old kid is a stowaway on my yacht, I'm not gonna throw him overboard because he's not leeching off my own body, he's not a parasite, he's not violating my bodily autonomy. He's just getting a free ride on my boat. Killing him would make no sense at all. I wouldn't be required to give him water and food while waiting for the Coast Guard to arrive. I'd be a dick if I didn't feed him but I'm not legally required to (but I guess that depends on the laws of the land, Good Samaritan laws, etc). Anyway, it's just a silly analogy. My point is, nobody should be REQUIRED to play host to a parasite. Murder for no reason is bad, yes, but not when it's in defense of your own body, either from harm or just from being used without consent.
And, fyi, all this is coming from someone who is the mother to one beautiful 4-year-old boy whom was purposely conceived and carried to term of my own free will. I've been through pregnancy and a cesarean section and I would NEVER wish that experience on any woman who didn't WANT it.
Exactly! Agreed.
That's like saying that if the law tells someone that they cannot leave their unwanted baby to die that means we are treating people like babysitters. When the law tells a man or a woman not to k-ill their child, born or unborn, it's not about treating them like slaves, babysitters, bank accounts etc it's about protecting defenseless human beings from being k-illed.
@@mathildeyoung1823you're confusing care for a with body autonomy rights which aren't the same. You can drop off a new born at pretty much any hospital or fire department. That's still taking care of it without the use of body autonomy. But you can't drop off a fetus, a fetus can't live without using the body of the mother. Why is this simple concept so beyond your level of understanding?
@@tannermclaughlin5001 Having to drop off a newborn may involve a poor, poor, person having to do something with their body against their precious will - boo hoo... And say that person was in a situation with their unwanted child (e.g. a natural disaster) where they could not drop off their unwanted child - how long should they be "forced" (boo hoo) to use their body against their will to care for their unwanted child before they can k-ill them? minutes? hours? days? longer?
If you put a defenseless human being in a position of dependence on you then you need to BE RESPONSIBLE for that new human being at least as lpooonnnnngggggg as it takes to hand them over SAFELY to someone else - whether that handoff takes 1 second or 9 months.
@@mathildeyoung1823 yeah that's not body autonomy rights like maybe Google what these words mean before you argue against them
she seems to make an awful lot of emotional arguments.
I love this debate, because Matt destroyed her at every single turn.
Nah he really didn’t. He made a lot of really dumb arguments
Metal Bison what video did you watch? Lol
Steven Corey give me one single point Matt won.
@@TheMetalBison Only one? Pointing out that Christine's entire argument is rebutted by bodily rights. There. Happy?
@@tmrv2974 like I said...
It amazes me how even though Matt repeated his argument multiple times, she still did not get it at all. Her closing summary, saying Matt's argument only stands if the "pre-born" are not human beings. FACE FUCKING PALM
Name Display He definitely repeated his main argument multiple times: "Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy, Bodily Autonomy..." Over and over again....
***** That's because that's all Dillahunty has. Opinions aren't strong enough to decisively end arguments in the same way facts can. Dillahunty offered his philosophical _bodily autonomy opinion_ and Kristine is rejecting it just like I do.
*****
All she has is opinion too. These are two people arguing over ideology basically. The difference I was pointing out of course being, she is arguing against a position that Matt does not hold, and she does not know how to address Matt's actual position, so she just keeps repeating the same strawman bullshit over and over again.
Name Display Actually, she's repeating her scientifically inspired moral opinion (that an unborn child is a person) as he repeats his non-scientifically based _philosophical_, moral opinion that an unborn child is not a person until man declares it a person and that he thinks that would be pretty stupid. BTW, calling her argument a _straw man_ argument seems to insinuate that her argument is no argument. You're not arguing that, are you, *Name Display*?
*****
You misunderstand the concept of a strawman. Also, you are wrong about the scientific aspects you just mentioned. Either way, no matter what justification these people propose for their opinions, they are just that. Opinions. Based on ideology. Science does not say it is wrong to abort a fetus. That is a philosophically born concept.
Kristine's so terrifyingly nervous, it threatens the credibility of her argument. If she didn't have her Powerpoint she'd probably have no idea what to say. I don't think she really understands her premise as much as she thinks she does.
In either case, I side with Matt because I don't agree with hijacking a woman's body for the sake of a blob of cells that aren't aware they exist. If the woman, however, lets this blob of cells become a fetus capable of living outside her womb, then she's spent long enough thinking it over and should really just finish it out.
On the fetus itself...size isn't the point of what makes it valuable. It's the capacity for it to survive on its own (and thereby not be parasitic to the woman) and it's development. A born person is fully formed. A 9 week old embryo is not.
EDIT: Towards the end Kristine starts to go on about how the uterus is specifically designed to hold a fetus, and while this is true, the woman did not get to choose her own gender and therefore did not opt in to HAVING a uterus. If a female fetus could flip switches in its genome so a uterus would not form, I would've signed up for that shit immediately, supposing I couldn't choose to be male instead to begin with.
Kristine is nervous, and she doesn't understand her premise as much as she thinks she does, but you don't understand the implications of your thesis either. First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size. I couldn't help but wonder whether you thought about what you wrote before you posted your comment. Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion. You say that it's all about dependency, but I'm fairly certain that if you had thought about it a little bit, you would see just how problematic that argument is. This is not even about me taking either side of the debate, rather I'm puzzled by the way in which you think you propose a good argument, and critize Kristine, when in fact what you say entails very bad ethics. Let me clarify. Your argument, I think, is that women are entitled to an abortion because a fetus is solely dependent on them, and if they want to, they can choose to get rid of it. Don't you realize the implications of this argument? If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort. For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families. Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids? Absolutely not. The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself
***** Sorry, but you must be terribly uneducated about the goings-on of a free, civilized socieity.. do you live in a third-world country where people are forced into slave labor, and not allowed to choose their own destiny..?
Noone is forced to become a nurse, parent, doctor, caretaker.. a provider of any kind.. anyone can quit their job if they don't like, and be replaced easily. Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa..
You cannot adopt a uterus, or embryo or fetus.. all you can do is sign papers and struggle.. for 9 permanent months.
The developing blob of cells, and eventually shell-body-husk-without-a-mind is just that.. until consciousness is turned on after birth, when the fetus, developed enough TO be physically capable of consciousness physically AND independence physically((unless something is wrong with it, in which case- see above about adoption and people CHOOSING to be care providers..)) CAN actually be adopted.
You can't say that's a person, or even a completed task until birth, or very late-term, without either being uneducated about basic human development, or just being a liar. It's not a finished product. ..and basic development and AGE are two different things.. so, no, it's not about size.. it's about development- a wad of cells or half-formed body with no mind or memory does not constitute anything remotely close to a person.
..so, that being said.. if the pregnancy proves to be risky or unwanted, there is absolutely nothing wrong with terminating it, b/c there's literally next to no loss whatsoever. It was a potential, not an actual. Not to mention, the whole 'no consent' thing.. consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.. so forcing an unwanted pregnancy to continue is literally a form of rape from afar, seeing as how there is no 'person' present in the woman's body, and it is someone ELSE'S pleasure/desire to force her through it for personal or religious satisfaction- using someone's genitals/body against their will is rape and slavery, depending on the circumstances/details.. seeing as how this involves a woman's reproductive system- using her genitals against her will/with no consent is rape.
..so.. your response is VERY poorly-thought-out.. B/c those comparisons make absolutely no sense. In any direction..
ryddelwearsahat That's ludicrous. If anything, it's obvious that don't come from an academic background. I on the other hand know what I'm talking about. I'm a New Yorker you imbecile. It has become apparent by the way in which you construct your periods, and the way in which you argue that you are a layman. Nothing but attacks on my personality. My arguments would not be any less valid if I lived in South Africa.
" Adoption is a legal, supported, even often purchased event in America, land of the free, educated, and mostly-NOT-batshit-insane.. xD haaa.. "
Adoption is not "purchased". That sentence pretty much sums up why people are opposed to us. The education and literacy level on our country is horrible by comparison to that of the Europeans, Australians and some Asian countries. You boast, and yet you're a morally bankrupt buffoon who has no idea of formal logic.
I do not see how most of what you have said is relevant as to the matter at issue. I managed to extract a few points that you've made and extrapolate from there into formulating a few arguments, just barely.
So your sole point being that since the fetus is not conscious, and since it's dependent on the mother, we have the right to kill it until it's conscious, and no longer dependent upon the mother.
Sigh...
The fetus does have access to consciousness and rationality, it just doesn't have IMMIDIATE access to consciousness and rationality. If we are allowed to kill anyone who is not conscious, but has the capacity to be conscious, then your logic would entail that we have the right to kill people who are asleep, in a comma, or people who have received REPAIRABLE brain damage. I don't think you want that, but who knows. Let us proceed to the second criterion. Dependency. You're confused. If I deceive you to come to my home, and then I get you into the same room with my brother, who is suffering from cancer, and request your bone marrow for him, while you have the right to decline and leave the building in which my brother is located, you don't have the right to bash my brother's head with a baseball bat. During an abortion, the second act is committed. Even though dependency would entail that you have the right to stop helping the embryo, it does not entail that you have the right to murder the embryo (abortion).
