Debating abortion with Dr. Avi. This was by far my hardest abortion debate yet and I ended up conceding that in some circumstances abortion is immoral.
This is how debates were intended to be, arguments and counter arguments in a civilized fashion. The unwise have ruined this structure. Great video man
Yeah. Not many people can disagree without disregarding each other completely these days. These two actually listened to each other, and didn't take offense...if more of us did this, maybe we could work together and actually make the world a better place.
@Jon Kozak yeah debating so many retards makes Richard look like a genius but he’s just a guy capable of using logic. I appreciate him more after watching this though, it’s refreshing to see a conversation between honest individuals.
@@SamuelMM_Mitosis Still going through it, seemed like he was arguing like a carnist at one point. It's a casual activity that everyone does tho and i don't care of the sentience of the being.
@Alexander G If you aren’t joking about that then you’re pretty stupid. Going by that logic you could kill anything that stood in the way of monetary gain.
@@sphumelelesijadu So I’m curious, in what context to you would it be considered okay to kill a mentally handicapped person? Also after a sentient being reaches a certain lack of that sentience, at what point does it become invaluable?
I think he got through simply because he related it to veganism in an intelligent way. Others have said similar things but Avi always brought the conversation back to the issue at hand and kept the debate focused
@Vegan Gains I'm a fan, I've supported you from day 1, you inspired me to go vegan 5.5 years ago, but I have to say, your narrow-minded, short-sighted, simplistic summation of parenthood makes you sound like a basic little shit. You don't know how your views may change the very first time you look into your child's eyes. Love you man, big fan.
I think the major fallacy in this debate is actually at the onset - comparing a growing fetus to “someone who has reached sentience” as it relates to a person in a coma. I don’t actually think they’re the same thing. Personhood vs potential for consciousness. Potentiality is too vague on its face to make this comparison. So you would obviously be stuck if you’re allowing the comparison to even be considered in the first place. This is why it becomes a discussion of viability rather than potentiality.
Technically any atom has the potential to be part of something sentient at some point. The line drawn at how much percent chance of sentience in the future is morally important is completely arbitrary. Using this view to oppose abortion is completely philosophically inconsistent.
@@paifu. exactly! And VG is automatically forced into a corner out the gate and has to argue his way out of a position that he may not even necessarily agree with to being with.
@@paifu. I may not be understanding you stance here correctly but to me this makes no sense. So in your opinion, any atom has the potential to be part of something sentient (not sure why that matters, were not talking about atoms being destroyed, rather a developing fetus). Then you say, drawing the line at how likely the fetus is to be sentient is completely arbitrary? How so? It makes much greater sense to abort at an early enough stage that the fetus has not become sentient. This is even part of obvi's 4 rules set at the beginning, if it has not had the chance of being sentient prior, then its acceptable to abort.
Hi Chocolatier and others who think this difference ends up working to support the pro choice position (lol nope, not a fallacy, and no it doesn't save the pro choice view), all of you are more than welcome to debate me on it in the discord.
I really don't understand this. His entire argument seemed to hinge upon the notion that getting an abortion is violating the autonomy of the fetus but how can a fetus that isn't even sentient be said to have autonomy? His argument that it's somehow still wrong to get an abortion even for people who were trying to take measures to reduce the risk of pregnancy and be responsible is equally bewildering since the entire premise of his main argument was about bringing another supposedly sentient and autonomous fetus into existence through carelessness is immoral. In any case, I will always value the sentience and autonomy of an established being and the suffering that would be inflicted upon them by forcing them to do things with their body that they don't want done with their body over any supposed negligible degree of sentience and autonomy of a speck of dividing cells.
@Ask Yourself’s Grandfather yeah and that makes 0 sense. A previously autonomous being is still non sentient in its current state so why is that valued. The line starts at conception for me. Potential sentience of a living being is just as equal to me as present sentience. What even is sentience?
@Shannon Hurley sentience comes much earlier then with a 'fully' developed CNS, it comes at the same time as the CNS..the moment it has developed any it has some sentience, and no it has nothing to do with 'force' it has to do with responsibility, you are not responsible for other people, you are responsible for the sentience you create however, so unless you are giving body parts to people you created this is a false analogy
@Shannon Hurley brain is one of the very first thing to start developing and that wasn't my logic at all, you attributed opinions to me and then strawmaned them, and that after mockingly saying 'if you think life matters' ... i talked about responsibility, you somehow misconstrued that into 'me thinking that life matters'.. try responding to what i am saying instead of what i am not saying also 'blatantly sexist' LOL source needed, you take responsibility for your actions he can take responsibility to his, it's not his fault that your body works differently.. he can continue not having an abortion like name the inconsistency, she has traumatic outcomes from the outcome of her actions and therefor i have inconsistency ..like what?.. i would love it if you supported that claim i love how much you try to stretch this.. almost like you have no argument at all so you just try to squeeze one out of nothing
Whether or not he would have changed your mind, it was a nice thing to see someone who actually can debate and have a reasoned argument on the other side. Pretty much all the other j-holes that step up to debate you piss me of in their first minute, often have poorly constructed and often disconnected arguments, and parrot crap that was debunked thousands of times over the years both inside and outside of youtube. Great job. Bring in him more often or find others like him. From what I remember, he was the only one that at least made you think. That was a great video.
I still don't see an issue with aborting a fetus if they aren't sentient. It's not like they were sentient at any point in time beforehand. Why should I value potential for sentience? Comparing it to someone who is in coma is a false equivalence because they were once sentient. *EDIT* I may have accidentally strawmanned Avi, at 1:25 he clearly says he values potential for sentience of a being that were once sentient. VG then clarifies if it would be ethical to abort a fetus that has not yet achieved sentience on his view which he states it would be fine. So all in all I definitely agree with Avi, I think it's a much harder case to place value on something that hasn't even yet achieved sentience at any point. A human technically doesn't even exist at that point imo, just a clump of sells at that stage.
Totally agree. If you value potential sentience in itself (Without any other past factors) you have to value it fully in all cases, no matter the % chance of something potentially being sentient in the future, otherwise the line you draw at how much % chance of future sentience is needed for you to give that thing moral value is completely arbitrary, and therefore irrational.
@@matthew1913 He said he values potential sentience. Also, his other argument of sentience of fetuses just isn't backed up by science, it's just not true for the period in which people are legally allowed to abort.
shocked a vegan, who advocates for animal rights, could be so callous towards their own species. very bizarre and contradictory edit: grinding up animals = bad but grinding up people = good? LOL what 😂 all in all tho a civil, respectable debate. props to both parties for being honest and courteous
well again.. you pro lifers forget the woman and her right over her body nobody has the right to use someone elses body without their consent no fetus no 5 year old no 60 year old
@videobenji yes its IN her body and it USES her body and she has the right over her body and if she chooses to not donate HER body to another human then its her right to do so even if it means that another human would die
Granting only at risk pregnancy cases, rape victims, extremely poor people, birth control failures, and uneducated people the RIGHT to abort inherently Denies the RIGHTS of anyone else from a legal safe abortion. Making Things a government issue will only result is the loss of RIGHTS for some and special privileges for others. But what is moral?
@flaid No, that is not my logic, that is you assuming too much and look like an ass doing it. I never said abortion is moral. Laws do not constitute or establish moral agency. Murder is not a right I do not murder people animal or fetus because the law! We don't do these things because it's wrong. My comment was based on the content of the debate. I Said making abortion a Government issue by making it illegal would grant (those that fit the criteria out lined by Dr. Avi. in the debate) special privileges (rights granted by the hypothetical law) to some and Deny the privilege ( right granted by law) to a safe medical practice to others. The Rhetorical question but what is moral? Law in it self would not be ethical
I think it's ok for the pregnant woman to be free to make her choice if: she doesn't want the child, the fetus is dependant on her body to live (so it's part of her body), and the fetus is not sentient (or much less sentient than the pregnant woman and much less sentient than it will be once it's born as an unwanted child to live a life with a high probability of being abandoned or mistreated.) That is good enough for me... To me, until 12 weeks would be most certainly fine. Also, being pregnant and giving birth is extremely hard and painful... I would say the suffering of a woman giving birth is higher than the suffering a low sentience fetus would feel when aborted... Shouldn't that also been taken into account? And why does Avi compare aborting fetus to grinding up newborn babies? O_O
@@Biblig because babies are sentient and fetus are probably not significantly sentient in a early stage of pregnancy, so I don't understand how those 2 things equate to one another...
@@Biblig I'm still confused... Why would you have a responsability to the fetus if you got pregnant? I think the only responsability is to be sure to abort as early as possible while the fetus is not sentient... I would even say that the bigger responsability a woman has once finds out she is pregnant is to decide and commit as soon as possible if she is going to be a mother or not and to abort if she doesn't want the child. And even if you could know if a person got pregnant being aware of the risks, why would you stop them from having an abortion if the person doesn't want to have a child? That makes no sense to me... Maybe I am misunderstanding something...
A developing fetus must never be a priority over the needs and rights of a fully developed human being who just doesn´t want to go through pregnacy (maybe the most dramatic changes the human body can experience) give birth and live the rest of their life knowing that somewhere out there is their son/daugther, just because that fetus might be sentient. Sorry.
@@voluntarism335 fetus is not a baby, and you have 0 right to force someone to give birth. Everybody should have the right of having sex without the fear to get pregnant and being forced to give birth. Sorry
@@voluntarism335 Yes, they do have every right to decide if they want to form a new life or not because a fetus with little to no sentience that is just a clump of cells which is a part of the mother's body isn't an individual, even an actual newborn baby is morally way more worthy than some unwanted fetus's non existent suffering. If you say otherwise, you just want not only the mother but also the baby and society as a whole to suffer as pro-life does more harm than good so you'd be advocating for more suffering, therefore, pro-life is more cruel and immoral.
I appreciate you Richard because you not only have the courage to debate the hard topics, but you also have the courage to reassess your views if given appropriate facts. Years ago, you started my interest in debating and I think you present a wonderful perspective for vegans to model
@@FightingForAnimals-Jean never and this is fine. but he is trying to promote veganism as well and this would work better with kind of different attitude i guess
For real, and the premise that sentience itself is what should be valued, considering that objective values can't exist and everything is relative. For the most part we all view sentience as the thing to be valued, but if you were to unonowingly peacefully pass in your sleep then the idea of sentience itself can be viewed as pointless, since it's not what matters to us. If we die in that peaceful manner, then you aren't harmed and no distress can befall you. Considering this, why is it that we fear death? Because we can predict it. Given that we are (generally) stressed by the idea of our death, it should be noted that we actually fear what happens to the world after we die rather than the act of dying itself. So when someone makes an argument for sentience itself, I see that as a roundabout way of arguing for the prevention of the suffering and distress caused to beings that have sentience. And a small little speck cannot display signs of pain, it's trapped in its own little world without a single way to signal to the outside universe that it's feeling pain. If it's plainly unable to suggest discomfort, then it's sentience is not being impeded by it's death.
What do you mean when you say “potential for sentience is a valid point”? Far as I can tell Avi specifically said potential is valued on a being that has already had sentience, not pure potential alone.
@@RigoVids your previous comment is kind of rambly haha. I don't see the relevance in pointing out that values are not objective, or that people might value different things, in the context of this discussion
Let's say you had a teddy bear named Fred. He's not real, just a stuffed bear. You knew that in 9 months, he would be alive. He would go on to have his own life, maybe have his own bear wife and children. You cut off his head. Would you feel bad? Why or why not? I'm not asking about the bear having dependence on you or anything -- that would be the following question. The first question is, would you feel bad chopping off Fred's head?
@@gloriagirgis Whether or not you feel "bad" is irrelevant. Would you feel bad to administer someone euthanasia because they were sick and wanted to die? Probably. Does it make it morally wrong? No.
@@miz4535 but that's a false equivalent. No one is requesting to die here. The question is simply, would you feel bad? The original commenter said that the potential for life is not the same as life. So I gave another example. Someone who wishes to die by euthanasia is completely irrelevant.
@@miz4535 again, that's a false equivalent. The potential for life doesn't have a desire. If you wish to apply any condition, then I could just as easily say that the bear will go on to cure cancer, would you feel bad? Conditions always make a difference. The question is simple; you're complicating it in order to fit your agenda.
27:32 *Im sorry but this is really basic, in order to want sentience you need to be sentient in the first place.* Also, the problem here is they put all sentience in the same bucket without talking about positive sentience and negative sentience. When someone wants to kill themselves they do not want to get rid of all of their sentience, they want to get rid of negative sentience (Pain). Everyone, even people who kill themselves want positive sentience (Pleasure), it's just that for some the negative sentience is so high that they think it's not worth it anymore to seek positive sentience at the price of the huge negative sentience they experience.
Exactly but I would like to point out, there are people who want neither positive or negative sentience, they simply don't see any worth in putting effort just to exist so they wish they wouldn't have been born.
@@andreiz.7746 yes the life of a baby chicken is worth more then the fetus because with the chicken there is Nobody else involed.. but with giving the fetus a right to life you take a women the right over her body
Luckily, it not up to either of you whether it is right or wrong, or should be illegal or not, because the fetus is in the woman's body, thus it is part of her body or literally inside her body. She has full authority and domain over the fetus. If she wishes to abort it for any reason, that is her choice.
@@jonahlevi3178 Except it isn't. Unless you want to claim that having a period is like killing someone who you know will be conscious in 9 months. Your fetus is no more sentient than your egg.
@Wo Jak You’re right, but they might mean in circumstances where that’s clearly not the direct goal. There’s plenty of unprotected sex going around with pregnancy not being in mind. But yes, one should have some self-awareness and self responsibility.
@@jonahlevi3178 It's nothing like that. The person in a coma used to be conscious, presumably long enough to develop a will to live, things they want to do before they die, etc. The fetus was never conscious and has no preference about living or dying because it has no preferences at all.
Okay, so basically, none of your arguments for veganism stand if you won't say that we should stop immoral abortions. Glad we know where your motivation for veganism is coming from now: anti-humanism and not animal welfare. You unknowingly just made a case against veganism.
@ProcreationCausesSuffering GoogleAnti-natalism Do your research. Fetuses suffer when they're torn apart by medical instruments. It is only through willful ignorance that a vegan can be pro-abortion. For those that are, you're not pro-animal welfare, you're anti-human and you use animal welfare as rationalization for hating other humans.
@sunscreen It's still fascinating how you extrapolate based on factual questions and statements. To clarify: * I made an observation on indisputable facts in the original post * You respond based on *your* interpretation and extrapolation of my position, erecting a strawman of my position. * I respond a little tongue in cheek on your interpretation * You respond claiming to not understand my post * As I'm multilingual (4 languages), I respond with a clarification * Your last response is an interpretation of my questions that is so far afield and based on multiple strawmen that it's almost unfathomable, not to excuse the ad hominem attacks. To make a clear point, I have *not* stated my position throughout this post, but your descent into utter nonsense and basically character assassination speaks volumes about your mental state and approach to a discussion. You're clearly projecting, having a bad day or venting on a YT post, regrettably I find nothing that you can contribute to this discussion. Have a good day. PS: Polls (I didn't verify your claim but deem it irrelevant) do not truth make. Neither does popularity make any position less or more valid. That's basic logic 101. Here's hoping that you can educate yourself: yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
I think this is a fat false analogy from Avi. Too many variables left unaccounted for. His hypothetical is only appealing because of such variables being left out. Not as appealing if you account such variables. I don't care enough to go into detail, but my opinion remains unchanged about abortion.
i know, the analogies are incomplete if you don't take into account the consequences of illegalizing abortion and also from a threshold utilitarian aspect the overall utility both from the foetus's side, the mother's the planet's side and the animals that that person will kill (as 99% of the population is not vegan) combined. And he keeps saying imagine having the same sentience as a foetus in his analogies when he doesn't clearly state what that is. He could have said imagine having the sentience and intelligence of a snail for him to paint a better picture... As soon as my pain in the but exams are over in a few months i really want to debate the topic with avi and deconstruct the arguments used...
Human beings regardless of biological sex can discuss and take a position on ethical issues, nobody's opinion is invalidated by their genitalia, just saying. At one time women were not allowed a vote, I am sure nobody wants to go back to that time but now we are going too far the other way in saying that only women are allowed an opinion on what we all need to remember is the deliberate mass killing of innocent human beings, therefore a very grave and serious matter. How incredibly bigoted some people are! We are all former embryos.. male or female
@@lesleydove1127 lol embryos are not people and (most) men don't have uteruses, so their opinions shouldn't matter as much. Worry about actual living people
Preventative measures like education efforts for wearing a seat belt or mothers who smoke when pregnant or abortion need to be in place. We don't necessarily have effective ways to punish these people we just have deterants and some legalities to discourage behavior but a ticket or a fine or whatever isnt really life altering for most people. But yeah a lot of people who base their pro life beliefs on it being a life under God or any other doctrine absolutely treat it like murder. I don't. I just want regulation and discouragement.
I would say it’s a matter of mens rea. Unless the woman getting the abortion is a sociopath, most women who do so don’t see their fetus as an individual being with intrinsic value.
every second that a fetus (parasite) is inside a womans body it is a liability... a liability to her physical health, her mental health and her entire well being... let alone her financial well being and livelihood. she doesnt need any reason other than she simply “doesnt want to continue” carrying a liability... to fully justify an abortion at ANY TIME. PERIOD.
@Sebastian Canales Idk about OP but I have a staunchly pro-choice mom, yet here I am. Do you think pro-choice women never reproduce and are just constantly getting abortions?
16:55 this is a damning understanding. we should fight to protect the most vulnerable in society, when you say it's such an "unimportant" and "insignificant" being, that sounds like slave traders who say the slaves are just such insignificant persons they can be used as farm equipment
"Some stupid kid who is going to ruin my life" Ya let's kill em they are inconvenient. No. Wrong. Sinful. Instead, show unconditional, sacrificial love to them as your offspring.
Even if you poison someone for fun, I don't think that should legally obligate you to offer up your body to keep someone alive. Obviously the poisoning is wrong, but the state forcing you to be attached to that person for nine month seems really cruel and unusual.
Lol doesn’t outweighs you ending something that has a high potential at life. Imagine this stance of a community not wanting to take care of a coma patient
I would guess it is the likelihood of it tearing and making the woman pregnant in the same process, and that is 25% likely to happen if you have sex with condoms for 10 years. Ergo, if you have sex solely with condoms for 10 years, and you ALWAYS put it on before penetration, one fourth would have forced a being into existence by this time.
@@frodeverli4852 It can't mean that because much less than one quarter of relevant sex acts result in a pregnancy _without any contraception at all._ My guess is that in 25% of cases some sperm escape the condom and enter the woman's body but I don't understand what the 10 years relates to.
@@PureExile it's not 25% of the cases that someone gets pregnant, but for the entire 10 year period that counts as one case. Average amount of sexual intercourse over a decade would be somewhere between 500 and 1000 times for sexually active people. One person can have sex say 500 times over 10 years without the condom failing, which would make them a part of the 75%, while another can have sex 1000 times over 10 years and the condom failing once, resulting in a pregnancy and make them part of the 25%. Irrelevant for the amount of times one have sex, one out of four (25%) will over a 10 year period start a pregnancy/force a being into existence.
Shoving someone up your womb is not the same as accidentally getting pregnant. Knowing something will happen is not the same as knowing something can happen. I get in my car every day knowing I can get into a fatal accident, but that doesn't make me suicidal unless I know I will get into a fatal accident.
you are misunderstanding the argument, in the context of your car accident exmpl. it would be like this : you know you could die in a car accident, but thats not the important part, the important part is knowing you could kill someone else in accident AND you full well know that this has serious consequences for your life AND you are ready to accept those consequences. Dr Avi is not telling ppl to stop having sex, hes just saying that if you do X you should be ready to accept that X can have consequences
@@trueturp6524 If you do x you should be ready to accept the consequences of x, yes absolutely I agree, but should you not also have the freedom and option of fixing or mitigating the consequences of x? If you get into an accident you can call a tow and insurance. If you accidentally get pregnant you can call a doctor and pop a plan b. Even if you drink and drive and kill someone you can call a lawyer and have you day in court, many get reduced sentences or even go free, should those people give up their right to a fair trial and condemn themselves to a life in prison for a bad mistake? Why should someone martyr themselves for someone else's subjective moral high ground? From a moral standpoint is it more or less moral to stop one undeveloped life or to ruin at least 2 or more lives(mother and child)? People get abortions so they still can afford to eat and rent an apartment, people get abortions so they don't give a child up for adoption to an abusive system, people get abortions because they're addicted to drugs and don't want to bear a child with drug dependencies and alcohol fetal syndrome. A child at the wrong time in the wrong situation can ruin entire families, your moral code would see the destruction of fully developed families over a single non developed, unaware half entity? That is truly immoral and completely ignorant. You must live in a perfect world where all babies are healthy and cared for regardless of situation. I guarantee you if the Dr's teen daughter got pregnant from her drug dealing boyfriend while she was drinking he would not condemn a child to a life of retardation and suffering and he would end it before his daughters torment began. If you hit a deer in the middle of the road and broke its legs would you kill it to end it's misery's and suffering, or would you leave it to suffer a long agonizing death? Hitting it with your car will kill the deer eventually, but it was an accident so it's moral, even if it suffers until it dies? But killing it, only to end its misery, on purpose is immoral only because it's on purpose? You and the good Dr. clearly suffer from ivory tower syndrome and a lack of real human experiences, what sheltered lives you must live to see such a black and white world when in reality there is only a haze of grey void of anything absolute. I think you and the good Dr. live in a fantasy world vacant of nuance and reality, lacking in any sort of human decency and oozing with self righteous moral authoritarianism.
25:21 wtf kind of example is that? Does he genuinely equate women AND men sleeping together as the "woman decided for fun to shoving a( fetus) up her womb" Really? And this guy is a doctor? The fact that he thinks abortion in cases of rpe is okay, bit if two consenting adults engage in it, then they have to be forced to birth the baby is so strange. It's almost like he sees pregnancy as a punishment for people who have sex. But you can escape the "punishment" if someone forces you because it wasn't your "fault". Strange
If it’s consensual unprotected sex then yes the man AND woman agreed to most likely shove a fetus into her womb. Unless it’s rape a woman is as equally responsible as any man for the birth a person in consensual sex
@@willm1019 so the answer is to force an unwilling woman (bent on getting rid of that fetus) to carry it to term, birth it, and....? Have the government take care of the baby? Put it up for adoption next to the millions of orphans? If a woman truly wants an abortion, it's not very difficult -- albeit more dangerous. How can you prevent any pregnant woman from engaging in extreme sports, binge drinking, taking drugs, starving herself, taking medications that severely harm the fetus, etc.? I mean, you can't exactly tie her down and take away her rights for 9 months now, can you? Forcing someone to carry a child against their will cause severe psychological issues and is almost impossible to implement.
u can drop the act i know your used to commenting about how stupid the points are of the person debating vegan gains because your following the herd and your an idiot but the people are agreeing the dr is agreeing and vegan gains himself is agreeing (says it on the video ) that he vegan gains lost the debate ...so yeah lol its ok though we can get lost sometimes
@@willm1019 So if you get into a car accident and break your leg, you better not go to a doctor because you consented to have your leg broken when you chose to drive a car.
@@meateaterscringe9863 it's not about economy. I mean, how exactly will you manage to prevent a pregnwnt woman in engaging in sports, take medication, eat the right amount of food and not starve herself, prevent her from binge drinking, jump off from high places, do drugs that can impact the development of the fetus, etc. The issue is that the woman has to *want* the fetus too to actually allow it to develop properly and not miscarry or have severe mental and physical deformities. It's easy to speak in hypothetical terms, but in reality, it's basically impossible to control everything every pregnant woman in the world does with her body for 9 months.
There is no sentient being, and therefore there can be no forcing anyone to do anything. Dr Avi also makes the assumption that it is morally right to bring the baby into existence in the first place. If that action was, in fact, morally wrong, then the abortion would then be the morally correct choice.
You're wrong on your latter point and former, but I'll address the latter. Merely because it would be wrong to force someone into existence wouldn't mean that it is therefore okay to kill them once they are in the resultant state. It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong. Unless you argue that the mere state of existing is negative, you would have no obligation to kill them and even if you could argue that existing is negative, forcing someone into another state against their will would still be immoral. We would all agree, I assume that even doing a positive action against someone's will would be wrong, so even if abortion was a nice response, it wouldn't be right if the baby couldn't consent. I don't mean to speak for Dr. Avi, but I've argued with what I consider to be similar arguments to his so I feel like I can somewhat understand his point and wanted to provide a possible response.
@@DiahRhiaJones I said merely three times in my entire comment. I apologize if you don't speak English as a primary language or if you're simply illiterate, but what I commented wasn't even close to a word salad. If you can't comprehend simple sentences and as such, decide to not respond to my argument, okay. However, don't act like I'm at fault for your incompetence.
@@DiahRhiaJones Oh, I thought you were a dishonest, idiot, but now I realize that you're actually just an idiot. I'll try to use simple words and phrases that even someone of your caliber of intelligence can understand, not that my original reply was particularly complex. What part of: "Merely because it would be wrong to force someone into existence wouldn't mean that it is therefore okay to kill them once they are in the resultant state. It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong." and "It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong. Unless you argue that the mere state of existing is negative, you would have no obligation to kill them and even if you could argue that existing is negative, forcing someone into another state against their will would still be immoral." is an unintelligible rambling that has random words and phrases mixed in? Unless you don't actually understand what the words you use mean, you can't deny that this is your claim (you also pointed out me using merely more than once as if that means much, so I chose to highlight sentences with it). Both parts simply state that an action being wrong to do to someone, doesn't imply that it would be fine to force someone out of the resultant state of that action. As a hypothetical: If it's wrong to force you into a scenario in which you fight a tiger to win $1,000,000. Then it doesn't follow that it would be okay to steal the $1,000,000 (resultant state), if you won. Much like how if it's wrong to give birth to someone, that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them once they are born. Pretty simple. Also, I don't support abortion rights once sentience develops, prior to that, kill as many fetuses as you want (so I'm in the same boat as Dr. Avi). I don't believe that you have the right to kill someone just because they are in something you own. So even if I grant that the mother owns the womb (which I do), that doesn't mean that the mother can kill the fetus. Also, I did respond to your argument, sorry if you can't read too well. I don't actually have to even argue with you, since the burden of proof was on you from the beginning to explain why what I said was a word salad, which you have yet to do, you simply stated it to be the case with no justification.
@@DiahRhiaJones "Dr Avi also makes the assumption that it is morally right to bring the baby into existence in the first place. If that action was, in fact, morally wrong, then the abortion would then be the morally correct choice." That was the statement I was responding to, please actually read the original comment before you decide to reply. It isn't irrelevant to the comment I was replying to. Explain why it is a word salad. How is abortion self-defense, claiming that it is isn't an argument.
#2 of the 4 things neccessary for it to be immoral isn't true with non sentient fetuses (Which is most of them, and where we are currently legally able to get rid of them). Also, if you value potential sentience you either have to value it fully, or not at all. You cannot draw an arbitrary line at which percentage chance of something being potentially sentient in the future starts being morally important. Otherwise that's completely philosophically arbitrary.
This makes more sense to me than your comment on another persons comment, glad I saw this. I agree with you here, this is one of the major issues with obvi's position. Also my issue with the scenario of poisoning someone and having a risk of them ending up dependent upon you for 9 months is that this has a subtle implication of the fact that the person being hooked up was already sentient prior to being forced into the scenario. Its breaks one of the other 4 parts of obvi's rule set, about the being having prior sentience. Vg's rule though his previous debates was that it is fine to abort prior to sentience developing. I don't see how obvi is making an argument to change this.