More specifically, addressing your point that the embryo is not a person, a baby isn't a person either. Do you support infanticide too? If we are allowed to kill anyone who isn't a person, then infanticide would be morally permissable, but infanticide is _not_ morally permissable, and we know that through intuition.
"consent to sex is not consent to repriduction.."
That's ridiculous. Let me form an analogy for you:
I'm playing baseball with my kid. I manage to hit a food stand, and I go towards the owner to retrieve my ball. When he, being angry, asks me give my information so as to file a report, and pay for the damage, I respond by informing him that I did not conscent to the repercussions of playing baseball, and therefore I won't be paying to restore any damages. This is absurd. Pregnancy is a direct consequence of having intercourse. But if you don't conscent to sex, in the case of rape, the situation is slightly different. In the case of rape, while this argument does not stand, we have to examine whether or not killing the fetus would help the mother who has been raped. It's not the baby's fault. The baby is not a devil. It has done nothing. You have no reason to want to get rid of it. If you deserve to live, then so does the fetus. You might not be as developed as the fetus, but are you claim that since kids are not fully developed, that therefore we have the right to kill them? Tell that to your teenage son or daughter.
If ANY response is poorly thought out, it's yours, for heaven's sake.
*****
You accuse me of not thinking my opinions through and yet you don't seem to understand half of what you're saying, yourself.
1, "First you say that you wouldn't sacrifice a woman for the sake of a blob of cells, and then you go on to say that it's not about size."
That's correct. The point is completely coherent. I fail to see how you misunderstand it. The blob of cells, regardless of their size, do not get to hijack a woman's body. I think the argument you were trying to make is with regards to when I said that I would be opposed to the freedom of abortion when the fetus has developed far enough that it's viable. Roe vs Wade already established that abortions are fine and legal until 28 weeks of gestation. This is because it's a reasonable amount of time for a woman to figure out if she wants to sustain the pregnancy, because an abortion after about 30 weeks is really just preterm birth.
2, "Regardless, you go on to propose your case in support of abortion."
See the above. I do support abortion. I also support common sense. Once the fetus is legitimately an infant, the abortion should lead to a live birth, not the death of the infant.
3, "You say that it's all about dependency...[excised for simplicity] ...If we were to justify abortion in this manner, we would also have to justify the murder of anyone who is dependent on the state, or his family due to a health condition or something of that sort.
Incorrect. A fetus is dependant on the bodily function and fluid of another human being and is therefore parasitic to that person. A person dependent on the state is not attached to someone else's body.
Your point would be correct if you had suggested that if you go into kidney failure, you would, by law, be entitled to take a kidney from whoever matches your tissue type by proximity to yourself. But you have no right to demand a kidney from someone. In that vein, a fetus also has no right to demand a space of residence within a woman's body, and drain her of nutrients and other vital fluids.
4, "For something that is more familiar to us, you should note that children too, are dependent on their families."
Yes, children are dependent on their families, but they are not entitled to their family's organs, tissues or bodily fluids. Money isn't the same as a heart or liver or kidney or womb.
5, "Does that mean that every family should be entitled to murder their kids?"
Of course not. Don't be retarded. Abortion is not the same as murder. Abortion is the conscious decision to stop a pregnancy. If it's at 1 day to 28 weeks, the unfortunate result of the abortion is that the fetus is likely to die or cease development. However, a fetus is not considered a person, in law or in religious doctrine. A fetus only attains personhood when it takes its first breath. I simply give it the credit it deserves by giving it a chance once it's developed far enough that it COULD take a breath were it to be taken out of the body. Up until that moment, it has no right to exist against the woman's will.
6, "The argument from dependency is certainly not a good argument, that is unless you're willing to defend the murder of children that are dependent on their families, as well as anyone else who cannot take care of him/herself."
My argument has nothing do with financial or emotional dependence. As I said above, it's parasitic dependence. A child that has been born has attained the rights of a living individual person. A fetus is considered a part of the woman's body until it's born. You cannot override the rights of a woman's bodily autonomy because you have an emotional attachment to an unborn fetus. The state of Texas recently did this with Mrs Munoz, keeping her body on artificial 'body function maintenance' after she was brain-dead, solely because she was pregnant. Mrs Munoz had an advanced directive stating she never wanted to be put on machines. Her autonomy was violated because, people like you, who are perfectly fine with favoring the unborn over the already-born, decided Mrs Munoz's choices didn't matter anymore because she had a barely-developed embryo inside her. At 14 weeks, the developing fetus can't even be gender-typed yet. It's not even the size of a banana and could legally be aborted for another 12 weeks. That fetus had no right to demand its dead mother's body should be used as an incubator when NO ONE wanted to do it to her. Not her, not her husband, and not her family, all of whom fought to get her taken off the ventilators. In the end, the fetus grew to about 20 weeks, and was deemed nonviable due to non-development of the fetus' lower body, heart deformities and water on the brain. It was only after the state of Texas deemed the pregnancy worthless that they let Mrs Munoz die like she should have when she originally dropped from that pulmonary embolism. Perfect strangers decided for her that she didn't have the right to die. It's a violation of her personal liberty and a disgusting usurping of a natural process, even if unfortunate.
You lose.
ryddelwearsahat I criticized you in that manner because you're a racist who made an attack on my education and place of origin, thinking I was from a third world country. That in your mind makes my arguments invalid. That's not how logic works.
I won't bother addressing you any longer. By reading your response I was stunned by the way in which you managed to misinterpet my arguments. Furthermore you don't seem to know what analogy is, and how it's supposed to be used. I'm a nice guy, and so I'm going to assume that you're a young lad who has no manners as of yet, and does not know how the flow of argumentation functions. Since argument from analogy is taken away from us, and since it's the only tool we could use in a debate about abortion, there is nothing to talk about.
for 40 mins she talks about the cells and a full person being the same thing. then 42 mins in she says "of course there is a difference. they are younger"
seems to me at that point she should stood and bowed out.
Your dna doesn’t change from the time you’re a fertilized egg to now. So yes, younger. I know prolife atheists. Their arguments are better than hers. They’re correct. A single celled organism on Mars would be considered life and protected. And any intentional ending of life is murder. A human zygote is indeed human. It is murder. If prolife people agreed to the .0000003% of abortions, could we end the rest? If no, you’re all the hypocrites. And new studies say babies in the womb could possibly feel pain at 8 weeks gestation, and definitely as early as 12 weeks. When you have to rip arms and legs off of babies to end their lives it’s inhumane. And if the baby is her body, then she is 50% male when pregnant with a male. The natural place for a zygote is it’s mother’s womb. Taking the baby out of the mother doesn’t take the title mother way. They’re a mother of a dead child. I don’t claim that even a born baby is equal to an adult. They’re much better. Innocent. Bodily autonomy when you use abortion as birth control is a fallacy. Don’t have unprotected sex. Those abortions are the 99% of abortions. Not rape. Not ectopic pregnancies. And to kill a viable child inside its mother because she might die is stupid. If she can undergo a late term abortion she could give birth to the child alive. Babies at 22 weeks gestation (20 weeks from fertilization) can live. And we’re getting better at keeping them alive and without brain damage. But many babies are aborted, live through it, and are either left to die by nurses and doctors or are rescued by nurses. They are typically the ones who have the saline abortions but one who had his arm ripped off came out alive and was rescued. Abortion is a horrifying action. If we teach people responsibility, make rape laws incredibly harsh, and enforce the rape laws to make it so the rapist gets no parental rights we can make it better without murdering innocent children.
@@junelledembroski9183 uh, no. Most abortions are just popping a pill. How the FUCK is abortion being an option as your right to bodily autonomy a fallacy? Explain that b.s. to me. And over 50% of women who get abortions USED CONTRACEPTION. Seems like you're a stereotypical anti choice buffoon
@@junelledembroski9183 to add to this, you contradict "pro life" when you say there is no exception to save the WOMAN'S life. If her life is not in your equation, you are not pro life.
@@TrashBunBun childish word play. Apparently you don’t even know someone who has committed suicide or other atrocities because they had an abortion. Men created abortion for men. Plain and simple. Just because I didn’t say blah blah doesn’t mean I don’t agree with blah blah. And all of you who want to kill babies for birth control, shame on you. Name calling, really? My plan isn’t perfect, but it’s better than not having one. You are boring, your arguments are stale. I am following new science. New science says babies can feel pain as early as 8 weeks but definitely as early as twelve. I think you may be talking stats from the 90’s, because so far since raising the gestational age to whenever, the trend is killing babies older and older.
@@junelledembroski9183 I don't care. As a suicide survivor, screw you :) Do you know how many women DIED for their rights? And you wanna make their hardship and sacrifice amount to NOTHING. Shame on you.
Matt: I'm expecting the "right to life" argument, but the abortion is a bodily autonomy issue.
Kristine: Matt is right, but only if the fetus is not a human being.
Matt: I grant you that the fetus is a human being, but the abortion is a bodily autonomy issue.