@@BIGVINNY99 Yeah, VG didn't push back very hard, I don't know what's wrong with him recently. And yeah Dr. Avi kept making false equivalencies by introducing characteristics which are not true of a fetus.
@@paifu. You're not understanding the difference between comparision and equivocation. Two things which are equivalent cannot be compared - since comparision means to say that two things are the same in some (not all) but SOME respects and different in others, and equivalent things are the same in ALL respects. By the definition of "false equivalence" you're working with here, every possible comparision, insofar as all comparisions necessitate NON- equivalence, comits "false equivalence" - since comparisions can ONLY be made between things which are NOT equivalent.
Btw - you might be right in thinking that the value judgement Avi is carrying over from one scenario to another hinges on some relevant difference between the two, but you would need to explain what those relevant differences were and how a pro-choice position (i'm assuming) follows from them.
It’s so incredibly inconsistent to say “I don’t really care about the moral standing of this little insignificant being, so I’m not going to inconvenience myself to take care of it” when we’re talking about a literal human yet take this moral high ground when it comes to eating animals.
@@bb3k761 so beings with severe mental handicaps we can just kill? How can we prove sentience of something that can’t do it itself? You sound like a very dangerous and unintelligent individual, did you fail your high school biology class? Do you know anything of genetics? The fetus’s genetics never change, it’s either always a human through the whole process or never a human. What you mean to argue is it’s PERSONHOOD. Being a human is different from being a person. Being human is based purely in genetics, being a person is still a highly controversial topic for this very reason. Know what you’re arguing before you just start spewing.
@Daniel Brouggy wonderful straw man. I see that you failed biology as well. What you mean to say is you don’t believe it’s a *person* until birth. To say it’s not human, well, that’s just denying facts and letting your feelings do the thinking instead. Not that you do a whole lot of that anyway...
@Daniel Brouggy cool little tidbit you just made up on the spot and have no logical or moral basis for. You might be on VG's side but he would mollywhop you playing devil's advocate against his own and your position because you're simply dimwitted.
Yes! Bout time ....i think everyone can agree that in very specific circumstances abortion is not immoral...but its difficult for most to admit in many circumstances its immoral
that would require you to surmise your opinion when you were a fetus. now that you're born alive and here, arguing in favor of being an aborted fetus is questionably suicidal. If you have to argue in a way that makes you not sound suicidal, to prove a point about pro-life, then it really doesn't effectively address that, but moreso primarily concerns not favoring suicide idealization.
Vegan, I watched this live and I am glad you were able to see this from a different POV, however I know you sounded cynical at times and even wished yourself not to be born, I believe you should cheer up bro you have such strong stances on veganism and a strong purpose to save animal lives try to be more self positive!
It’s not as simple as that. Unless you can appeal to a value or motivation he isn’t aware of that’s just honestly how he feels. But this is also why we should all separate our personal preferences from our core values. If we value being moral people who will play by the rules to share space. Then we will have to concede things like this. I have cynical tendencies towards people as well. I just see how people act against their own values and can’t help but feel everyone is stupid. But I still need to share space with these people
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Richard was just being childish with the "whatever, I hate people anyway" response. This dude instantly judges people that ends up taking "sociopathic stances" by saying they have no problem with killing people to stay consistent with killing animals. Destiny basically did the same thing to him, and he was flabbergasted. From keeping people healthy to defending the gay community. His personal relationships. What's the point? Is it all phoney.
@@TonyMishima92 I think he may just value animals lives more. But maybe you are right. Personally I find people to be overly egotistical self righteous wastes of space myself. Most of us are sharing space but don’t act like it
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 @tonyMishima92 I can see both your view points being valid, though when writing my comment it was coming from a place where Vegan told us he has been suffering from depression. This can be a reason he is so cynical and negative in this particular video, and yes it did occur when he was technically “losing” the debate. Honestly I think his fans can understand he’s not crazy ether for him preferring animals over people, it was hard for most to understand how he was pro animal life but not human life until now.
@@Greedful sure I can see that too. I could also be wrong I do value humans lives. But I have a cynical side who looks at what we have and just see how we act like we earned it. We act like the amazing things we have make us special. I personally think we have an obligation to preserve these things because they are in accordance with our values. So I often see people as dumb because they are hurting themselves. I’m over explaining. I’m just saying I could be projecting onto him
The problem with comparing people with foetuses is that foetuses are not sentient. The moral problem is with a person's individual attachment to being them and thej ability to suffer due to that. A foetus is incapable of suffering due to not having this sense of self.
Agreed...the fetus hasn’t had a single day of life experience outside of a womb...Avi is comparing a fetus to people who have had years or decades of life experiences
I lean conservative. I'm agnostic, non-religious, but was raised Catholic. The ethics stuck even though I'm non-religious. I'm pro-life....and I'm also strongly ethical-vegan. It's my opinion, if you want to win over the religious crowd to veganism, it would be wise to concede that abortion is unethical, wrong in most circumstances. A person who cares about preserving life, should care about preserving all life. There is everything right with that sentiment. I'm just a normal guy and I'm not perfect, but I care deep down and I think a lot of people out there are just like me in that respect. I am glad to see that Vegan Gains has the open mindedness to reason out the ethics despite having strong bias. That shows good character. You have my respect for that.
It's good to see my guy isn't dishonest. So many arguments he's had with people that just use dishonest arguments in order to prove their point. Richard is an awesome person.
Hey, Richard. I just want to express how much I respect your intellectual honesty and willingness to change. Seriously, this is the character trait I value most in people. You're a good person.
@@Gcool243 Yeah, I know he said crazy stuff. But he'd never actually harm an animal, let alone a human. He just had a horrific upbringing and that makes him say that stuff. But his actions show someone who cares not to cause suffering and to pursue honest truth. And that's very worthy of acknowledgement.
@@LastRenegade His parents were horrible. They pushed him to do sports although he was suffering asthma attacks, etc. No regard for his health and safety. That's from memory, he talked about it in some video.
I'm very impressed he was able to finish triumphant in this debate while *Barely* using the best point "pro abortion contradicts the ethics of veganism". He did great. And it's great to see VG display how it looks to respectfully concede, and not just play denial or strawman argue his way out of the debate like most individuals. Awesome debate from both parties.
@@xoranginho So killing humans - our own offspring at that - in the first stage of life in which they are of course not sentient because of the stage of development they are in (nonetheless 100% of what a human being is at that point in life) is fine while killing a sentient being we´re not in a parent-child relationship with is bad (the latter of which I of course agree with). I just think it´s... strange to value our own children less than nonhuman somebodies.
In the case of rape it still isnt the childs fault though so it seems odd to make them pay the ultimate price. If abortion is considered immoral in a non rape case it would still be immoral in a rape case. You could argue that rape that results in a pregnancy is a greater crime and warrents a greater punishment however that punishment should fall on the perpetrator not the innocent child.
@eli eli right, I agree that rape isn’t the child’s fault but the point isn’t that the child is a criminal the point is, you didn’t put it there, hence, there should be no obligation for you to carry said child for nine months and give birth to it. In any case the child is violating your personal autonomy, in the case of consensual, unprotected sex, you are also knowingly violating the autonomy of the fetus so burden then falls on you because you knowingly allowed a child to form and gain sentience (which in my opinion is the point at which it has an intrinsic right to life). In the case of rape a sound comparison would be that you are unwillingly drugged and hooked up to a person who uses you as a dialysis machine, even if the person is innocent and they will die, you absolutely should have the right to remove yourself from them and go on your way. The idea is that the debate isn’t over who is punished for the crime of rape, it is over the right to determine what happens with your body and in the case of rape where you are not responsible, you should not be held responsible for another life. In the case of unprotected irresponsible sex in which no precaution is taken, you in practical terms have assumed that risk and if not aborted before the child gains sentience, then there is an issue in that you were irresponsible enough to let a sentient life develop, knowingly, and in such a context I would determine that you no longer have a right to take that life since you partook in a situation which you knew had a high risk of creating a dependance and then, you even allowed that dependent life form to gain sentience.
@eli eli not a parallel though because illegal immigrants are deported, not killed, and it wouldn't be good to deport only the parents and separate them from their children, thus the children must go with their parents.
@@bigboilard9300 You are factually wrong here because a fetus doesn't have any bodily autonomy, therefore, no one can violate a fetus, it isn't even an individual to begin with, it's just a clump of cells that is ultimately a part of the mother's body that has little to no sentience. You know who is an individual with lot of sentience and has a right to their bodily autonomy though? The mother, hell, even a newborn actual fucking baby is way more morally worthy than fucking fetus, holy shit, dumb people who only wants to virtue signal. Not to mention, forcing someone to actively take part into forming a clump of cells into a new life to raise them to baby aka. "pro-life" ironically does more harm than good and is immoral since you're not taking the fact of the "mother's suffering" into consideration which is more cruel.
@@RedAISkye I agreed with basically all you were saying. To clarify I meant that I don’t really agree with knowingly letting the fetus become sentient then aborting it. A agree that before sentience the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells and doesn’t have any right to bodily autonomy and to say that that clump has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to bodily autonomy would be ridiculous.
This is why many women don't like to hear men's opinion on rape. These guys are literally comparing rape to waking up being hooked up/dependent on someone. This totally removes the extreme trauma of rape.
You guys seem to asume that life is a positive thing regardless here. You might want to justify that stance. I think on average a life is not a positive nor a negative experience, it can go both ways. But the average life experience, since there is no comparison material except all other life experiences, should be right in the middle of a positive and a negative life experience. So when forcing a person to have a child that doesnt want it, increases the chance of a negative life experience for that child, since the parent rather had an abbortion. So advocating against abortion is advocating for more negative life experiences in my view. Ending a life before its truly sentient, when that life likely will be on the negative side of the middle point average, in my view is the humane action. Forcing a life in a situation where its is likely going to have a less positive experience than average, would be the inhumane action. Also humans that have a negative life experience are more likely to influence other humans in a negative way. So forcing the parent to have the child, might not only negatively impact the life of that child, but also the people the child will have an impact on troughout its life. I think uplifting the average quality of life by reducing suffering should be the focus for humanity. Abortion has a positive influence on that in my opinion.
@eli eli so you are saying here that a good functioning foster system is as good or better than having parents that chose to have a child. That is just rediculoulsy far removed from the reality as it is now and likely will ever be.
@eli eli also a baby that is going to have a life of pain and suffering and when its fully grown will spread that pain and suffering to others, how is that a positive thing?
@eli eli you say you live in America, like that means something, when its the country with the highest percentage of citizens in prisons. Insane amounts of mass shootings. Very high amounts of inequality and poverty. People going bankrupt from healthcare bills, racism, corrupt politicians, wars for profit etc etc. There is no garantee a person will be happy there. You might see life as a positive thing, but thats not an objective view on it. An objective view would be, it depends on what you compare it to and then compare it to the average, which I do in my argument. The average child will have parents that wanted to have it. So a child that has a parent that did not want it, will have below average circomstamces for a positive life experience. These value judgements I make are all relative, like any value judgement in a logical argument should be. Parents just have a vital role in the development of a human being, from birth to adulthood and even beyond, and there are plenty of studies that support that, so I dont think I have to argue for that.
@eli eli Every murderer, criminal, mass shooter, suicide victim etc. was a baby once. Forcing people to have a child is just going to increase the amount of suffering, both for the parent and for the child and every person in their life. It is unlogical if you want a more positive society to want to force others to have a baby when they dont want it.
I think just from a purely utilitarian perspective - it’s difficult to argue for making abortion illegal under most circumstances). The amount of suffering caused to the pregnant woman being forced by law to come to term verses the amount of suffering caused to the fetus being aborted... !? ... it just seems insane to argue for a pro-life position given the amount of suffering this will inevitably lead to.
@@BriansTake you should have the right to protect yourself. If you have a being growing inside your body and that being’s survival is dependant on you... then it is within your basic freedoms to protect yourself from that being. You shouldn’t have to endure a traumatic and potentially dangerous childbirth just to preserve a life that is dependent on your body for survival. Especially in scenarios where precautions were taken to prevent the pregnancy or scenarios where the pregnant woman has health conditions which could result in a difficult pregnancy or potentially dangerous childbirth. This debate focuses too heavily on the fetus and neglects the suffering of the pregnant woman caused by a pregnancy. It is irrational to consider the wellbeing of a low level sentient fetus - when their wellbeing is dependent on the suffering of a pregnant woman who’s capacity for suffering is far greater.
Yeah it wasn’t very hard surprised richard hasn’t heard this argument before. Like at 6:50 for example he simply could have brought up the fact that the law couldn’t legally force you to continue to have the person you poisoned hooked up to you, even though you would be liable for murder if you decided not to.
We already have that legislation. If you’re a parent and you neglect your child, the police will come to your house if notified and take you to prison.
Exactly. I was pro choice before I became vegan. Now I'm pro life. It pained me to hear Richard use the same excuses non vegans make for justifying eating meat. The parallels between the enslavement and killing of animals and abortion are so similar it boggles my mind why so many vegans tend to be pro choice.
@@mattzilla331 its almost like he just hates humans and is vegan for the sole reason to hurt the human race🙃he isn’t on the side of humans so why would he ever tell you the truth about anything
@@Qstandsforred to say he is on the side of truth is clearly subjective as there is plenty of data on all diets. so when you are anti human because of a subjective opinion then you are the enemy. especially when he misrepresents data and information. he has no problem lying to you so why would you say he is on the side of truth?🤣🤣🤣you vegans are such slimy weasels
The moral context argument is a pretty easy debate in all fairness. what's right and wrong for one might not be what's right and wrong for ones self so if a rape victim had to choose between the moral compass of others over their own mental health and well being then the argument of morality is mute. The reason this becomes mute is that the question will always switch to the potential danger for ones well being. the most prominent example of this would be if a person goes through with having the baby after being forced into pregnancy they will potentially face the anguish of looking at a child that resembles their attacker and can in fact cause extreme distress or very long term issues such as PTSD. In this case it's simply not morally correct to say the person can't choose abortion because the mental connotations far outweigh the morality. The fact is, the likelihood is the victim will undergo a pregnancy test long before sentiency due to the obvious reasons of having been sexually violated. It's simply not right to expect a person to face torment for the remainder of their life over the virtue signalling views of others.
issue with the last point of making it illegal is that if u don't give people the opportunity to do it safely they will do it on their own risking themselves and the baby.
@@voluntarism335 Thats true if u were to see it as murder which I still don't because the fetus hasn't had consciousness before he were to be adopted. Anyways, I feel like a lot of women would endanger themselves and the baby if they did not have a way to abort it without legal consequences
I would assume someone like Dr. Avi would submit that eating is necessary for your survival. So you don't have a "choice" to eat. So the comparison doesn't really hold up.
@@frodeverli4852 Scientific American website states sentience in a fetus would occur at about 24-28 weeks of pregnancy...over 99% of abortions happen prior to that timeframe www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
@@vietnamd0820 That would be conciousness, a slightly different term but it's OK to conflate them for simplicity. 24-28 weeks seems to be when the complex conciousness is finally developed, but I fail to see how it is relevant? The process has already started and the being is developing conciousness/sentience. On top of that, we can save preterm babies all the way down to 21 weeks, and in the future it will be even earlier. This would be before they are considered concious, but I still would find it immoral to end its life for whatever unnecessary reason.
I don't know if basic sentience is the right place to draw the line. I think that if you can kill the foetus without it experiencing a worse harm than it would have, had you brought it into existence, then that is at least the lesser evil. I don't think it can be credibly argued that a foetus has its own preferences and desires invested in its future. And even if it does experience pain, it's going to be an infinitesimally small amount of pain compared to what you've prevented by ending its life before it leaves the womb. If you give birth to the foetus, then they will have a burdensome welfare state that they will need to constantly strive to protect against external frictions. And it will also eventually die. So giving birth and allowing it to develop full sapience is a bigger violation than just killing it. The size of the harm that you've inflicted, if any, is trivial compared to the size of the harm that you've prevented. So even if the ideal would be not to get pregnant in the first place, abortion is definitely ethically preferable to birth. Perfect isn't the enemy of good, here. This isn't the same as when you've got a fully sapient human and you maliciously cause them to be dependent on you, and that person has desires and interests invested in the future which you have messed around with.
I don't agree with everyone patting Richard on the back for conceding. He lost the debate, plain and simple. That is undeniable. That's like saying "Hey, I respect the fact that you admit you got knocked out in that fight." And he didn't even really concede because he is still pro-abortion. This is the same guy who loves admonishing people for logical inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance, by the way.
I would agree Richard lost the debate but not for the same reasons that you do. He lost the moment he agreed to Avi equalizing "a fetus which is a part of a mother's body that has a potential to form into a new life" as equal to "an actual human being who already exists but in a coma". There's morally a huge difference between the two, even a newborn baby is morally way more worthy than a clump of fucking cells that are a part of your own body. So, Richard should've pointed out this issue, instead, it somehow slipped from him which only led to him digging himself deeper into a hole.
@@RedAISkye Nope. I wasn't equating the two. I understand the distinction you are trying to make. It fails as a defense of the pro choice position. Happy to talk on discord to anyone who thinks they can defend that.
@@RedAISkye as I've said, I'm happy to debate on voice. I'm not interested in having a text debate. If youre confident in your position, hopefully you can come on voice. Up to you.
My one concern with this debate is that vegan gains seemed wildly different than the overwhelming majority of his previous debates. Not sure if that influenced his critical thinking skills? He seems a lot more careful in this particular Tabbi's debate
@@dillo1594 it's all about egotism so there is absolute consistency here. Veganism is about maximizing personal pleasure. Abortion is largely about maintaining a lifestyle of personal pleasure.
@mmhmm I won't equate human life to animal life any more than you'll equate animal life to plant life. I can play various music to my crops and find they taste better. My olive trees are worth much more to me than my chickens. I'll easily chop a chickens head off before I chop down any of the trees. Yet for your inner pathos, one is murder and the other isn't. You only care about human treatment towards animals because you suffer from an inner spiritual struggle you have yet to identify. If you cared about all animal welfare you'd be in the wild keeping the peace amongst them and making sure they're all fed whatever synthetic garbage you've created. To keep them from killing each other.
The root reasoning for veganism is to value the interests of others in this case it may be animals, if you wouldn't kill a puppy because you or someone doesn't want it but yet you advocate killing babies especially sentient ones for the same reason that's very hypocritical.
I don't know if I'll watch, but I'm going to guess before watching that the main point is that in a situation after a child is born, and is totally dependent on his parent, and can't be given away to someone, that killing the child is immoral, even though that requires an involuntary commitment from you. Then this principle is applied to the time before birth (and after development of sentience). Am I anywhere close?
When Dr. Avi began with comparing abortions to the holocaust, I thought this debate was going to be an absolute dumpster fire but it turned out to be alright.
Yes after 7 weeks fetıses are indeed sentient if you want empirical evidence check out this debate on dr avis channel under the comments section he provided the links
I have a few concerns. I'm still a little skeptical. I get that there is no good argument to assume that a fetus (When fully grown) may have a desire to live. But what accomplishes overall more good. Pro-life or pro-abortion? I ask this because I do believe there is issues with regards to how unwanted babies grow up to have serious issues in life, be it mental, physical or other. And because of the impact of things like adoption where it may cause more suffering because not enough people adopt (To my knowledge. Think about parents who die and such). It also adds to the human population, which we certainly don't need much more of.
@@meateaterscringe9863 Not really, how does the logic of "avoiding the process of forming a new life by killing a clump of cells that has little to no sentience which is a part of the mother's body" has anything to do with slavery and murdering human beings?
@@meateaterscringe9863 Oh, so you're unable to comprehend simple English as well as I never said anything about any fallacious arguments and your latter statement doesn't even make sense, lmao.
The conclusion I derived from this debate is that passive abortion is wrong because intentionally breeding is wrong. Without the prescribed state of intentionally doing an act that results in a fetus being created in a womb, the conversation of the morality of abortion becomes one sided. I would say, that if you didnt intend to get pregnant, like you took birth control and/or used contraception, or let's say your bodily autonomy was violated to the point where you became pregnant, and you have the ability to get an abortion, you should actually be morally convicted to GET an abortion, or at the very least, commit to the notion that you wronged the being in question before they were ever created. Having intentionally unprotected sex should be viewed as the most wrong thing here because you open up the potential for life which opens up a giant can of worms (the potential for harm/pain to the individual and/or to the harm/pain the may cause to someone else in their lifetime) Avi started out on where the focus should be in this debate, and that was on the intentionality or the negligence of the person who is procreating, but the conclusion from that scenerio shouldn't be that abortion is wrong, rather that the act of willfully putting yourself in a position to have to get an abortion is wrong.
I want to clarify that the wrongdoing that exists that we should be condemning isn't abortions themselves because they are just a product of the wrongdoing that has already been done. This isn't slut shaming because I love sluts lol. This is condemning irresponsibility and I identifying the failure of seeing reality and understanding that no one asks to be born therefore the bodily autonomy of the fetus has already been violated before the abortion ever took place. If you get pregnant just get an abortion as soon as possible, even if you meant to get pregnant you shouldn't be, that honestly makes it even worse. Morally speaking not legally, abortions should be reserved for bodily autonomy violations and accidents. Whereas intentional procreation in general is what should be viewed as the primary wrongdoing
28:00 - realises the debate is lost, awkward laugh. "Just worked out" , yet no sweat was present on his forehead at the start of the debate. Why even mention nerves... Very awkward to watch.
I love that Richard will always back down to logic. He’s not too hard-headed to change his stance on things or agree with someone else if the information is presented in a way that he can understand. That just usually doesn’t happen because the people debates are idiots most of the time 😂. I’ve been a follower for a long time but regardless my Respect for VG just went up.
@@venth6 I was partial joking, but I care very much about life precisely because I don’t believe there is a God or more importantly a after life. I don’t really see what eating animals has to do with it.
I would say that would be ok. I wouldn't call it "self defense" but ya. But this is rare. The vast majority of abortions are totally elective and have nothing to do with the health of the mother.
Here’s the issue I have, the act of giving birth is often excruciatingly painful and risks the mothers life. Even if you concede that the baby didn’t ask to be born and you’re violating its autonomy, the giving birth and risks to the mothers life go beyond the moral obligation you have to the baby.
@@mattzilla331 Is it also considered elective if the mother can't afford a child and/or lives in the US where they have low-paying job and no guaranteed maternal leave?
Outstanding debate. This is the most solid argument for a pro-life I've ever seen. I'm actually very impressed Richard conceding to this debate and it just shows a level of transparency that most people don't have.
![ผัวเถื่อน - ยูริ โตเกียวมิวสิค [ OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P08ORRVDGl8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is how debates were intended to be, arguments and counter arguments in a civilized fashion. The unwise have ruined this structure. Great video man
Yeah. Not many people can disagree without disregarding each other completely these days. These two actually listened to each other, and didn't take offense...if more of us did this, maybe we could work together and actually make the world a better place.
I havent watched the debate yet, but the fact that vegan gains is willing to concede shows more strength of character than almost any other TH-camr.
This debate was a trainwreck though, he basically said I agree, but fuck humans though
Gotta respect intellectual honesty and open mindedness. Too much ego and emotion dictating people’s beliefs/actions
@Jon Kozak yeah debating so many retards makes Richard look like a genius but he’s just a guy capable of using logic. I appreciate him more after watching this though, it’s refreshing to see a conversation between honest individuals.
@Something Something yeah ik, I've been watching him for years, but this time was especially strange and hypocritical
@@SamuelMM_Mitosis Still going through it, seemed like he was arguing like a carnist at one point.
It's a casual activity that everyone does tho and i don't care of the sentience of the being.
Killing a goldfish: ❌
Grinding up mentally handicapped people:✅
😂😂😂
@Alexander G If you aren’t joking about that then you’re pretty stupid. Going by that logic you could kill anything that stood in the way of monetary gain.
How is that a rebuttal to anything I just said? Your still morally incorrect either way.
To play the devil's advocate, doesn't it depend on the context?
It also depend on the sentience/consciousness/awareness of each make that decision.
@@sphumelelesijadu So I’m curious, in what context to you would it be considered okay to kill a mentally handicapped person? Also after a sentient being reaches a certain lack of that sentience, at what point does it become invaluable?
Wise man once said, "If I can't admit my defeats, I can't claim all of my victories."
id rather go with " If I can't come up with an argument I'm going to concede, I'm not a fucking retard"
@@okamuspanulirus9614 - Aristotle
Damn that’s good
I think he got through simply because he related it to veganism in an intelligent way. Others have said similar things but Avi always brought the conversation back to the issue at hand and kept the debate focused
Damn dude 3 debates in one day lol! Love it! Btw this video didn't show in my notifications
@Something Something man conceeds abortion can be wrong... are you suprised? lol this is TH-cam.
@Vegan Gains I'm a fan, I've supported you from day 1, you inspired me to go vegan 5.5 years ago, but I have to say, your narrow-minded, short-sighted, simplistic summation of parenthood makes you sound like a basic little shit. You don't know how your views may change the very first time you look into your child's eyes.
Love you man, big fan.
I think the major fallacy in this debate is actually at the onset - comparing a growing fetus to “someone who has reached sentience” as it relates to a person in a coma. I don’t actually think they’re the same thing. Personhood vs potential for consciousness. Potentiality is too vague on its face to make this comparison. So you would obviously be stuck if you’re allowing the comparison to even be considered in the first place. This is why it becomes a discussion of viability rather than potentiality.
Technically any atom has the potential to be part of something sentient at some point. The line drawn at how much percent chance of sentience in the future is morally important is completely arbitrary. Using this view to oppose abortion is completely philosophically inconsistent.
@@paifu. exactly! And VG is automatically forced into a corner out the gate and has to argue his way out of a position that he may not even necessarily agree with to being with.
That’s exactly what I was thinking.
@@paifu. I may not be understanding you stance here correctly but to me this makes no sense.
So in your opinion, any atom has the potential to be part of something sentient (not sure why that matters, were not talking about atoms being destroyed, rather a developing fetus).
Then you say, drawing the line at how likely the fetus is to be sentient is completely arbitrary? How so? It makes much greater sense to abort at an early enough stage that the fetus has not become sentient. This is even part of obvi's 4 rules set at the beginning, if it has not had the chance of being sentient prior, then its acceptable to abort.
Hi Chocolatier and others who think this difference ends up working to support the pro choice position (lol nope, not a fallacy, and no it doesn't save the pro choice view), all of you are more than welcome to debate me on it in the discord.
I really don't understand this.
His entire argument seemed to hinge upon the notion that getting an abortion is violating the autonomy of the fetus but how can a fetus that isn't even sentient be said to have autonomy?
His argument that it's somehow still wrong to get an abortion even for people who were trying to take measures to reduce the risk of pregnancy and be responsible is equally bewildering since the entire premise of his main argument was about bringing another supposedly sentient and autonomous fetus into existence through carelessness is immoral.
In any case, I will always value the sentience and autonomy of an established being and the suffering that would be inflicted upon them by forcing them to do things with their body that they don't want done with their body over any supposed negligible degree of sentience and autonomy of a speck of dividing cells.
@Ask Yourself’s Grandfather yeah and that makes 0 sense. A previously autonomous being is still non sentient in its current state so why is that valued. The line starts at conception for me. Potential sentience of a living being is just as equal to me as present sentience. What even is sentience?