Kristine: Matt is right, but only if the fetus is not a human being.
To say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue is partially incorrect.
People who support abortion root their position on the fundamental (first principles) belief that nobody has the right to use another person's body against that person's will. Having this first principle makes abortion a bodily autonomy issue.
But, people who do not support abortion root their position on the first principle that nobody has the right to end a human life. For these people, abortion is a right to life issue.
So to say that abortion is a bodily autonomy issue as a pro-choice person is to ignore the whole reason for a pro-lifer being pro-life. Furthermore, arguing that everyone has the right to bodiliy autonamy in effort to convince a prolifer is a ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with their position in abortion. Arguing that every human has a right to live as a prolifer is an ineffective strategy because it has nothing to do with a prochoicers reason to being pro-choice.
The abortion argument is like a group of scientists arguing that an object can be moved because an unstopable force will be applied to it, but another group is arguing that when that force is applied to the object it wont move because it is an immovable object.
This gets even more complicated. When does the child gain bodily autonomy rights? Removeing it from the womb would violate those rights eventually.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 Fetus has no right to use someone else's body against their will. The issue of abortion is the womb owner's private issue; not yours, nor the government's.
@@macieyid I'm curious about a few things. First off, why do you think some people are pro life? I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on why people are against abortion.
Second, if a women put a little person in her vagina (like an adult with dwarfism), and that person did not consent to that, would she have the right to kill it to get it out? If there was no way to take it out, would the dwarf have the right to rip the woman apart to get out?
Also, what is the difference in the value of an adult dwarf and a one month old baby? Should one have more rights under the law then the other?
Remember the baby never consented to being created, and put inside the mothers womb.
Also, I would argue that the women has no right to end the life of a human she chose to create inside of her.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 Why? Because they are egocentric pricks who think that their mindset should apply to everyone everywhere.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 Several red flags detected.
1) "I'm interested to find out pro-abortion people's perspective on" - not pro-abortion, pro-choice. Nobody is arguing for people to abort fetuses, just for the right to choose. If you don't want it - don't do it. people can be against abortion rights for many reasons including religious reasons or naive ideas of equal rights for fetuses, while it is about their special rights, and after being born nobody particulary cares about children...
2) Strange analogy. Woman has not put fetus into herself, it is just the result of biological processes outside her control in many cases, aside from her aiming to become pregnant specifically. And the problem is with unviability of the fetus, not with necessity of killing it during abortion.
3) Humans acquire more rights with age due to more responsibility and more cognitive abilities, generally adults have priority even over newborn for being functional members of society, we value socially and intellectually capable people more than potential intelligent agents in newborn, so pregnant women usually have priority in saving their lives if there is a choice during delivery.
4) So, again. Women going to abortion usually did not choose to create life inside, it is the result of natural processes and we should not bow to nature in our ethics and morality.
5) Prohibition of abortions is so damaging to society that even if we consider abortion immoral we should not make it illegal.
She simply does not want to get it does she? It truely doesn't matter if the foetus is a human being or not, no human being has the rights she wants to grant...
"Well first of all fetuses after 3 months have conciousness and thoughts..."
[Citation needed]
Abortion is nobody’s business other than the pregnant girl/woman in question and her doctor.
No fetus has the right to someone else’s bodily autonomy.
If I had to debate Matt dillahunty, I’d be about as nervous as she was
*She defeated him. Easily. Also, Christopher Hitchens effortlessly defeated the pro-abortion arguments.*
"Why is it that most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place?"
-George Carlin
J Stevens What does that possible tendency of his have to do with anything?
J Stevens That lady just reminded me of that Carlin line. Somehow. I wasn't joking, I just repeated Carlin's joke :)
Unless you want to fuck Dillahunty, I don't see how you think you're saying anything worthwhile.
MaverickFor44 It wasn't meant to be worthwhile, it was just an old Carlin joke that seemed applicable here.
Well, I think that Carlin could be very funny, especially if he said something that was true but that people usually wouldn't acknowledge. I think that that particular joke was just him being stupid and probably not realizing that he was generalizing based on his surroundings (ie, living in Hollywood, the 'beautiful people' were pro-choice, but if you look at the country as a whole, that doesn't apply). I mean, there's no shortage of hot women who're pro-life, and there are plenty of unattractive ones who're pro-choice. George HW Bush (the father) was once confronted by an angry feminist protesting about abortion who yelled, "Stay out of my uterus." She was a rather large and mannish woman and he said, "Lady, I wouldn't touch your uterus with a 10 foot pole."
Absolutely! Fundamental individual rights supercedes all. I wish these militant "pro-lifers" would get that the mother has rights to her own body. Period!
@@CountSnackula7 Imagine you are connected to other person's body against your will to provide life support with several risks to your health and potentially your life. Do you have the right to refuse to remain in such a condition even if the other person would die if you disconnect? If you can do whatever you want with your body you should have such a right, abortion is essentially the same, just that fetus is not a conscious being yet.
Damn that was intense. That woman with the question about christines video offended her? For one she was warned ahead of time and she went to the event. And 2 why are there kids at this kind of debate? Come on people.
Kristine sounds like she’s about to cry every time she speaks
Sounded like she was trying to convince herself rather than anyone else.
I'm a 2nd year medical student who has a debate on this next week, which I shall be assessed on. I think both sides argued very effectively, and have not yet made my mind up on which side to come down on. Brilliant debate.
Oof. If you think both sides of this debate were in any way equal, I fear for your education.
@@Mmmmiloyou seem like the type of person that struggles with understanding the difference between ‘you’re wrong’ and ‘I disagree with you’
I’d challenge you to think of a single person that has different opinions than you on one topic or many topics, but they’re also smart and make good points. If you can’t think of a single person then I think you have something to work on
The very simple point that Matt was making, and was flatly ignored by Kristine, is that when two people’s rights are in conflict with each other, one of the two parties rights must trump the others. This is the raw uncomplicated fact of the matter. And this is very much granting the worst case scenario, which is at the moment of conception an embryo is granted the status of "Personhood". Given these two persons, the question is who’s rights trump whoms? And more importantly, who is in charge of deciding? What are the criteria for making that decision? That IS the debate. I believe Matt was prepared to make the case that the woman has the greater position of priority, and therefore her rights trump the rights of the single cell embryo. Alas, he never got to make the case because Kristine refused to debate. She instead wasted everybody’s time by lecturing everyone with her opinions on the matter and her own personal world view, a fact that clearly annoyed Matt.
There are plenty of rational reasons why granting personhood status a single cell at the moment of conception is as Matt stated, "Stupid". But that was not what this debate was about. Matt explicitly and repeatedly for the sake of THIS debate, concedes that the status of personhood can be granted at the moment of conception, and it has Zero bearing on his argument. Kristine NEVER answered to Matt's argument. She never at any time spoke to the woman’s rights. So without explicitly saying so, Kirsten in fact ignored Matt's entire argument, as if by not acknowledging his argument it some how negates it. It does not; Kristen did not participate in a debate. Put another way, Kristen could have done exactly the same speech with out the need for Matt to be there. Where Matt delivered an actual debate, Kristine delivered a lecture. You can't win a debate by simply refusing to debate your opponent. From a debate technical standard, Kristine should have lost by a 100% margin for simply refusing to debate. But putting debate standards aside, there are plenty of other reasons Kristine lost this debate.
We must conclude, indeed we are forced to conclude in spite of her refusal to specifically say so, that her view is that the single celled embryos rights trump the rights of the mother. Her entire argument is based completely on this implied assertion. Why then does Kristine imply this assertion instead of stating it plainly? Why are we forced to conclude this on our own? IT'S HUGELY IMPORTANT. Kristine can't state her assertion properly without than being compelled to explain why her assertion should be the case. That is opening a can of worms she is not in any way prepared to handle. The answer is not straight forward and would be difficult to prove in favor of the embryo. By ignoring this point, she has removed her obligation to explain it while at the same time making it the crux of her argument. That is dishonest and is another reason why Kristine loses this debate pretty much 100%. Her position only becomes harder if Matt chooses to argue rather or not an embryo should be granted the designation of "personhood" at the moment of conception. Given the maximum wiggle room, Kristen still utterly fails to establish a rational for curtailing a woman’s right to choose for her what is best.
That is the meat and potatoes of it. But Kristine really goes off the rails when she employs other dishonest tactics, turning this from a bad debate into a venue to lecture the audience about her own world view. The woman that brings up the video as being offensive is absolutely correct. Did the video have something to add to her argument in the way of facts? Or was it purely propagandistic? Clearly, the videos only purpose was to play on the emotional strings of people. People retreat to propaganda and tugging on heart strings when they lack facts to support their unsupportable position. In the same vein, she repeatedly referred to "Decapitation", "Dismemberment" and "Disembowelment" as though this is the way all abortions are carried out, when in fact, such grizzly details are only relevant in cases where abortions are done with a coat hanger in a dingy back office. And when do those types of abortions tend to happen? WHEN THE RIGHT TO A PROPER ABORTION HAS BEEN DENIED!!!!!!!!! Her own video shows a fully intact, non decapitated, non dismembered, non disemboweled abortion. TALK ABOUT IRONY! She is not only using these very graphic words completely out of context, but they are used out of context deliberately to play on emotions rather than the facts, as if it’s not bad enough already to refuse participation in the real debate. Her “argument” is a joke. All those words and wasting everyone’s time just to say, “I don’t like abortion and it’s contrary to my world view”. Ok, thanks for your opinion Kristine, we sure needed another one of those.