@Shannon Hurley by that logic it's okay to kill a child (or anyone) when it is asleep
@Shannon Hurley yes but a fetus is sentient in the same way
@Shannon Hurley sentience comes much earlier then with a 'fully' developed CNS, it comes at the same time as the CNS..the moment it has developed any it has some sentience,
and no it has nothing to do with 'force' it has to do with responsibility, you are not responsible for other people, you are responsible for the sentience you create however, so unless you are giving body parts to people you created this is a false analogy
@Shannon Hurley brain is one of the very first thing to start developing
and that wasn't my logic at all, you attributed opinions to me and then strawmaned them, and that after mockingly saying 'if you think life matters' ...
i talked about responsibility, you somehow misconstrued that into 'me thinking that life matters'.. try responding to what i am saying instead of what i am not saying
also 'blatantly sexist' LOL source needed, you take responsibility for your actions he can take responsibility to his, it's not his fault that your body works differently.. he can continue not having an abortion
like name the inconsistency, she has traumatic outcomes from the outcome of her actions and therefor i have inconsistency ..like what?.. i would love it if you supported that claim
i love how much you try to stretch this.. almost like you have no argument at all so you just try to squeeze one out of nothing
Whether or not he would have changed your mind, it was a nice thing to see someone who actually can debate and have a reasoned argument on the other side.
Pretty much all the other j-holes that step up to debate you piss me of in their first minute, often have poorly constructed and often disconnected arguments, and parrot crap that was debunked thousands of times over the years both inside and outside of youtube.
Great job. Bring in him more often or find others like him. From what I remember, he was the only one that at least made you think.
That was a great video.
I still don't see an issue with aborting a fetus if they aren't sentient. It's not like they were sentient at any point in time beforehand. Why should I value potential for sentience? Comparing it to someone who is in coma is a false equivalence because they were once sentient.
*EDIT*
I may have accidentally strawmanned Avi, at 1:25 he clearly says he values potential for sentience of a being that were once sentient. VG then clarifies if it would be ethical to abort a fetus that has not yet achieved sentience on his view which he states it would be fine.
So all in all I definitely agree with Avi, I think it's a much harder case to place value on something that hasn't even yet achieved sentience at any point. A human technically doesn't even exist at that point imo, just a clump of sells at that stage.
Totally agree. If you value potential sentience in itself (Without any other past factors) you have to value it fully in all cases, no matter the % chance of something potentially being sentient in the future, otherwise the line you draw at how much % chance of future sentience is needed for you to give that thing moral value is completely arbitrary, and therefore irrational.
@@paifu. That's not Avi's position, he isn't against abortion pre-sentience
"Comparing it to someone who is in a coma is a false equivalence" - Comparision doesn't (necessarily) entail equation.
@@matthew1913 He said he values potential sentience. Also, his other argument of sentience of fetuses just isn't backed up by science, it's just not true for the period in which people are legally allowed to abort.
@@matthew1913 But this exactly what Dr. Avi tried to do many times in his false equivalencies.
shocked a vegan, who advocates for animal rights, could be so callous towards their own species. very bizarre and contradictory
edit: grinding up animals = bad but grinding up people = good? LOL what 😂
all in all tho a civil, respectable debate. props to both parties for being honest and courteous
well again..
you pro lifers forget the woman and her right over her body
nobody has the right to use someone elses body without their consent
no fetus
no 5 year old
no 60 year old
@@dodumichalcevski then don't engage in activity that forces others to be dependent on you through your own actions. it really is that simple
Would you say that one of a pair of conjoined twins has a right to kill their sibling because of bodily autonomy?
@videobenji yes its IN her body
and it USES her body
and she has the right over her body
and if she chooses to not donate HER body to another human
then its her right to do so
even if it means that another human would die
Granting only at risk pregnancy cases, rape victims, extremely poor people, birth control failures, and uneducated people the RIGHT to abort inherently Denies the RIGHTS of anyone else from a legal safe abortion. Making Things a government issue will only result is the loss of RIGHTS for some and special privileges for others. But what is moral?
@flaidAre you trying say to commit murder is a right?
@flaid No, that is not my logic, that is you assuming too much and look like an ass doing it. I never said abortion is moral. Laws do not constitute or establish moral agency. Murder is not a right I do not murder people animal or fetus because the law! We don't do these things because it's wrong.
My comment was based on the content of the debate. I Said making abortion a Government issue by making it illegal would grant (those that fit the criteria out lined by Dr. Avi. in the debate) special privileges (rights granted by the hypothetical law) to some and Deny the privilege ( right granted by law) to a safe medical practice to others. The Rhetorical question but what is moral? Law in it self would not be ethical
@flaid did you watch the debate in full
@flaid happy thanks giving peace to you
Damn mad props to both VG and Avi. Excellent debate.
I think it's ok for the pregnant woman to be free to make her choice if: she doesn't want the child, the fetus is dependant on her body to live (so it's part of her body), and the fetus is not sentient (or much less sentient than the pregnant woman and much less sentient than it will be once it's born as an unwanted child to live a life with a high probability of being abandoned or mistreated.) That is good enough for me... To me, until 12 weeks would be most certainly fine. Also, being pregnant and giving birth is extremely hard and painful... I would say the suffering of a woman giving birth is higher than the suffering a low sentience fetus would feel when aborted... Shouldn't that also been taken into account?
And why does Avi compare aborting fetus to grinding up newborn babies? O_O
What about qvis argument do you disagree with
@@Biblig because babies are sentient and fetus are probably not significantly sentient in a early stage of pregnancy, so I don't understand how those 2 things equate to one another...
@@martaso643 but he explains it in the video...
@@Biblig I will rewatch it then, maybe I missed that part. Thank you for pointing that out.
@@Biblig I'm still confused...
Why would you have a responsability to the fetus if you got pregnant? I think the only responsability is to be sure to abort as early as possible while the fetus is not sentient... I would even say that the bigger responsability a woman has once finds out she is pregnant is to decide and commit as soon as possible if she is going to be a mother or not and to abort if she doesn't want the child.
And even if you could know if a person got pregnant being aware of the risks, why would you stop them from having an abortion if the person doesn't want to have a child? That makes no sense to me... Maybe I am misunderstanding something...
A developing fetus must never be a priority over the needs and rights of a fully developed human being who just doesn´t want to go through pregnacy (maybe the most dramatic changes the human body can experience) give birth and live the rest of their life knowing that somewhere out there is their son/daugther, just because that fetus might be sentient. Sorry.
@@voluntarism335 fetus is not a baby, and you have 0 right to force someone to give birth. Everybody should have the right of having sex without the fear to get pregnant and being forced to give birth. Sorry
Preach!
@@voluntarism335 Embryo/fetus is not a "living baby". Idiot.
@@voluntarism335 Yes, they do have every right to decide if they want to form a new life or not because a fetus with little to no sentience that is just a clump of cells which is a part of the mother's body isn't an individual, even an actual newborn baby is morally way more worthy than some unwanted fetus's non existent suffering.
If you say otherwise, you just want not only the mother but also the baby and society as a whole to suffer as pro-life does more harm than good so you'd be advocating for more suffering, therefore, pro-life is more cruel and immoral.
So , that means eggs can be eaten too because if humans can be aborted so can eggs
I appreciate you Richard because you not only have the courage to debate the hard topics, but you also have the courage to reassess your views if given appropriate facts. Years ago, you started my interest in debating and I think you present a wonderful perspective for vegans to model
Not wanting human race to die would make your animal activism more likeable :D
Exactly 💯💯
@@FightingForAnimals-Jean never and this is fine. but he is trying to promote veganism as well and this would work better with kind of different attitude i guess
He doesn't actually want the human race to die. If he did he'd kill himself.
@Wo Jak Simply no.
Pretty sure he wants the human race to flourish.
I think Richard opens himself up to this beating, by accepting the fake premise that potential for sentience is a valid point.
For real, and the premise that sentience itself is what should be valued, considering that objective values can't exist and everything is relative. For the most part we all view sentience as the thing to be valued, but if you were to unonowingly peacefully pass in your sleep then the idea of sentience itself can be viewed as pointless, since it's not what matters to us. If we die in that peaceful manner, then you aren't harmed and no distress can befall you. Considering this, why is it that we fear death? Because we can predict it. Given that we are (generally) stressed by the idea of our death, it should be noted that we actually fear what happens to the world after we die rather than the act of dying itself. So when someone makes an argument for sentience itself, I see that as a roundabout way of arguing for the prevention of the suffering and distress caused to beings that have sentience. And a small little speck cannot display signs of pain, it's trapped in its own little world without a single way to signal to the outside universe that it's feeling pain. If it's plainly unable to suggest discomfort, then it's sentience is not being impeded by it's death.
What do you mean when you say “potential for sentience is a valid point”?
Far as I can tell Avi specifically said potential is valued on a being that has already had sentience, not pure potential alone.
@@soy1700 yes but that's still not the only moral requirement someone could make, like I stated in my comment replying to this.
Yep !!!!! His fake premise was annoying tf out of me. I wouldn’t finish the video.
@@RigoVids your previous comment is kind of rambly haha. I don't see the relevance in pointing out that values are not objective, or that people might value different things, in the context of this discussion
Forcing something to be dependent on you aka force you to to stay pregnant against your will
Nah man, Dr Avi's logic is bunk.
Just because something can become sentient doesn't change if they are at that time.
Let's say you had a teddy bear named Fred. He's not real, just a stuffed bear. You knew that in 9 months, he would be alive. He would go on to have his own life, maybe have his own bear wife and children. You cut off his head.
Would you feel bad? Why or why not?
I'm not asking about the bear having dependence on you or anything -- that would be the following question. The first question is, would you feel bad chopping off Fred's head?
@@gloriagirgis Whether or not you feel "bad" is irrelevant. Would you feel bad to administer someone euthanasia because they were sick and wanted to die? Probably. Does it make it morally wrong? No.
@@miz4535 but that's a false equivalent. No one is requesting to die here.
The question is simply, would you feel bad? The original commenter said that the potential for life is not the same as life. So I gave another example. Someone who wishes to die by euthanasia is completely irrelevant.
@@gloriagirgis It doesn't have to be equivalent. Your only condition was that it made you "feel bad." Then any example where that applies counts.
@@miz4535 again, that's a false equivalent. The potential for life doesn't have a desire. If you wish to apply any condition, then I could just as easily say that the bear will go on to cure cancer, would you feel bad? Conditions always make a difference.
The question is simple; you're complicating it in order to fit your agenda.
27:32 *Im sorry but this is really basic, in order to want sentience you need to be sentient in the first place.* Also, the problem here is they put all sentience in the same bucket without talking about positive sentience and negative sentience. When someone wants to kill themselves they do not want to get rid of all of their sentience, they want to get rid of negative sentience (Pain). Everyone, even people who kill themselves want positive sentience (Pleasure), it's just that for some the negative sentience is so high that they think it's not worth it anymore to seek positive sentience at the price of the huge negative sentience they experience.
Exactly but I would like to point out, there are people who want neither positive or negative sentience, they simply don't see any worth in putting effort just to exist so they wish they wouldn't have been born.
Some of his analogies were very bizarre.
bizarre or not, if it's analogous its fair.
You mean "disanalogies".
Must respect Richard’s honesty and strength of character
HE WANTS TO MASS MURDER CHILDREN. Empty headed sycophants.
@@andreiz.7746 yes the life of a baby chicken is worth more then the fetus
because with the chicken there is Nobody else involed..
but with giving the fetus a right to life you take a women the right over her body
Well, whatever the "pro-lifers" think, thankfully abortion is becoming more and more available and accepted as part of human and women rights. :)
Human rights? I can’t kill my child with impunity
Luckily, it not up to either of you whether it is right or wrong, or should be illegal or not, because the fetus is in the woman's body, thus it is part of her body or literally inside her body. She has full authority and domain over the fetus. If she wishes to abort it for any reason, that is her choice.
Somebody PLEASE get Avi a decent microphone.
A fetus doesn't know it exists. That is all you need to consider.
holy f*** its like killing someone in a coma who you know will be conscious in 5 months.
im pro life forever and will always fight for the unborn. thats why i love trump. and im vegan 2 years
@@jonahlevi3178 Except it isn't. Unless you want to claim that having a period is like killing someone who you know will be conscious in 9 months. Your fetus is no more sentient than your egg.
@Wo Jak You’re right, but they might mean in circumstances where that’s clearly not the direct goal. There’s plenty of unprotected sex going around with pregnancy not being in mind.
But yes, one should have some self-awareness and self responsibility.
@@jonahlevi3178 It's nothing like that. The person in a coma used to be conscious, presumably long enough to develop a will to live, things they want to do before they die, etc. The fetus was never conscious and has no preference about living or dying because it has no preferences at all.
isn't it immoral to NOT immediately abort all fetuses given the maelstrom of existential suffering being necessarily entails?
they're both natalists afaik (but i agree with you)
I hold this position as an antinatalist. Ideally you’d want everyone to just be sterile so abortions wouldn’t even need to happen.
Okay, so basically, none of your arguments for veganism stand if you won't say that we should stop immoral abortions. Glad we know where your motivation for veganism is coming from now: anti-humanism and not animal welfare. You unknowingly just made a case against veganism.
@ProcreationCausesSuffering GoogleAnti-natalism Do your research. Fetuses suffer when they're torn apart by medical instruments. It is only through willful ignorance that a vegan can be pro-abortion. For those that are, you're not pro-animal welfare, you're anti-human and you use animal welfare as rationalization for hating other humans.
Interesting... Two males waxing eloquently on usage of the female body..
Grow up
@sunscreen Fascinating how you interpreted an encyclopedia on a factual statement.
@Nath Krishna Expound?
@sunscreen Is English not your first language?
@sunscreen It's still fascinating how you extrapolate based on factual questions and statements. To clarify:
* I made an observation on indisputable facts in the original post
* You respond based on *your* interpretation and extrapolation of my position, erecting a strawman of my position.
* I respond a little tongue in cheek on your interpretation
* You respond claiming to not understand my post
* As I'm multilingual (4 languages), I respond with a clarification
* Your last response is an interpretation of my questions that is so far afield and based on multiple strawmen that it's almost unfathomable, not to excuse the ad hominem attacks.