Conclusion. Kristine’s lecture only supports the idea that there is no way to rationally justify taking away the right of a mother to choose what’s best for her, based on reason, evidence and facts. Kristine illustrates that the primary justification TO deprive a mother of her right to choose is based purely on emotional pleading, personal values and opinions despite a half hearted attempt to employ the word Science in her defense. Even when an actual scientist in the field called her out as being dead wrong, her strategy was simply to ignore him and repeat the same lies over and over, as though doing so somehow makes the lie true. It does not. She says that she has over 20 text books that state that science agrees that humanity starts at the moment of conception. This is a bastardization of the content of the books, rightly pointed out by the scientist in the audience. She is misrepresenting very much on purpose the information in those books. Does she acknowledge this? No of course not. Her argument depends completely on not acknowledging reality, and dogmatically sticking to her own personal world view. Kristine did not just lose this debate. She absolutely got crushed and all but laughed off the stage. Anyone that thinks her dishonesty and refusal to acknowledge Matt’s entire argument was a brilliant tour de force for the right to life faction are likewise simply refusing to acknowledge anything that does not fall within their own world view. Anyone that has the ability to see things pragmatically has to see Kristine for the sham that she is. This debate (NON DEBATE) did not alter my views on abortion at all. It only strengthened my assertion that the Right to choose is the only correct answer in this fight, and the right to life faction has nothing to offer but emotional pleading and weapons grade bullshit.
Nailed it!
My views are matt's in this debate. Though I disagree with her, she's not stupid. She does make some very good points!
...this woman made the case women are predetermined baby-makers. I am in tears.
When is science going to finally come up with uterine replicators?
Are you really denying the biological fact that women, by virtue of their anatomy are baby-makers?
Why is this controversial? Am I a "pre-determined" food-eater?
Yes. I was given a stomach. Women were given uterus'. They are there for specific biological functions.
Quite apart from the fact that food is essential for the individual's survival, while procreation is not, I am more concerned with the implication that ability equals duty.
@@anonymouscoward2491 Why do you think so?
I figure uterine replicators would work wonderfully, without any negative influence on the fetus' development, or its relationships to its parents. If anything, some mothers will have a better time of connecting to their baby if they have not given birth to it, as there would be no postpartum psychosis or depression.
Now, all of that could work only if we view the decision to have a baby from a replicator as an entirely trivial decision. In other words, if we do not, like you did, jump to catastrophic thinking that even trying this sort of technology out will literally be the end of mankind because it is trying to "override nature". I cannot accept this argument, given that both of us are communicating across time and space, which is unnatural; given that I have survived at least two diseases that should have killed me thanks to modern medicine; given that I have broken the cardinal rule of land animals, and flown in an airplane; etc. "Natural" is a concept which we contrast to "man-made", and thus I am surrounded by unnatural things.
@@saveusmilkboy While procreation is not essential for a woman’s survival, it is essential for the survival of the human species in the same way that the need to eat is essential for the survival of the species (or in other words the need to eat is essential to the survival of every individual of our species.)
Women must give birth for us to survive, this does not mean that each individual woman must have a child but there certainly must be women that do it.
@@williamwalters211 What you said is correct, but how should it inform our current policy towards abortion? How does it address the comments I made about prederemined baby-makers?
When the human species begins to die out due to the unwillingness of women to carry pregnancies to term, I will revisit my opinion on abortion. For now, I strongly support the idea that safe, available abortion is accessible to any person who comes to ask for it before the final trimester, and under special circumstances after that.
Right to bodily autonomy > Right to life.
Mother > unborn offspring.
Yes if you can follow a logical stance in ''bodily autonomy'' so again i will ask.
If a women in a 3rd world country decided that she can let her child starve to death from not breast feeding her child she has every right correct? Because if not then your logical stance of ''bodily autonomy ' does not follow. Because the child who breast feeds is using her body to live and grow correct? I notice when i give pro choicer a example of there logical stance this is where they dont agree lol. Meaning your logic backfiring and you really dont believe in ''autonomy''
***** I do believe in autonomy. I'm not like a lot of Pro-Choicers. I believe in absolute freedom regarding one's own body. So yes, if a female does not wish to feed her offspring using her own body, she should not have to. If the baby proceeds to die, that's unfortunate but justified. Bodily autonomy trumps right to life at the expense of it.
I will never budge on this issue. Anyone who threatens the right to bodily autonomy is my enemy, and I will oppose them with the same unrelenting brutality that they face me with. I have not forgotten what Pro-Lifers have done to heroes like George Tiller, and I will reciprocate with equal savagery. I am a female, but when I reproduce, I am going to encourage any and all of my male descendants to rape Pro-Life females at any and every opportunity they get. You vermin wish to violate my right to reproductive freedom, I will violate yours in turn, and encourage as many other Pro-Choicers as possible to do the same.
To Anti-Choicers everywhere: consider any and all offspring-by-rape fathered by any of my descendants to be my gift to Pro-Lifers everywhere. I hope you see the face of the male who sired them every time you look at them, and that they make your lives a misery and tear your families apart.
*****
You logic is very flawed. We have certain rules in a society and one of those rules is to not let people needlessly die. I think your right to bodily autonomy ends when you decide to not only get pregnant, but have the child. Without these basic rules, humanity would never have survived long enough for you to form your very flawed opinion.
I think abortions should only be given in emergency situations or at least have a limit on the number of abortions someone can have. I say this because one mistake is understandable, 3 really isn't. You have the right to use a condom and other forms of birth control that would take care of this problem.
"Right to bodily autonomy > Right to life."
Really??? So if you had a choice between life and a small loss of bodily autonomy, for one second, then you would choose death??? Death is a PERMANENT choice. Loss of bodily autonomy need only be temporary. And, frankly, that loss of bodily autonomy is how nature works. BY definition, pregnancy ALWAYS results in loss of bodily autonomy. Does that mean we should never have children???
Btw, my personal viewpoint is that a fetus has the genetic code and the ability to become a fully developed human being if it is not killed. Therefore, killing a fetus is killing a human being at an earlier stage in their life. Let's just hypothesize for a minute we create a transporter, like on Star Trek. It disassembles and reassembles the molecules. While in transport, the person operating the transporter decides your molecules are not human, so they toss out your molecules and DNA and keep only your brain on a storage drive. Technically, they didn't kill you, because you were only molecules and information. But isn't that what a fetus is??? A fetus is actually MORE. In fact, it's not just molecules. It's cells and information.
Anyways, just to let you know, I am an agnostic Atheist and a secular humanist. I am just trying to look at this from the most rational and logical viewpoint, and frankly, I don't think EITHER side is doing that at the moment.
ThinkTank255 Btw, my personal viewpoint is that a fetus has the genetic code and the ability to become a fully developed human being if it is not killed.
^you said this
*become* a fully developed human being.
As in, it's not yet a human being, even by your standards.. it's still in-process..
'Not yet' is not in any way, shape, or form the same as 'is'. You want logic, yet you can't even properly use the english language.. or, you are, but you don't even realize what you yourself are saying and already know..
Also, you're treating this as if the only factor at all in a woman's choice to abort is that a fetus or embryo exists to begin with.. which is not at all rational or logical.
There is context, circumstance, that justifies a need to abort, or not.
You're leaving out literally 99% of the story to focus solely on one singular factor that isn't even yet it's own self, according to your own words.
She keeps say "we" like everyone is/should be involved in the decision between the woman and her doctor..
The abortion debate is incredibly fraught with faulty analogies.
A Skeptical Human virtually all analogies are faulty and if one is resorting to one to prove a point, they don't have a very strong point (or aren't arguing it well).
So both pro-choice and pro-life is wrong at the same time? Both sides use analogies to try and prove their points, so neither side must not have a strong point.
Her argument that a kidney is not the same as a uterus is ridiculous as a fetus uses the mother's entire body to live, including her kidneys, heart, lungs, liver etc.
Well no not actually, it doesn’t use every part of her body.