To make a clear point, I have *not* stated my position throughout this post, but your descent into utter nonsense and basically character assassination speaks volumes about your mental state and approach to a discussion.
You're clearly projecting, having a bad day or venting on a YT post, regrettably I find nothing that you can contribute to this discussion. Have a good day.
PS: Polls (I didn't verify your claim but deem it irrelevant) do not truth make. Neither does popularity make any position less or more valid. That's basic logic 101. Here's hoping that you can educate yourself:
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon
I think this is a fat false analogy from Avi. Too many variables left unaccounted for.
His hypothetical is only appealing because of such variables being left out. Not as appealing if you account such variables.
I don't care enough to go into detail, but my opinion remains unchanged about abortion.
i know, the analogies are incomplete if you don't take into account the consequences of illegalizing abortion and also from a threshold utilitarian aspect the overall utility both from the foetus's side, the mother's the planet's side and the animals that that person will kill (as 99% of the population is not vegan) combined. And he keeps saying imagine having the same sentience as a foetus in his analogies when he doesn't clearly state what that is. He could have said imagine having the sentience and intelligence of a snail for him to paint a better picture... As soon as my pain in the but exams are over in a few months i really want to debate the topic with avi and deconstruct the arguments used...
"Reeeee 2 mEn DiScuSsInG aBoRtIoN! Reeeeeeeee!!!"
🧂🧂🧂
Haha yeaa I love when men think they are qualified to speak about women's choices
I know it's like if women can't get it right then how could you.
Human beings regardless of biological sex can discuss and take a position on ethical issues, nobody's opinion is invalidated by their genitalia, just saying. At one time women were not allowed a vote, I am sure nobody wants to go back to that time but now we are going too far the other way in saying that only women are allowed an opinion on what we all need to remember is the deliberate mass killing of innocent human beings, therefore a very grave and serious matter. How incredibly bigoted some people are! We are all former embryos.. male or female
@@lesleydove1127 lol embryos are not people and (most) men don't have uteruses, so their opinions shouldn't matter as much. Worry about actual living people
Many anti-abortionists also hypocritically try to ban contraception and sex education, leading to more unwanted pregnancies
What should the punishment for abortion be?
(Question for pro life people)
An eye for an eye.
Preventative measures like education efforts for wearing a seat belt or mothers who smoke when pregnant or abortion need to be in place. We don't necessarily have effective ways to punish these people we just have deterants and some legalities to discourage behavior but a ticket or a fine or whatever isnt really life altering for most people. But yeah a lot of people who base their pro life beliefs on it being a life under God or any other doctrine absolutely treat it like murder. I don't. I just want regulation and discouragement.
Why should there be punishment in the first place?
Death sentence.
I would say it’s a matter of mens rea. Unless the woman getting the abortion is a sociopath, most women who do so don’t see their fetus as an individual being with intrinsic value.
35:37 is what you're here for
every second that a fetus (parasite) is inside a womans body it is a liability... a liability to her physical health, her mental health and her entire well being... let alone her financial well being and livelihood. she doesnt need any reason other than she simply “doesnt want to continue” carrying a liability... to fully justify an abortion at ANY TIME. PERIOD.
@Sebastian Canales Idk about OP but I have a staunchly pro-choice mom, yet here I am. Do you think pro-choice women never reproduce and are just constantly getting abortions?
Agreed.
And that's on periodt!!!
Is it immoral to abort a fetus who you know is going to end up contributing to the meat/dairy industry?
16:55 this is a damning understanding. we should fight to protect the most vulnerable in society, when you say it's such an "unimportant" and "insignificant" being, that sounds like slave traders who say the slaves are just such insignificant persons they can be used as farm equipment
"Some stupid kid who is going to ruin my life" Ya let's kill em they are inconvenient. No. Wrong. Sinful. Instead, show unconditional, sacrificial love to them as your offspring.
Even if you poison someone for fun, I don't think that should legally obligate you to offer up your body to keep someone alive. Obviously the poisoning is wrong, but the state forcing you to be attached to that person for nine month seems really cruel and unusual.
Lol doesn’t outweighs you ending something that has a high potential at life. Imagine this stance of a community not wanting to take care of a coma patient
Male condoms used perfectly have a 25% failure rate over 10 years apparently (41:51). Could someone explain to me what this actually means?
I would guess it is the likelihood of it tearing and making the woman pregnant in the same process, and that is 25% likely to happen if you have sex with condoms for 10 years. Ergo, if you have sex solely with condoms for 10 years, and you ALWAYS put it on before penetration, one fourth would have forced a being into existence by this time.
@@frodeverli4852 It can't mean that because much less than one quarter of relevant sex acts result in a pregnancy _without any contraception at all._ My guess is that in 25% of cases some sperm escape the condom and enter the woman's body but I don't understand what the 10 years relates to.
@@PureExile it's not 25% of the cases that someone gets pregnant, but for the entire 10 year period that counts as one case. Average amount of sexual intercourse over a decade would be somewhere between 500 and 1000 times for sexually active people. One person can have sex say 500 times over 10 years without the condom failing, which would make them a part of the 75%, while another can have sex 1000 times over 10 years and the condom failing once, resulting in a pregnancy and make them part of the 25%. Irrelevant for the amount of times one have sex, one out of four (25%) will over a 10 year period start a pregnancy/force a being into existence.
@@frodeverli4852 Ah, I see. That makes sense I think. Thank you for the explanation.
can you violate autonomy of something that doesn't exist in the momemt of violating the autonomy?
Uh what doesn’t exist?
Shoving someone up your womb is not the same as accidentally getting pregnant.
Knowing something will happen is not the same as knowing something can happen. I get in my car every day knowing I can get into a fatal accident, but that doesn't make me suicidal unless I know I will get into a fatal accident.
you are misunderstanding the argument, in the context of your car accident exmpl. it would be like this :
you know you could die in a car accident, but thats not the important part, the important part is knowing you could kill someone else in accident AND you full well know that this has serious consequences for your life AND you are ready to accept those consequences.
Dr Avi is not telling ppl to stop having sex, hes just saying that if you do X you should be ready to accept that X can have consequences
@@trueturp6524 If you do x you should be ready to accept the consequences of x, yes absolutely I agree, but should you not also have the freedom and option of fixing or mitigating the consequences of x? If you get into an accident you can call a tow and insurance. If you accidentally get pregnant you can call a doctor and pop a plan b. Even if you drink and drive and kill someone you can call a lawyer and have you day in court, many get reduced sentences or even go free, should those people give up their right to a fair trial and condemn themselves to a life in prison for a bad mistake? Why should someone martyr themselves for someone else's subjective moral high ground? From a moral standpoint is it more or less moral to stop one undeveloped life or to ruin at least 2 or more lives(mother and child)? People get abortions so they still can afford to eat and rent an apartment, people get abortions so they don't give a child up for adoption to an abusive system, people get abortions because they're addicted to drugs and don't want to bear a child with drug dependencies and alcohol fetal syndrome. A child at the wrong time in the wrong situation can ruin entire families, your moral code would see the destruction of fully developed families over a single non developed, unaware half entity? That is truly immoral and completely ignorant. You must live in a perfect world where all babies are healthy and cared for regardless of situation. I guarantee you if the Dr's teen daughter got pregnant from her drug dealing boyfriend while she was drinking he would not condemn a child to a life of retardation and suffering and he would end it before his daughters torment began. If you hit a deer in the middle of the road and broke its legs would you kill it to end it's misery's and suffering, or would you leave it to suffer a long agonizing death? Hitting it with your car will kill the deer eventually, but it was an accident so it's moral, even if it suffers until it dies? But killing it, only to end its misery, on purpose is immoral only because it's on purpose? You and the good Dr. clearly suffer from ivory tower syndrome and a lack of real human experiences, what sheltered lives you must live to see such a black and white world when in reality there is only a haze of grey void of anything absolute. I think you and the good Dr. live in a fantasy world vacant of nuance and reality, lacking in any sort of human decency and oozing with self righteous moral authoritarianism.
On point. PiV Sex has other very important purposes and is not just done with the intention to facilitate fertilization.
@@forposterity4031 plan b is not an abortion pill, it only works to prevent pregnancy like birth control
@@voluntarism335 a fellow voluntaryist/ancap wohoo
Not many of them are vegan, so cool to see one on here :)
25:21 wtf kind of example is that? Does he genuinely equate women AND men sleeping together as the "woman decided for fun to shoving a( fetus) up her womb" Really? And this guy is a doctor?
The fact that he thinks abortion in cases of rpe is okay, bit if two consenting adults engage in it, then they have to be forced to birth the baby is so strange. It's almost like he sees pregnancy as a punishment for people who have sex. But you can escape the "punishment" if someone forces you because it wasn't your "fault". Strange
If it’s consensual unprotected sex then yes the man AND woman agreed to most likely shove a fetus into her womb. Unless it’s rape a woman is as equally responsible as any man for the birth a person in consensual sex
@@willm1019 so the answer is to force an unwilling woman (bent on getting rid of that fetus) to carry it to term, birth it, and....? Have the government take care of the baby? Put it up for adoption next to the millions of orphans? If a woman truly wants an abortion, it's not very difficult -- albeit more dangerous. How can you prevent any pregnant woman from engaging in extreme sports, binge drinking, taking drugs, starving herself, taking medications that severely harm the fetus, etc.? I mean, you can't exactly tie her down and take away her rights for 9 months now, can you? Forcing someone to carry a child against their will cause severe psychological issues and is almost impossible to implement.
u can drop the act i know your used to commenting about how stupid the points are of the person debating vegan gains because your following the herd and your an idiot but the people are agreeing the dr is agreeing and vegan gains himself is agreeing (says it on the video ) that he vegan gains lost the debate ...so yeah lol its ok though we can get lost sometimes
@@willm1019 So if you get into a car accident and break your leg, you better not go to a doctor because you consented to have your leg broken when you chose to drive a car.
@@meateaterscringe9863 it's not about economy. I mean, how exactly will you manage to prevent a pregnwnt woman in engaging in sports, take medication, eat the right amount of food and not starve herself, prevent her from binge drinking, jump off from high places, do drugs that can impact the development of the fetus, etc. The issue is that the woman has to *want* the fetus too to actually allow it to develop properly and not miscarry or have severe mental and physical deformities. It's easy to speak in hypothetical terms, but in reality, it's basically impossible to control everything every pregnant woman in the world does with her body for 9 months.
First Owl
Second Owl
Loooool😂😂😂😂
There is no sentient being, and therefore there can be no forcing anyone to do anything.
Dr Avi also makes the assumption that it is morally right to bring the baby into existence in the first place. If that action was, in fact, morally wrong, then the abortion would then be the morally correct choice.
You're wrong on your latter point and former, but I'll address the latter. Merely because it would be wrong to force someone into existence wouldn't mean that it is therefore okay to kill them once they are in the resultant state. It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong. Unless you argue that the mere state of existing is negative, you would have no obligation to kill them and even if you could argue that existing is negative, forcing someone into another state against their will would still be immoral. We would all agree, I assume that even doing a positive action against someone's will would be wrong, so even if abortion was a nice response, it wouldn't be right if the baby couldn't consent. I don't mean to speak for Dr. Avi, but I've argued with what I consider to be similar arguments to his so I feel like I can somewhat understand his point and wanted to provide a possible response.
@@DiahRhiaJones I said merely three times in my entire comment. I apologize if you don't speak English as a primary language or if you're simply illiterate, but what I commented wasn't even close to a word salad. If you can't comprehend simple sentences and as such, decide to not respond to my argument, okay. However, don't act like I'm at fault for your incompetence.
@@DiahRhiaJones Okay, I thought you were actually going to be an honest, rational person, but I guess I was wrong. Carry on.
@@DiahRhiaJones Oh, I thought you were a dishonest, idiot, but now I realize that you're actually just an idiot. I'll try to use simple words and phrases that even someone of your caliber of intelligence can understand, not that my original reply was particularly complex. What part of:
"Merely because it would be wrong to force someone into existence wouldn't mean that it is therefore okay to kill them once they are in the resultant state. It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong."
and
"It wouldn't mean that being alive would be a negative result, it would merely mean that forcing them into that state would be wrong. Unless you argue that the mere state of existing is negative, you would have no obligation to kill them and even if you could argue that existing is negative, forcing someone into another state against their will would still be immoral."
is an unintelligible rambling that has random words and phrases mixed in? Unless you don't actually understand what the words you use mean, you can't deny that this is your claim (you also pointed out me using merely more than once as if that means much, so I chose to highlight sentences with it).
Both parts simply state that an action being wrong to do to someone, doesn't imply that it would be fine to force someone out of the resultant state of that action. As a hypothetical: If it's wrong to force you into a scenario in which you fight a tiger to win $1,000,000. Then it doesn't follow that it would be okay to steal the $1,000,000 (resultant state), if you won. Much like how if it's wrong to give birth to someone, that doesn't mean it's okay to kill them once they are born. Pretty simple.
Also, I don't support abortion rights once sentience develops, prior to that, kill as many fetuses as you want (so I'm in the same boat as Dr. Avi). I don't believe that you have the right to kill someone just because they are in something you own. So even if I grant that the mother owns the womb (which I do), that doesn't mean that the mother can kill the fetus.
Also, I did respond to your argument, sorry if you can't read too well.
I don't actually have to even argue with you, since the burden of proof was on you from the beginning to explain why what I said was a word salad, which you have yet to do, you simply stated it to be the case with no justification.
@@DiahRhiaJones "Dr Avi also makes the assumption that it is morally right to bring the baby into existence in the first place. If that action was, in fact, morally wrong, then the abortion would then be the morally correct choice."
That was the statement I was responding to, please actually read the original comment before you decide to reply. It isn't irrelevant to the comment I was replying to. Explain why it is a word salad.
How is abortion self-defense, claiming that it is isn't an argument.
#2 of the 4 things neccessary for it to be immoral isn't true with non sentient fetuses (Which is most of them, and where we are currently legally able to get rid of them). Also, if you value potential sentience you either have to value it fully, or not at all. You cannot draw an arbitrary line at which percentage chance of something being potentially sentient in the future starts being morally important. Otherwise that's completely philosophically arbitrary.
This makes more sense to me than your comment on another persons comment, glad I saw this. I agree with you here, this is one of the major issues with obvi's position.
Also my issue with the scenario of poisoning someone and having a risk of them ending up dependent upon you for 9 months is that this has a subtle implication of the fact that the person being hooked up was already sentient prior to being forced into the scenario. Its breaks one of the other 4 parts of obvi's rule set, about the being having prior sentience. Vg's rule though his previous debates was that it is fine to abort prior to sentience developing. I don't see how obvi is making an argument to change this.
@@BIGVINNY99 Yeah, VG didn't push back very hard, I don't know what's wrong with him recently. And yeah Dr. Avi kept making false equivalencies by introducing characteristics which are not true of a fetus.
@@paifu. You're not understanding the difference between comparision and equivocation. Two things which are equivalent cannot be compared - since comparision means to say that two things are the same in some (not all) but SOME respects and different in others, and equivalent things are the same in ALL respects. By the definition of "false equivalence" you're working with here, every possible comparision, insofar as all comparisions necessitate NON- equivalence, comits "false equivalence" - since comparisions can ONLY be made between things which are NOT equivalent.
Btw - you might be right in thinking that the value judgement Avi is carrying over from one scenario to another hinges on some relevant difference between the two, but you would need to explain what those relevant differences were and how a pro-choice position (i'm assuming) follows from them.
It’s so incredibly inconsistent to say “I don’t really care about the moral standing of this little insignificant being, so I’m not going to inconvenience myself to take care of it” when we’re talking about a literal human yet take this moral high ground when it comes to eating animals.
It isn’t a human if it isn’t sentient
@@bb3k761 so beings with severe mental handicaps we can just kill? How can we prove sentience of something that can’t do it itself? You sound like a very dangerous and unintelligent individual, did you fail your high school biology class? Do you know anything of genetics? The fetus’s genetics never change, it’s either always a human through the whole process or never a human. What you mean to argue is it’s PERSONHOOD. Being a human is different from being a person. Being human is based purely in genetics, being a person is still a highly controversial topic for this very reason. Know what you’re arguing before you just start spewing.
@Daniel Brouggy wonderful straw man. I see that you failed biology as well. What you mean to say is you don’t believe it’s a *person* until birth. To say it’s not human, well, that’s just denying facts and letting your feelings do the thinking instead. Not that you do a whole lot of that anyway...
@Daniel Brouggy cool little tidbit you just made up on the spot and have no logical or moral basis for. You might be on VG's side but he would mollywhop you playing devil's advocate against his own and your position because you're simply dimwitted.
@GamingEmpire520 we do it all the time time so clearly yes .......
Yes! Bout time ....i think everyone can agree that in very specific circumstances abortion is not immoral...but its difficult for most to admit in many circumstances its immoral
Unsubbed for the baby grinder comments. Go get youre head checked and stop calling yourself vegan. You're a disgrace to the community these days
Richard gains got completely slaughtered in this debate
If you get slaughtered in the debate and then concede the argument, there is no shame in that
@@jiminnature3394 agreed I never said "shamefully"
With abortion, it comes down to the fact I'd rather be an aborted foetus, then force my mother to raise me.
that would require you to surmise your opinion when you were a fetus. now that you're born alive and here, arguing in favor of being an aborted fetus is questionably suicidal. If you have to argue in a way that makes you not sound suicidal, to prove a point about pro-life, then it really doesn't effectively address that, but moreso primarily concerns not favoring suicide idealization.
Vegan, I watched this live and I am glad you were able to see this from a different POV, however I know you sounded cynical at times and even wished yourself not to be born, I believe you should cheer up bro you have such strong stances on veganism and a strong purpose to save animal lives try to be more self positive!
It’s not as simple as that. Unless you can appeal to a value or motivation he isn’t aware of that’s just honestly how he feels.
But this is also why we should all separate our personal preferences from our core values. If we value being moral people who will play by the rules to share space.
Then we will have to concede things like this. I have cynical tendencies towards people as well. I just see how people act against their own values and can’t help but feel everyone is stupid.
But I still need to share space with these people
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 Richard was just being childish with the "whatever, I hate people anyway" response. This dude instantly judges people that ends up taking "sociopathic stances" by saying they have no problem with killing people to stay consistent with killing animals. Destiny basically did the same thing to him, and he was flabbergasted. From keeping people healthy to defending the gay community. His personal relationships. What's the point? Is it all phoney.
@@TonyMishima92 I think he may just value animals lives more. But maybe you are right.
Personally I find people to be overly egotistical self righteous wastes of space myself.
Most of us are sharing space but don’t act like it
@@ninjaturtletyke3328 @tonyMishima92 I can see both your view points being valid, though when writing my comment it was coming from a place where Vegan told us he has been suffering from depression. This can be a reason he is so cynical and negative in this particular video, and yes it did occur when he was technically “losing” the debate. Honestly I think his fans can understand he’s not crazy ether for him preferring animals over people, it was hard for most to understand how he was pro animal life but not human life until now.
@@Greedful sure I can see that too. I could also be wrong
I do value humans lives. But I have a cynical side who looks at what we have and just see how we act like we earned it. We act like the amazing things we have make us special. I personally think we have an obligation to preserve these things because they are in accordance with our values. So I often see people as dumb because they are hurting themselves.
I’m over explaining. I’m just saying I could be projecting onto him
The problem with comparing people with foetuses is that foetuses are not sentient. The moral problem is with a person's individual attachment to being them and thej ability to suffer due to that. A foetus is incapable of suffering due to not having this sense of self.
Agreed...the fetus hasn’t had a single day of life experience outside of a womb...Avi is comparing a fetus to people who have had years or decades of life experiences
I lean conservative. I'm agnostic, non-religious, but was raised Catholic. The ethics stuck even though I'm non-religious. I'm pro-life....and I'm also strongly ethical-vegan. It's my opinion, if you want to win over the religious crowd to veganism, it would be wise to concede that abortion is unethical, wrong in most circumstances. A person who cares about preserving life, should care about preserving all life. There is everything right with that sentiment. I'm just a normal guy and I'm not perfect, but I care deep down and I think a lot of people out there are just like me in that respect. I am glad to see that Vegan Gains has the open mindedness to reason out the ethics despite having strong bias. That shows good character. You have my respect for that.
Another pro life vegan here. Also non religious. I think I love you
It's good to see my guy isn't dishonest. So many arguments he's had with people that just use dishonest arguments in order to prove their point. Richard is an awesome person.
Hey, Richard. I just want to express how much I respect your intellectual honesty and willingness to change. Seriously, this is the character trait I value most in people.
You're a good person.
Look up the things this guy has said in fine in his past and then say he’s a good person lol
@@Gcool243
Yeah, I know he said crazy stuff. But he'd never actually harm an animal, let alone a human. He just had a horrific upbringing and that makes him say that stuff.
But his actions show someone who cares not to cause suffering and to pursue honest truth. And that's very worthy of acknowledgement.
@@Pyriphlegeton What was his upbringing?
@@LastRenegade His parents were horrible. They pushed him to do sports although he was suffering asthma attacks, etc. No regard for his health and safety.
That's from memory, he talked about it in some video.
I'm very impressed he was able to finish triumphant in this debate while *Barely* using the best point "pro abortion contradicts the ethics of veganism". He did great.
And it's great to see VG display how it looks to respectfully concede, and not just play denial or strawman argue his way out of the debate like most individuals.
Awesome debate from both parties.
how does killing non sentient beings contradict veganism lmfao
@@xoranginho So killing humans - our own offspring at that - in the first stage of life in which they are of course not sentient because of the stage of development they are in (nonetheless 100% of what a human being is at that point in life) is fine while killing a sentient being we´re not in a parent-child relationship with is bad (the latter of which I of course agree with). I just think it´s... strange to value our own children less than nonhuman somebodies.
I have mad respect for Vegan Gains' honesty in this debate.
29:59
In the case of rape it still isnt the childs fault though so it seems odd to make them pay the ultimate price. If abortion is considered immoral in a non rape case it would still be immoral in a rape case. You could argue that rape that results in a pregnancy is a greater crime and warrents a greater punishment however that punishment should fall on the perpetrator not the innocent child.
In theory yes, ideally the perpetrator should be forced to carry it. But y'know, kinda impossible lol
@eli eli right, I agree that rape isn’t the child’s fault but the point isn’t that the child is a criminal the point is, you didn’t put it there, hence, there should be no obligation for you to carry said child for nine months and give birth to it. In any case the child is violating your personal autonomy, in the case of consensual, unprotected sex, you are also knowingly violating the autonomy of the fetus so burden then falls on you because you knowingly allowed a child to form and gain sentience (which in my opinion is the point at which it has an intrinsic right to life). In the case of rape a sound comparison would be that you are unwillingly drugged and hooked up to a person who uses you as a dialysis machine, even if the person is innocent and they will die, you absolutely should have the right to remove yourself from them and go on your way. The idea is that the debate isn’t over who is punished for the crime of rape, it is over the right to determine what happens with your body and in the case of rape where you are not responsible, you should not be held responsible for another life. In the case of unprotected irresponsible sex in which no precaution is taken, you in practical terms have assumed that risk and if not aborted before the child gains sentience, then there is an issue in that you were irresponsible enough to let a sentient life develop, knowingly, and in such a context I would determine that you no longer have a right to take that life since you partook in a situation which you knew had a high risk of creating a dependance and then, you even allowed that dependent life form to gain sentience.
@eli eli not a parallel though because illegal immigrants are deported, not killed, and it wouldn't be good to deport only the parents and separate them from their children, thus the children must go with their parents.
@@bigboilard9300 You are factually wrong here because a fetus doesn't have any bodily autonomy, therefore, no one can violate a fetus, it isn't even an individual to begin with, it's just a clump of cells that is ultimately a part of the mother's body that has little to no sentience.
You know who is an individual with lot of sentience and has a right to their bodily autonomy though? The mother, hell, even a newborn actual fucking baby is way more morally worthy than fucking fetus, holy shit, dumb people who only wants to virtue signal.
Not to mention, forcing someone to actively take part into forming a clump of cells into a new life to raise them to baby aka. "pro-life" ironically does more harm than good and is immoral since you're not taking the fact of the "mother's suffering" into consideration which is more cruel.
@@RedAISkye I agreed with basically all you were saying. To clarify I meant that I don’t really agree with knowingly letting the fetus become sentient then aborting it. A agree that before sentience the fetus is nothing more than a clump of cells and doesn’t have any right to bodily autonomy and to say that that clump has a right to life that supersedes the mothers right to bodily autonomy would be ridiculous.
This is why many women don't like to hear men's opinion on rape. These guys are literally comparing rape to waking up being hooked up/dependent on someone. This totally removes the extreme trauma of rape.
You guys seem to asume that life is a positive thing regardless here. You might want to justify that stance. I think on average a life is not a positive nor a negative experience, it can go both ways. But the average life experience, since there is no comparison material except all other life experiences, should be right in the middle of a positive and a negative life experience. So when forcing a person to have a child that doesnt want it, increases the chance of a negative life experience for that child, since the parent rather had an abbortion. So advocating against abortion is advocating for more negative life experiences in my view. Ending a life before its truly sentient, when that life likely will be on the negative side of the middle point average, in my view is the humane action. Forcing a life in a situation where its is likely going to have a less positive experience than average, would be the inhumane action. Also humans that have a negative life experience are more likely to influence other humans in a negative way. So forcing the parent to have the child, might not only negatively impact the life of that child, but also the people the child will have an impact on troughout its life. I think uplifting the average quality of life by reducing suffering should be the focus for humanity. Abortion has a positive influence on that in my opinion.
exactly, most pro lifers act like life is all good and rainbows
@eli eli so you are saying here that a good functioning foster system is as good or better than having parents that chose to have a child. That is just rediculoulsy far removed from the reality as it is now and likely will ever be.
@eli eli also a baby that is going to have a life of pain and suffering and when its fully grown will spread that pain and suffering to others, how is that a positive thing?
@eli eli you say you live in America, like that means something, when its the country with the highest percentage of citizens in prisons. Insane amounts of mass shootings. Very high amounts of inequality and poverty. People going bankrupt from healthcare bills, racism, corrupt politicians, wars for profit etc etc. There is no garantee a person will be happy there. You might see life as a positive thing, but thats not an objective view on it. An objective view would be, it depends on what you compare it to and then compare it to the average, which I do in my argument. The average child will have parents that wanted to have it. So a child that has a parent that did not want it, will have below average circomstamces for a positive life experience. These value judgements I make are all relative, like any value judgement in a logical argument should be. Parents just have a vital role in the development of a human being, from birth to adulthood and even beyond, and there are plenty of studies that support that, so I dont think I have to argue for that.
@eli eli Every murderer, criminal, mass shooter, suicide victim etc. was a baby once. Forcing people to have a child is just going to increase the amount of suffering, both for the parent and for the child and every person in their life. It is unlogical if you want a more positive society to want to force others to have a baby when they dont want it.
I think just from a purely utilitarian perspective - it’s difficult to argue for making abortion illegal under most circumstances). The amount of suffering caused to the pregnant woman being forced by law to come to term verses the amount of suffering caused to the fetus being aborted... !? ... it just seems insane to argue for a pro-life position given the amount of suffering this will inevitably lead to.
It is insane.
@@BriansTake you should have the right to protect yourself. If you have a being growing inside your body and that being’s survival is dependant on you... then it is within your basic freedoms to protect yourself from that being. You shouldn’t have to endure a traumatic and potentially dangerous childbirth just to preserve a life that is dependent on your body for survival. Especially in scenarios where precautions were taken to prevent the pregnancy or scenarios where the pregnant woman has health conditions which could result in a difficult pregnancy or potentially dangerous childbirth.