Actually, yes it does to a certain extent. It will literally change the woman's entire body@@pleaseenteraname1103
@@pleaseenteraname1103😂😂😂 what yes it does the mother's whole body is used. How are you this f****** stupid?😂😂😂
@@pleaseenteraname1103 of course it does. All major organs that sustain the body of the woman like the heart, lungs, kidneys, liver and so on are absolutely necessary to sustain the fetus by virtue of keeping the mother alive so that she can keep the fetus in her uterus alive. If a pregnant person experiences biological death, i. e. all cells of her body die and more importantly all of her organs fail then the fetus WILL die along with it. But even further than that I can't think of an organ that doesn't somehow directly participate in keeping the fetus alive and healthy. The heart and lung are pretty obvious as they pump blood with the necessary oxygen in it to the fetus. The kidney, liver and urinary tract get rid of the waste products the fetus produces and they regulate blood composition (i. e. electrolytes and so on) that are also necessary for the fetus. The stomach and digestive system do their usual job of taking up nutrients to feed both the mother and the fetus, therefore they are also participating. The spleen is responsible for renewing the red blood cells in the mothers blood and therefore also in the fetus' blood because that blood will eventually flow into the fetus' body. Furthermore the immune cells in the spleen and anywhere else in the body might very well end up in the fetus' body due to the fact that immune cells are able to pass through the placenta and they also support the fetus by virtue of protecting the mother from disease which can very well kill or hurt the fetus if the immune system would let them. There are plenty of pathogens that can cross the placenta. I would be more interested in an organ that isn't getting used or contributes to the fetus' continual existence.
this isn't even an issue in Sweden :)
+Joakim Nybäck I admired her for debating Matt. She's wrong, but she has Chutzpah.
Sadly, it's a big deal in the US although typically it's the right wing and religious people.
+Joakim Nybäck Yes because it's the issue of the religious, and religious nations are obviously a step behind in morality.
+jhon doe
Correlation is not causation. But statistics depend on good data collection, anyway. Nobody else in the world counts the same way as they do in Sweden.
"In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," according to Klara Selin, a sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention in Stockholm.
II. As everyone who has ever studied criminology knows, in the case of rape, there is insane latency rates. If there is willingness to report rape, the number will skyrocket in any country."
This is why I track murder rates. Let me tell you, Sweden is an incredibly safe country.
+8bit chess I actually think it shows that non religious countries like Sweden are clearly lacking in Moral depth. Kill a human and pretend its good, maybe you need religious people there to challenge that wickedness
lekmon5555 So you are saying that people who don't believe in God lack rationality? Yes or no?
A lot of Kristine(I believe that is how you spell her name)'s analogies are horrible. Most don't even apply to the situation we're talking about:
"I'm on a plane and the pilot has power over me because he is the only one who can fly the plane. He decides he doesn't want me and other passengers on the plane. Can he just kick us out, mid-flight?"
Uh, no, dummy. That situation is completely different from a pregnancy. There is a person INSIDE of another person in a pregnancy. You are NOT inside of the pilot.
"If you're in a boat, about a day or so away from the shore, and you come across a child who has been dumped in the water, you have an obligation to get that child out of the water and take care of them. You have an obligation to let them use your resources."
I actually agree with everything on this one. Yes, you do have an obligation not to let that child die out in the water, but - again - that situation does not apply to pregnancy. In this analogy, the child is not inside of another person.
Bottom line: It doesn't matter what you call the fetus. It doesn't matter if the fetus IS a person and it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive. If it is inside of another person, that person has the right to decide whether or not to keep it there. It would be extremely stupid to take away that right.
If abortion is made illegal, we should have to get permission for every surgery we have. You want to take a tumor out of your own body because it is damaging you? Well, too bad. We're going to have to let a doctor and a judge hash that out. Want to donate your kidney to someone? Too bad; the law says you don't have the right over your own body. It would be unfair to tell women that they don't have the right to decide what is or isn't inside of their own body when everyone else can decide what they do or do not want in theirs.
right on girl! being a man and pro choice here and ive always wondered why men werent more empathetic towards a woman, i bet that if men knew what nine months of pregnancy and 12 hours of labor were like i firmly believe that abortion would be 100% legal without question, a pro life slogan is "the body inside your body is NOT your body" my response: neither of the bodies are yours to begin with hypocrites!
Exactly! Great response :)
It does matter if its alive! A tumor isnt. So that example is stupid! Plain Stupid
The fetus didnt on his own will arrive to the uterus of the woman, so who is actually RESPONSIBLE?
Donnating a kidney doesnt really apply either to an acurate analogy, because you are never going to get your kidney back.
Aborting a child that you didn't plan for IS being responsible. You acknowledge the situation you are in and take care of it to the best of your ability.
And it really doesn't matter if it is alive or not. It is inside of another person. Both the mother and the child have equal rights; the child may have a right to life, but the mother's right to decide what does and does not happen to her body allows her to take the child out of her body, even if it means killing it. The child may have a right to life, but it doesn't have a right to be born. It's right to life is the same as everyone else's right to life: we live until we die. So the child is living in the mother's body until the mother decides she doesn't want it there anymore and has an abortion. It DID live, it just wasn't born.
*****
Really? How so?
One of the the few things I disagree with Matt on is where he said: "Pregnancy is something that happens to women which they have no control over." (Paraphrasing) You can choose whether or not to have unprotected sex, unless you're raped.
John DinDompa Perhaps Matt was referring to the fact that every method of contraception has a failure rate. Heck....even abstinence....just ask the [former] Virgin Mary.
Sharon Diehl Do you think it's fair for someone to be forced to drop out of school, get a job, and raise a child they created, but don't want, Sharon?
***** As a citizen of the United States of America, I have the same basic civil rights and liberties as a male in this country, which includes medical privacy and the right to make all medical decisions concerning my body. It is none of anyone's business. but the woman herself, whether she wishes to gestate or not. PERIOD. Females are not obligatory brood mares.
John DinDompa Matt cleared this up in a facebook post. By involuntary, he meant that women cannot necessarily choose to become pregnant, as some women will not get pregnant even if they try while other women will get pregnant even with using the safest contraceptive methods out there (not including abstinence of course...)
taledarkside can't imagine what your opinion is worth then.
Listening to this debate the second time, I find it even harder to take Kristine seriously. It's all very well to be pro life and to call an embryo a human being, but how does a person like Kristine think this protection of an embryo's right to existence could actually work? What she is saying is the embryo has the right to grow in the body of a woman, even if it was conceived through rape, or incest, or a faulty condom, or stupidity. What she's also saying, is that a woman who has already several children and can barely cope, has no right to terminate another unwanted pregnancy. She says that a human being begins to exist at the time of conception, and that therefore that at any time of gestation, an embryo has the right to live, and it is responsibility of he woman, (who after all has an uterus for this purpose) to bring a pregnancy full term. This means according Kristine, all women, regardless if they were raped, or are too young to be a mother, or have been impregnated by a family member, or have already given birth to ten or more children, must carry an embryo to full term and give birth. So what she is advocating is to make abortions illegal again. I don't think that Kristine has thought about the consequences of making abortions illegal. Granted that women are less likely to commit suicide, as they have done in the past, the fact remains that women will have abortions, legal, or not. So what is going to happen if we make abortion illegal? I don't think I have to give an answer here, because we all know what is going to happen - and one of things not going to happen, is less abortions. I think Kristine is dangerously naive about her pro-life way of thinking. Now I would think more highly of her, if she was to say, ok I realise having a child means responsibility for the rest of your life, all you have to do is carry the human being in your uterus, (made for this kind of stuff) and after you've given birth I take over and do all that is required for this human being for the rest of it's life.
+Christa Stempel So we should make murder legal then? Because people are always gonna keep murdering each other. The fact that horrific things happen regardless of legislation is not a valid reason to make them legal.
I think the bald guy had already lost the argument when he conceded that a fetus is a person; because the "boat analogy" that Kristie puts forward is impossible to refute if you concede that a fetus is a person. If someone abandons a newborn let's say in your cabin, just because you didn't consent to have the child there and take care of it doesn't give you the right to slit its throat, or chop it into pieces , or bathe it in chemicals.
+David Espinoza hi David, thank you for your reply. I already wrote a lengthy reply to Kristine, so I really do not want to repeat the same things over. All I can say to you is, if we make abortions illegal again, we are not preventing abortions, we will just push them underground again. We really need to think as a society about what is going to happen to unwanted children. Or, what do you want to do? Perhaps tell people that should not fuck unless they are prepared to not only bring a pregnancy to term _ which of course only applies to women_ but to be parents to the child for as long as they live? I am just saying because we all know that contraceptives do not always work, and not all people in this world have access to contraception. But here is another solution, everybody from the age of being able to produce children, could be sterilised. I suggest we start with boys, not girls, since a vasectomy is so much easier than a sterilisation of girls.
+Christa Stempel you haven't answered the question. If someone abandons a newborn in your cabin, do you think you have the right to kill it just because you didn't consent to having it there? I don't know if you think that a fetus is a person or not, but the bald guy didn't fight that point, if you concede that a fetus is a person you have already lost the debate.
2) Sex should be an adult activity which all the risks that it entails. If you believe that a fetus is a person then not killing it is the only moral choice; beyond that, women have been giving children for adoption for a long time now.
3) Not even vasectomies are 100%, so that wouldn't be an option either, what is an option is educating people as much as you can.
+Christa Stempel I just read your answer to Kristine, you say : "a fetus has no conscious thought of a life, and it does not know if it is a life worth living. " So, this leads me to believe that killing a newborn is also OK, since a newborn also doesn't have a conscious thought of a life. Am I correct in assuming that?
+David Espinoza, hi David. I'm sorry I haven't answered your question, but I shall try and answer it now, plus respond to point 2 and 3. If I found a child abandoned in my 'cabin', I would take care of it immediately. I would then inform the police and would hope that they would do everything to find out why there is a newborn left in my 'cabin'. I would not just give the newborn over to social services, which I would be legally bound to do, but I would find out what is actually happening to the child. No, I don't think a fetus is a person. A fetus is what is evolving from a female egg and a male sperm, within the uterus of a female. Yes David, life is in every cell of the human body, and when sperm and egg meets, life begins in a more complex form. You got the wrong person to attack here, because I don't want any woman to have an abortion, but I have no right to tell another woman not to abort as long as it is within the legal period. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Abortions will occur wether we like it or not. The problem is that if we make abortions again illegal, we are forcing them underground, and that is not a solution. What has occurred in the past when abortions were illegal, was that not only the fetus was killed, but the mother often died because of complications. It is just not that easy to say, let's protect potential life. If it was that easy, I would say by all means, let's protect potential life. As to your number 2. Sex SHOULD be an adult activity, with all the risks it entails? Now you give me an answer to this question, WHY SHOULD sex be an adult activity? Is there a rule that says 'all adults SHOULD have sex'? This is more ridiculous than saying to women, if you are not willing to bring a pregnancy to full term, than don't have sex. And to your number 3. As far as I know Vasectomies work 100%. But that is not the issue. I was obviously being facetious when I talked about sterilisation. Of course that can not be a solution, although I really wish that some people would consider this very seriously.
Off topic, but just wanted to thank you for yet another quote to use. ("Of course it wouldn't hurt you if I killed you in your sleep, but It would cause immense suffering to your friends and family.") You really make a great point. Killing another human life involves more people than just the mother. I'll be referencing your wisdom with others. Thanks again for the material. ;)
Matt's arguments are far superior to the poorly thought out arguments from Kristine.
When she talked? Haha jkjk
I wish Matt had pointed out the differences between a human and a human being. He would have won the debate within the first 10 minutes.
By definition, an embryo is human from conception, because the egg and sperm are both from humans.
A human being however, must be born.
So glad Kristina now wants abortion to be legal!!
If a human being has to be born, then is a fetus a human being 2 days before pregnancy? It is identical to the baby that will be born.
42:05 - very impressive hook-line-and-sinker argument :) well played Matt.
I'm sorry to say but I don't see how this was a "gotcha" moment. He "proved" that an embryo and a born human are not the same - he did NOT prove that an embryo is not a human. Every human is different - but still human. She didn't deny that, and she pointed out in fact that children are different than adults, but no one considers these differences to be a justification for "terminating" one and not the other. So then why is a fetus ok to terminate?
@@RoyFlush716 Because it demonstrates a clear flaw and fallacy in her argument. If an embryo is considered human, and a human is considered human, she's okay with freezing an embryo "human" provided its "used". Could we not do the same for humans?
She disagreed with this, demonstrating a case of special pleading for an embryo under the guise of "they're younger", which one can say the same exact distinction exists between an humam adult and a human child. Both are considered human.
Definitely a "gotcha" moment.
@@lyndonbauer1703 But you can freeze an embryo without killing it. You cannot (yet) freeze an adult with the same result.
She seems to use alot of emotionally charged language, examples, and arguments. Even the video she played to demonstrate the different stages had music in background that serves to emotionally manipulate the audience.
I would ask Kristine "If you had a daughter and she had 3 kids, got pregnant again and decided to have an abortion because she was unable to take care of the child. Would you take her to court and try to put her in jail?"
+Maximiliano Mendes *That was PZ Meyers and his crew treating her badly. Other atheists were NOT treating her badly*
Pure logic and objective legal basis, versus dishonest appeals to emotion. And I expected the "secular" pro-life would make at least a solace of sense... What was I thinking. This bollocks makes "god says so" a tangible argument.
Honestly, I'm with Matt 100% In my book, a fetus isn't a person until the cord is cut. The woman' rights rank far higher than the unborn.
Exactly because she is the producer
Appeals to emotion. Strawmanning Matt. Ignoring valid points. We sure she isn't a theist?
Apparently the group who sent her is a secular pro life group. They threw her under the bus on this. As far as i know, she changed her stance after the debate.
the reason that the woman in the "violinist" story can sever the tubes without violating the violinist’s dignity is because he does not have a "right not to die". The tubes are an extraordinary means of preserving his life, and he is not entitled to extraordinary life-saving measures. However, the woman may not stab the man in the heart and only then sever the tubes. In this case, she would be violating his dignity because he has a right not to be killed. This latter scenario most closely resembles an abortion, in which the fetus is ripped or burned to death while still in the womb and only then removed.
So special rights to use someone's body without their consent then...
It's the morality vs. legality question. I feel personally feel that a woman has a moral obligation to provide for her unborn child, but I generally don't support legislation that would enforce my moral evaluations upon another person.
I like when Matt said that pregnancy is the process of changing from non-personhood to personhood or something to that effect. I think the morally correct standard of justification for terminating pregnancy increases over the course of the pregnancy. At the beginning, that standard is very very low, and I think neurological development has to be one of the primary considerations. In the first 5 weeks (before the brain develops) I see it as morally acceptable to terminate the pregnancy for any reason, even simply a desire on the part of the mother to avoid the risk and inconvenience of pregnancy.
On the other extreme, when the fetus is viable without extreme medical intervention and stands a good chance of leading a healthy and normal life, I find it morally reprehensible to willfully end its life under any circumstances. At 34 weeks this standard is clearly met and I would support abortion being equivalent to murder. My daughter was born at 34-35 weeks 16 years ago and is completely normal with no ongoing health problems, and she required very modest medical intervention when she was born.
In between those two extremes is a large moral grey area, but I would draw the line at 24 weeks on the basis that there is compelling evidence of the fetus's ability to feel pain at that point, so I would support making abortion illegal in such cases except when continuing poses a clear and serious threat to the mother's life in the professional opinion of a board-certified MD, AND in those cases measures to mitigate the fetus's pain should be required. There are few situations that I can imagine that would warrant such action, but I'm guessing they do exist.
Sonny Patterson Quite well thought out amigo, and very well said.
Sonny Patterson Now if you ''draw the line' it goes back on a contradicting stance of the pro choice stance because no matter when you kill this innocent human being it is morally a immoral act or not. it cant be ''after so so time'' because no matter when you kill the unborn its killing the unborn from the 1st month to the last month.
The only difference is the stage of development of this human being and if we can kill someone who is less developed then anyone can kill anyone from this logic.
The problem with the pro choice side is they cant follow logical reason why we can kill a human being and prove any contradictions in their stance.
***** Agree a pure pro-choice standpoint has problems, and risks putting a zero value on life.
A pure pro-life standpoint can also have logical and moral problems -- e.g., banning contraception seems to take the idea of the sanctity of life into the realm of the absurd. It also risks putting a zero value on freedom.
However, the 'Line' is drawn based on two competing and fundamental rights -- the right to life, and the right to decide one's creation of life. We need to consider both life and freedom, whatever we decide.
>>>I agre on the point where we need to care about the mother but the problem is showing that we care does not mean she should have the right to kill her child .
***** i respect that view.
33:40 - so why do I not have my mother's uterus now? It doesn't belong to me, and never did. The very fact that the child becomes separate from the mother's uterus at birth demonstrates that the uterus belongs to the mother, not the child. She has made a fallacious argument here.
Neither does a child own his parents home. However if the parents evict a child from his home when he cannot survive on his own and the child dies, are the parents not responsible for the childs death?
@@dannielz6 replace evicted with won't donate a kidney by her argument you wpukd have to strap the parent down and remove there kidney or do fetuses get special rights because emotional waaah waah argument?
@@dannielz6 only if the parents have custody of the child, and that is because they have freely chosen to have custody over that child and therefore legally promised to see to its welfare. that's a function of custodial law, not parenthood. plenty of people have custody of other people who are not their children, and plenty of parents don't have custody over their children. you are conflating apples with oranges.
This is a tough issue and I agree with Matt that the sides might be irreconcilable. As a atheist I fall into the category of being pro contraception, pro the morning after pill and pro abortion up to a point. I do not have the religious dogma and baggage to say those things are wrong because of a god. However after this point I do not know where the boundaries between a fertilized egg and a human, 1 week, 6 weeks, 10 weeks...? For me this is the central part that I admit I really struggle with. I am for choice of the woman to control her own body but at what point does society decide to step in. I just don't know. This is a profound moral issue and even the most strongest advocates of abortion struggle with it. There are no absolutes here, no winners, only losers in a desperate situation.
Oners82 Well because I do not see a single cell fertilized egg as a human there obviously needs to be a place where we draw the line somewhere between there and birth. When do we say that with this bundle of cells yes it's ok to abort or no it's not. My view is that it should be earlier that 20 weeks but where? Do we distinguish on a case by case basis and if we do what is the criteria?
Also there is a distinction between elective abortion and medical reasons for abortion. The medical reasons will necessarily be later, for example if the woman's life was in danger.