This debate focuses too heavily on the fetus and neglects the suffering of the pregnant woman caused by a pregnancy.
It is irrational to consider the wellbeing of a low level sentient fetus - when their wellbeing is dependent on the suffering of a pregnant woman who’s capacity for suffering is far greater.
"You mean what if I said you need to have my baby or i going to beat the shit out of you" "Lets maybe try one less graphic" LMAO
Sentience or not a woman should have control over HER body. Not your opinion/logic.
@Nath Krishna Fetus is NOT a baby nor is it sentient. Her womb and body, her choice so stfu.
im still for abortion after watching this and can refute a lot of point in this debate
Highly doubtful given your grammar and punctuation writing the above sentence. However, I too am on your side of the argument.
@@russell3038 im french native speaker and speak 3 language so dont judge people on a written text in a comment section this is not an exam
Yeah it wasn’t very hard surprised richard hasn’t heard this argument before. Like at 6:50 for example he simply could have brought up the fact that the law couldn’t legally force you to continue to have the person you poisoned hooked up to you, even though you would be liable for murder if you decided not to.
@@RichardsGaySon the way i see it abotion is a must as long as there are humans for adoption and starving in the world.
@@russell3038 🤣
So not once did they acknowledge the immortality of legislation that forces someone to voluntarily give up their self and well being for someone else.
We already have that legislation. If you’re a parent and you neglect your child, the police will come to your house if notified and take you to prison.
You had a choice, you simply don't want the responsibility and consequences of that choice.
Suck it up Karen.
replace "fetus" with "meat" and this ended sounding like the typical excuse meat eaters have about "convenience"
@@peterpeterson3385 the logic provided for anti-abortion in this debate was strong
Exactly. I was pro choice before I became vegan. Now I'm pro life. It pained me to hear Richard use the same excuses non vegans make for justifying eating meat. The parallels between the enslavement and killing of animals and abortion are so similar it boggles my mind why so many vegans tend to be pro choice.
@@mattzilla331 its almost like he just hates humans and is vegan for the sole reason to hurt the human race🙃he isn’t on the side of humans so why would he ever tell you the truth about anything
@@austyn81007 What if he's not on the side of humans because he's on the side of truth? What then?
@@Qstandsforred to say he is on the side of truth is clearly subjective as there is plenty of data on all diets. so when you are anti human because of a subjective opinion then you are the enemy. especially when he misrepresents data and information. he has no problem lying to you so why would you say he is on the side of truth?🤣🤣🤣you vegans are such slimy weasels
The moral context argument is a pretty easy debate in all fairness. what's right and wrong for one might not be what's right and wrong for ones self so if a rape victim had to choose between the moral compass of others over their own mental health and well being then the argument of morality is mute. The reason this becomes mute is that the question will always switch to the potential danger for ones well being. the most prominent example of this would be if a person goes through with having the baby after being forced into pregnancy they will potentially face the anguish of looking at a child that resembles their attacker and can in fact cause extreme distress or very long term issues such as PTSD. In this case it's simply not morally correct to say the person can't choose abortion because the mental connotations far outweigh the morality. The fact is, the likelihood is the victim will undergo a pregnancy test long before sentiency due to the obvious reasons of having been sexually violated. It's simply not right to expect a person to face torment for the remainder of their life over the virtue signalling views of others.
issue with the last point of making it illegal is that if u don't give people the opportunity to do it safely they will do it on their own risking themselves and the baby.
@@voluntarism335 Thats true if u were to see it as murder which I still don't because the fetus hasn't had consciousness before he were to be adopted.
Anyways, I feel like a lot of women would endanger themselves and the baby if they did not have a way to abort it without legal consequences
@@FRANKLiN_music That's their problem.
I dont agree with the whole poison\hooked up argument, because what if you somehow ingest a parasite by eating and now your its source food
I would assume someone like Dr. Avi would submit that eating is necessary for your survival. So you don't have a "choice" to eat. So the comparison doesn't really hold up.
Do they ever bring up when sentience is achieved in a fetus?
No, because it is not certain and we can't ask fetuses. Benefit of the doubt, I guess? Same as bivalves.
@@frodeverli4852
Scientific American website states sentience in a fetus would occur at about 24-28 weeks of pregnancy...over 99% of abortions happen prior to that timeframe
www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/
@@vietnamd0820 That would be conciousness, a slightly different term but it's OK to conflate them for simplicity.
24-28 weeks seems to be when the complex conciousness is finally developed, but I fail to see how it is relevant? The process has already started and the being is developing conciousness/sentience. On top of that, we can save preterm babies all the way down to 21 weeks, and in the future it will be even earlier. This would be before they are considered concious, but I still would find it immoral to end its life for whatever unnecessary reason.
Consent to sex is not consent to get pregnant. Consent to get pregnant is not consent to carry the fetus to term.
Avi's a joke
Symmetry breaker? Whats that?
I've always said that if you're a vegan and pro-choice, you have no business telling people that their choices are wrong.
I don't know if basic sentience is the right place to draw the line. I think that if you can kill the foetus without it experiencing a worse harm than it would have, had you brought it into existence, then that is at least the lesser evil. I don't think it can be credibly argued that a foetus has its own preferences and desires invested in its future. And even if it does experience pain, it's going to be an infinitesimally small amount of pain compared to what you've prevented by ending its life before it leaves the womb. If you give birth to the foetus, then they will have a burdensome welfare state that they will need to constantly strive to protect against external frictions. And it will also eventually die. So giving birth and allowing it to develop full sapience is a bigger violation than just killing it. The size of the harm that you've inflicted, if any, is trivial compared to the size of the harm that you've prevented. So even if the ideal would be not to get pregnant in the first place, abortion is definitely ethically preferable to birth. Perfect isn't the enemy of good, here.
This isn't the same as when you've got a fully sapient human and you maliciously cause them to be dependent on you, and that person has desires and interests invested in the future which you have messed around with.
just wipe out humanity now, the amount of pain humanity as a whole would suffer over time would be so much worse
I don't agree with everyone patting Richard on the back for conceding. He lost the debate, plain and simple. That is undeniable. That's like saying "Hey, I respect the fact that you admit you got knocked out in that fight." And he didn't even really concede because he is still pro-abortion. This is the same guy who loves admonishing people for logical inconsistencies and cognitive dissonance, by the way.
I would agree Richard lost the debate but not for the same reasons that you do. He lost the moment he agreed to Avi equalizing "a fetus which is a part of a mother's body that has a potential to form into a new life" as equal to "an actual human being who already exists but in a coma".
There's morally a huge difference between the two, even a newborn baby is morally way more worthy than a clump of fucking cells that are a part of your own body.
So, Richard should've pointed out this issue, instead, it somehow slipped from him which only led to him digging himself deeper into a hole.
@@RedAISkye Nope. I wasn't equating the two. I understand the distinction you are trying to make. It fails as a defense of the pro choice position. Happy to talk on discord to anyone who thinks they can defend that.
@@AviMD Feel free to state your counter argument then.
Mr. wannabe Dr. Avi. :)
@@RedAISkye as I've said, I'm happy to debate on voice. I'm not interested in having a text debate. If youre confident in your position, hopefully you can come on voice. Up to you.
My one concern with this debate is that vegan gains seemed wildly different than the overwhelming majority of his previous debates. Not sure if that influenced his critical thinking skills? He seems a lot more careful in this particular Tabbi's debate
Seems like he obviously just thought the guy was making good arguments. You might just be biased here.
I don't think it's hypocritical to be vegan and be pro-life
They are completely unrelated honestly
It is completely hypocritical you’re right
@@dillo1594 it's all about egotism so there is absolute consistency here. Veganism is about maximizing personal pleasure. Abortion is largely about maintaining a lifestyle of personal pleasure.
@mmhmm I won't equate human life to animal life any more than you'll equate animal life to plant life.
I can play various music to my crops and find they taste better. My olive trees are worth much more to me than my chickens. I'll easily chop a chickens head off before I chop down any of the trees. Yet for your inner pathos, one is murder and the other isn't.
You only care about human treatment towards animals because you suffer from an inner spiritual struggle you have yet to identify. If you cared about all animal welfare you'd be in the wild keeping the peace amongst them and making sure they're all fed whatever synthetic garbage you've created. To keep them from killing each other.
The root reasoning for veganism is to value the interests of others in this case it may be animals, if you wouldn't kill a puppy because you or someone doesn't want it but yet you advocate killing babies especially sentient ones for the same reason that's very hypocritical.
I don't know if I'll watch, but I'm going to guess before watching that the main point is that in a situation after a child is born, and is totally dependent on his parent, and can't be given away to someone, that killing the child is immoral, even though that requires an involuntary commitment from you. Then this principle is applied to the time before birth (and after development of sentience). Am I anywhere close?
When Dr. Avi began with comparing abortions to the holocaust, I thought this debate was going to be an absolute dumpster fire but it turned out to be alright.
huh, are fetuses sentient? 0.o
bc it seems like they are arguing as if fetuses are sentient. Im a bit confused by that, someone explain please
Yes after 7 weeks fetıses are indeed sentient if you want empirical evidence check out this debate on dr avis channel under the comments section he provided the links
I have a few concerns. I'm still a little skeptical. I get that there is no good argument to assume that a fetus (When fully grown) may have a desire to live. But what accomplishes overall more good. Pro-life or pro-abortion?
I ask this because I do believe there is issues with regards to how unwanted babies grow up to have serious issues in life, be it mental, physical or other. And because of the impact of things like adoption where it may cause more suffering because not enough people adopt (To my knowledge. Think about parents who die and such). It also adds to the human population, which we certainly don't need much more of.
@@meateaterscringe9863 Not really, how does the logic of "avoiding the process of forming a new life by killing a clump of cells that has little to no sentience which is a part of the mother's body" has anything to do with slavery and murdering human beings?
@@meateaterscringe9863 Lmao, maybe it was too hard for you to comprehend which is the reason you misinterpreted the logic so badly.
@@meateaterscringe9863 Oh, so you're unable to comprehend simple English as well as I never said anything about any fallacious arguments and your latter statement doesn't even make sense, lmao.
no way this man child is a DR
Good on you, Richard. No shame in conceding to one of the smartest vegans alive.
Big ups to you Richard!
The conclusion I derived from this debate is that passive abortion is wrong because intentionally breeding is wrong. Without the prescribed state of intentionally doing an act that results in a fetus being created in a womb, the conversation of the morality of abortion becomes one sided.
I would say, that if you didnt intend to get pregnant, like you took birth control and/or used contraception, or let's say your bodily autonomy was violated to the point where you became pregnant, and you have the ability to get an abortion, you should actually be morally convicted to GET an abortion, or at the very least, commit to the notion that you wronged the being in question before they were ever created. Having intentionally unprotected sex should be viewed as the most wrong thing here because you open up the potential for life which opens up a giant can of worms (the potential for harm/pain to the individual and/or to the harm/pain the may cause to someone else in their lifetime)
Avi started out on where the focus should be in this debate, and that was on the intentionality or the negligence of the person who is procreating, but the conclusion from that scenerio shouldn't be that abortion is wrong, rather that the act of willfully putting yourself in a position to have to get an abortion is wrong.
I want to clarify that the wrongdoing that exists that we should be condemning isn't abortions themselves because they are just a product of the wrongdoing that has already been done. This isn't slut shaming because I love sluts lol. This is condemning irresponsibility and I identifying the failure of seeing reality and understanding that no one asks to be born therefore the bodily autonomy of the fetus has already been violated before the abortion ever took place.
If you get pregnant just get an abortion as soon as possible, even if you meant to get pregnant you shouldn't be, that honestly makes it even worse.
Morally speaking not legally, abortions should be reserved for bodily autonomy violations and accidents. Whereas intentional procreation in general is what should be viewed as the primary wrongdoing
a fair sportsman 👍🏽
28:00 - realises the debate is lost, awkward laugh. "Just worked out" , yet no sweat was present on his forehead at the start of the debate. Why even mention nerves... Very awkward to watch.
I respect Richard more after looking at it.
Ouch - Vegan Gains got owned
I love that Richard will always back down to logic. He’s not too hard-headed to change his stance on things or agree with someone else if the information is presented in a way that he can understand. That just usually doesn’t happen because the people debates are idiots most of the time 😂. I’ve been a follower for a long time but regardless my Respect for VG just went up.
Still better love story than twilight
I can totally understand the argument of “Yeah I don’t care” thats what I say when I eat animals. 😏
Replace 😏 with 😬
If you dont care then you dont care about a life meaning you probably need god
@@venth6 I was partial joking, but I care very much about life precisely because I don’t believe there is a God or more importantly a after life. I don’t really see what eating animals has to do with it.
@@Jackiepapers eating animal is fine it's the buying them which is the reason slaughter house exist
@@venth6 Well if you’re talking about factory farming I’m totally with you and would be OK with it being abolished as it currently sits
These hypotheticals are insane!
What if the baby is threatening the life of the mother is that considered self defense?
I would say that would be ok. I wouldn't call it "self defense" but ya. But this is rare. The vast majority of abortions are totally elective and have nothing to do with the health of the mother.
Here’s the issue I have, the act of giving birth is often excruciatingly painful and risks the mothers life. Even if you concede that the baby didn’t ask to be born and you’re violating its autonomy, the giving birth and risks to the mothers life go beyond the moral obligation you have to the baby.
@eli eli Look up the maternal mortality rate for black mothers in the US. It is ridiculous.
@@mattzilla331 no mother’s dying giving birth is not rare it is pretty sad unfortunately
@@mattzilla331 Is it also considered elective if the mother can't afford a child and/or lives in the US where they have low-paying job and no guaranteed maternal leave?
Outstanding debate. This is the most solid argument for a pro-life I've ever seen. I'm actually very impressed Richard conceding to this debate and it just shows a level of transparency that most people don't have.
Loved this Richard! Appreciate and admire your intellectual honesty. These conversations are important.