At least you are willing to speak the absolute truth about aborting unborn infants. As Kristine accurately said: "If killing an unborn isn't controversial and certainly a critical decision,,, then there would be NO DEBATE!!! So, the fact that the matter had to go right up to the supreme court! And the court said,, we are staying away from that issue! Let the states handle it! So,, abortion is and has always been the stopping of the development of an individual human being from coming full term! Also,, remember this fact,, every doctor MUST fill out a DEATH CERTIFICATE for every abortion! Why? Because the life of an unborn child, was ended! That's how simple the issue really is! Complication comes people trying to insist on what they want to have happen in life! All issues in life have solutions,, but do we always want to pay the price for honesty?!?! Bottom line,,, people suck!!! All of us can be Saints,,, and/or,,, Sinners!!!
Oners82 Sorry - I'm not sure what the point was you were raising. Can you be more clear?
Oners82
You are lucky that we allow you to drool out comments here on youtube. You really do suck, don't you!?! If you can't see what drives people to have abortions,, you'll progress from ape to human! What the fuuuck is wrong with you??? Maybe I can shake up the few living brain cells in your noggin,,, first off,,, you have to look at abortion at the other end of it,, not at the beginning, numbnuts! The absolute proof that abortion kills humans, NOT BABIES,,, OOH,,, I SEE YOU FOAMING AT THE MOUTH NOW,,,,! WHAT ABORTION DOES IS KILL THE MAN OR WOMAN THAT WOULD CERTAINLY COME FROM THE BABY,, GET IT??? ASSLICKER! OR,, HAS YOUR LAST BRAIN CELL JUST GONE OUT?!?! THERE IS NO ABORTION DEBATE, IDIOT FROM HELL!!!! WE CAN TALK AND SQUAWK AND BALK TILL YOU DEVELOP FROM A CHUMPANZEE,, TO,, A HYENA,,, WHICH WON'T DO MUCH FOR THE HYENA'S,,,,,!
Oners82 I agree with you but where is the point to set that marker? Like I said I am ok with the things like the morning after pill but at 20 weeks I am less convinced.
In her opening, Kristine insists that the differences (though large) between an embryo and a new born baby are no different than the differences between a newborn and an adult 22:55 . Then when asked "what about freezing embryos" 42:05 she flip-flops saying "it's because they're younger...they're younger". Her argument doesn't even hold up to her own standards and beliefs.
Hands down, she is the worst debater I’ve seen. It doesn’t help she’s up against one of the best.
One of the best? Doesn’t sound like you actually listened...
Matt , I couldnt agree more with. It's your body , not anyone else s. What a person chooses to do with their body is totally their own
+Alex Griffin What about the little tiny body of another human being? Should they not get the choice on whether they should live or die?
nope
Alex Griffin Well, I guess that is where you're wrong.
thats your opinion. And many agree with me, like the law . So I guess you are wrong in the end
+infernocanuck That little tiny body doesn't have desires or feelings. It's not a person, yet.
*_MATT AGREES: WE are BIOLOGICALLY HUMAN at CONCEPTION!_*
44:34 "If you're going to define 'human' as biological then we are biological from the instant of conception." (See also 1:05:33)
*_MATT AGREES FETUS has SAME RIGHTS as the MOTHER!_*
45:52 Unborn humans "have, I would say, equal bodily rights as the woman."
Therefore, no woman can take away the unborn human's rights by killing the child.
Did you even fucking listen? Yes, the fetus has equal bodily rights as the woman and all humans. And since no human is allowed to use someone else's body without their consent, then neither is the fetus. I can't take a kidney away from you without your consent, and if you just can't use a woman's body without hers. Same bodily rights. That has been his argument from the beginning if you would actually listen.
ZeiggleBear I did listen & yet he is still wrong. That argument is wrong. Why? Because regardless of cause, a mother can't drown her 1yr old baby for the same reason -- society holds her accountable & responsible for caring for her child. If she doesn't want to then she can take the steps to legally separate herself from it & abdicate her parental rights & put the baby up for adoption. Every human being, regardless of age (1 hour old or 1yr old) is entitled to life. So the argument fails both legally & morally.
Rey Nahpets because the born child isn’t dependable on the mother and her organs, a fetus is lmao, you really don’t listen do you
There is no right to use someone's body so you can survive. So Matt is still correct
Which was already corrected in the video. An abortion is not taking away the rights of a fetus. Because of fetus doesn't have the right to use somebody else's body against their will
Well, I'm not saying that Matt won, but I'm pretty sure Kristine lost.
Matts performance was sub par compared to other debates he's been in. Though he made some very good points I had not previously heard of, he failed to adequately expose some of the more obvious fallacies in pro-life arguments.
The commonly used SLED acronym strikes me as probably being the most obvious missed opportunity for Matt as an argument to pick apart.
In the context of distinguishing the difference between persons and human beings, we are not talking about "level of development," we are talking about "sentience" on a base level, and "consciousness" on a more deeper level. Likewise, we are not talking about "dependency," but rather "autonomy." A fetus, especially those that are unviable, removed from the life support provided by the body of the mother and left alone in a room will die in a very short time period. An infant on, the other hand, left alone in a room for even an extensive length of time will at the worst, get hungry. The L and D refutations against differentiating between "persons" and "human beings" are straw men.
***** You're like a super lawyer finding various ethical loopholes to make it ethically awesome to abort unborn baby girls and boys.
*****
Nice straw man dip shit. Fuck off.
***** A fallacy ? please give me a example . Because i can give you a list of fallacy, illogical, and contradiction the pro choice side gives.
*****
_A fallacy ? please give me a example_
Let's start with the "pro-life" logic chain.
The "pro-life" logic chain typically works out to be something like the following:
(Human) life begins at conception.
Humans have a right to life.
Abortion should be illegal because it ends a human life.
In an intellectually honest debate, terms must be defined and ultimately agreed upon in order for any truths to be discovered. The terms "life," "human," "person," and "being" are all fairly vague and typically get thrown around by both sides of the reproductive rights debate without having any sort of meaning formally attached to them. The term "Life" is especially ambiguous as it has over 20 definitions listed in most dictionaries. Since "pro-life" is the group making the positive claim that "life begins at conception," the burden of proof is on them to provide evidence that supports this claim, first by defining what they mean by "life" and then by explaining how this definition should inform how rights should be applied in the real world.
_Because i can give you a list of fallacy, illogical, and contradiction the pro choice side gives._
I'm sure you can, pro choicer's say a lot of stupid shit.
***** I think failing to point out the naturalistic fallacy in Kristine's uterus argument was perhaps the most glaring. Just annoying that the audience ends up having to dissect her premise instead of the arguer.
She has very poor listening skills. Three or four times Matt said "personhood is irrelevant" and she STILL tried "w-well he's right IF...!"
No, he's right regardless.
@@anonymouscoward2491 Yes it is. My rights do not end so a fetus can get special privilege. Morality has nothing to do with my right to my own fucking body. And morality IS subjective, a glance at history proves that to be true.
@Kick With Nick People talk about the fetus getting special privileges to use a woman's body without her consent like it was the will of the fetus to enter the womb and use it as an usurper. The fetus is in there as a direct result of the couple's actions. Yes, not all sexual relationships are meant to end in pregnancy, but it is a potential result, one the couple is responsible for, and I'm talking about both man and woman to make it very clear. In which other situation they grant rights to someone to use someone else's body against their will they ask. I wonder in which other situation do we grant the right to someone to terminate the life of an innocent?
@@alejandrovillalba3143 It IS a special privilege to force someone to harbor it for 9 months when it doesn't even HAVE a will. Getting an abortion IS taking responsibility. Just one people are uppity about because it's all about controlling women. I've yet to hear of a decent argument that doesn't end in taking women's rights away.
Also, consent to sex IS NOT consent to carrying a pregnancy to term
@@anonymouscoward2491 i derive my morality on the well being of others. Basically, I care
@@anonymouscoward2491 You fail to understand how morality being subjective works and it's painful to see you try SO HARD to pretend like you need someone to tell you something you should have a natural ability to determine. Honestly, that's sad and I almost want to pity you. Your lack of humanity doesn't get to dictated the choices of others. Her rights aren't stripped because of your lack of humanism.
Would like to mention, I don't like or support abortion(I can't take away people's choice to have one).
But I'll admit that Kristine did terrible in this debate.
She said if the baby is human, Matt's argument fails. No one argues that it's not human, it's whether or not it's alive.
Also, Whether or not you're pro life or pro choice, the definition of abortion is pre term termination of a pregnancy.
Whether or not it's alive? Of course it's alive, you scientific illiterate. The purpose of abortion is to kill and evacuate a living embryo or fetus. You can't kill the dead.
There is a massive hole in Kristine's logic, as Matt pointed out "This argument assumes that all sex is consensual and all sex is consent to pregnancy", she is unintentionally advocating that raped women should be forced to have their rapists child unless it would kill the woman to give birth, and all women should be forced to birth an unplanned child, weather or not they were actively trying to avoid getting pregnant or not, like if the condom breaks or the man lied about having been "Snipped". This almost literally turns women into cattle, just like they were 5000 years ago. I really wish people would think their own arguments though before they make them.
Eden Grey And your point is? No one is saying that sex and pregnancy aren't intrinsically linked, what i am saying is that we should not remove the rights of women to do what they want with their own bodies. I'm going to flesh out your logic here, let me know if i miss something: Sex is both required for pregnancy and is it's purpose, therefor anytime a woman willingly has sex, they are also agreeing to get pregnant if that does in fact happen, and they should not be allowed to prevent said pregnancy because they agreed to have sex. And i presume they are also agreeing to carry said pregnancy to term, correct?
Eden Grey Abstinence is the best way? Tell that to Texas, oh wait...Highest rate of "repeat" teen pregnancy, oops, maybe they're just doing it wrong? - That wasn't relevant, i just like poking fun at Texas! xD
No it doesn't, but your missing the point, we are not talking about a child that is already born, we are talking about a clump of cells that isn't even a person yet. I fully agree that she shouldn't kill it, if she can't support it, put it up for adoption, not that that's much better mind you.
"Freedom comes with responsibility, and rights come with obligations", indeed they do, but so what? Abortion IS taking responsibility for a child and what YOU think is an obligation doesn't make it so. "Right To Life" does not apply simply because it is far to inflexible of a sentiment, a nice one, but utterly useless, under this blanket statement raped women will be forced to birth and care for their rapist child, married couples will never be able to get intimate without bringing a child into the family and teens will be forced to throw away their whole lives for a single mistake. And you think this is an adequate system? I think not.
No no, i didn't say there is a right to sex, i am saying that there is a right to choice. I see, so you value the supposed rights of a potential human over the rights of an already established, fully mature human being, no matter what circumstances this adult may be in?
I'm sorry, but children are a choice, the parents choose when, where, how and with whom them make a child, some even go as far as to choose the sex of said child by aborting the sex they do not want, i do not agree with that, but who am i to dictate what others do with their own bodies? In fact, who are "You" to dictate what people can and cannot do with their own bodies?
Again, i'm sorry but...You really have no idea what your talking about. People said the exact same about many other things before abortion, and they were dead wrong, we have no reason to believe that this is any different, besides, abortion is what will destroy us? Not how we treat those of us that are already here? Or fucking with the planet? None of that? Your just worried about abortion? I honestly can't help but think your just another painfully ignorant Christian throwing his/her opinion around as if it should be law.
Eden Grey I would like links to multiple studies that support your blind assertion that crime has risen by a factor of four since abortion was legalized. I would also like links to charts of crime rates since at least the 1950's to now for cross referencing.
You are the one that claimed it, i am not going to do your work for you.
Eden Grey Really? You claim that crime has increased due to abortion and you link me to articles talking mainly about single parents? I mean, i'm not complaining or anything, your doing my job for me, but that's not fun for me! xD
You do not address whether another human being is killed or not in an abortion.
@1:06:14 Matt conceded his whole argument. Abortion is not a demonstration of responsibly and is actively killing a human being. Kristine called him out on it; Matt's argument IS NOT independent of person-hood.
Pro choice is the better, more logical position.
exactly. if the foetus is not fully developed or viable and not born it is being produced by the womans body so they should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy.
21:20 she has no clue how to describe gametes and zygote thus making a false comparison of a gamete to an embryo. LOL
I am not against abortion. However, I think that the attempt at dehumanizing the foetus is arbitrary and used for convenience. If no one knows when a entity starts to be human, on what grounds do we prohibit murder of people of any age ? Who's to say we don't start being ''human'' at age 40 ? We should have compassion for women who have unwanted pregnancies but at the same time we should not be so cavalier when talking about the life of the unborn...
Well we aren't concious for the first 6 months so that's a pretty good starting point.
HobbsO Of course the killing of life that is not conscious (and I don't know to what degree and with what precision we can determine if life is conscious or not) may be less morally reprehensible. The killing of a 5 week old lump of cells will probably create less suffering on all sides than the killing of a 25 year old adult. But if consciousness is the only factor, does that mean killing an adult in his sleep ( in deep sleep when consciousness disappeared) is less morally reprehensible than killing it in it's walking state ?
Marc Soucie
You're equivocating. You are comparing something that has lost conciousness to something that has never been concious. Something that has had experiences and thoughts to something that has not.
HobbsO Infants are also not conscious. They are obviously alive.
HobbsO I don't think I am equivocating. Unconsciousness is the same wether you are 40 years old, or 2 weeks old. The context of this unconsciousness is different (and my last comment did recognize this difference) but the absence of consciousness is qualitatively the same. The point I was making is that the degree of consciousness is a factor in the question of abortion but cannot be the only indicator of personhood...
I'm surprised the point that human tissue is not a human being. There is a logical line where abortion shouldn't occur, but because that line hasn't gained 100% consensus doesn't mean there isn't a line.
Why are you surprised by the statement that human tissue isn't a human being? Your skin is human tissue, but if you scrape your knee and human tissue gets ripped off and dies, it's not a human that dies. It's just human tissue that dies.
the problem with Kristines ENTIRE argument is that it is a "what if" and "an embryo/fetus is A human".
we don't make laws on what if's.
and an embryo/fetus is not A human, it is human, but it is not A human yet. and I don't mean that in the sense of A-typical etc. I'm just emphasizing the letter.
It is actually a complete human. It's a full human early in human development.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 how early in development?
@@steven6986 the second an egg is fertilized it becomes a complete human unit. Because that is exactly what it is, albeit at the earliest possible stage.
@@steliosconstantinides3459 not scientifically its not, its just a fertilized egg, and after that it will be nothing more than a cluster of cells for quite some time. It will be literal months after conception before it is actually a viable human.
Also, most fertilized eggs don't attach to the cell wall of the womb and are flushed out during a womens period, so is that considered a miscarriage, an abortion, or just a natural body function?
@@steven6986 A fertilized egg actually is a complete human at the earliest possible point. It is a complete fertilized human egg. This is undeniable and scientifically rigid. Are you saying it is not a complete human fertilized egg?
That would be a natural human death as part of the natural human development process. Its kind of like how people die at old age because thier body decays, only in these cases the death is caused by a different natural factor in human development.
So why is your position on abortion that women should be able to get them? Is it that nobody has the right to end a human life, but a fertalized human egg is not a human nor is an embryo or a fetus up until a point, so abortion should be legal up until a certain point in a pregnancy. Or is it that nobody has the right to use someone's body against their own will, so abortion should be allowed up until pregnancy?
Kristine never left her strawman that Matt and science say that the fertilized egg is fully human. She wouldn’t address his argument of bodily autonomy. I’m glad Matt got to address her hypotheticals of the baby on the boat and the broken window. Gave Matt a chance to put Kristine’s argument in proper context.
And Kristine rebuttaled every point he made. Lol
I know. I can't believe we are such a narrow minded society that we would have laws at all that control our actions. I mean I want the right to punch someone in the face if they piss me off. Or if I see something I want and should have the right to just take it. What a messed up world we live in.
I love atheists so much. Kristine admitted that embryos do not feel pain and Matt concedes that embryos and fetuses are human beings. Why can't everyone in this debate be more like this. And every debate. I just love atheists.
Matt did not concede that it is a human being as in a “person”. He states that even if this were the case, his argument still stands.
@@Aisatsana1971 I meant more that it is human and it is a being, I think he clearly does not think it is a person... Just juxtaposing to activists whom I have heard scream at the top of their lungs that a fetus is not human.
@@Aisatsana1971 well Matt 🎸 standard of what constitutes a person is complete arbitrary nonsense.
1:02:20 Matt says, "If you put a baby on my front porch, I'm not obligated to take care of it"
to which Kristine says, "Yes but you are obligated to not kill them."
And Matt agrees "yes, you are obligated to not kill them."
Can somebody please explain why this admission doesn't undo his entire argument?
pregnancy is hardly similar to "putting a baby on my front porch".
you do not have the right to harm anyone that is not infringing your bodily autonomy. but once someone does that, you have the right to do what you can to get yourself out of that situation.
Because a baby (which implies BIRTH) isn't a fucking fetus. I'm not required to care about a parasitic clump of cells using my body.
Well stated good man!
I mean think about it. The analogy is about a baby, obviously born and no longer using the mothers body so in the eyes of the law it has rights guaranteed to it. The situation has changed entirely. It doesn't undermine anything matt says earlier on.
The baby on ones front porch is not using somebodies body, overriding their personal autonomy.
i wish matt was an astrophysicist so he could host the next cosmos :p he makes his points so clearly !
35:53 "Autonomy for nine months verse the life of the fetus forever". Boy oh boy. Kristine seems like she means well, but to downplay pregnancy as just a quick little thing that happens for nine months and is over right after birth is so wrong. I'm in the minority here, but as a trans man, if I were ever to get pregnant, it wouldn't be me sacrificing nine months of autonomy. It would be sacrificing my body, mental health or even life for good. Even thinking about pregnancy makes me sick to my stomach. Without an abortion, I do not think I would be able to survive nine months of pregnancy.
I think if Bill Nye can go three hours without calling Ken Ham an idiot or saying that he is full of shit, then this lady deserves at least that level of respect.