He was very respectful. I think many people are thinking compassionately about women, they just don’t value the child as much, sadly. Nice to see someone willing to listen. Great job, Hayden!
To be clear, he is saying that people have a right to their own body, which is true. He also acknowledges from the start that the conflict arises from the fact that the baby also has a right to its body.
@@taffysaurright and if both have a right to their own bodies, NO ONE should interfere until after the birth. Until the child can be separated if the mother wants to place the child up for adoption.
@@varsedothat's a violation of property rights. Imagine I force myself to live in your house for a certain period of time, you have the property right to reject me from living in your house.
@@varsedo I subjectively define human S, p3rm to be "human beings" so do I now get to impose my subjective perspective onto you and demand that w3t dreams are criminalised??
Because they don't interact with real people or socialize. They spend most time on Tiktok and TH-cam where a lot of "influencers" use the uptalk as well. So they adapt it for themselves and keeps spreading it. It's annoying af
@charliewatts6007 this is not about losing a baby but causing a baby to be born prematurely, but no injury, even if you want to misinterpert parts of this, this text is not about intentionally murdering which is already addressedin the law of Moses. Any "issues" with one interpretation of any text and you should use the rest of the text to understand it. So many examples like psalm 139 13-16 Jeremiah 1 Luke 1 etc... don't just Google want pro choice wants you to misuse and take out of context.
Exodus 21:22-25 discusses two men fighting who injure a pregnant woman and cause her to abort spontaneously or go into labor. The death of the fetus is not treated as a criminal offense but rather one that requires monetary compensation to the father for the loss of his potential offspring. If the woman was injured, she is also entitled to compensation for her injuries. If she dies , the man or men are liable for her death.
@@HonkyTonkGirls I assume these are bot responses now. a month old comment getting the exact response twice within 30 mins. any way I'm not arguing with bots read my other response you are mis interpreting the scripture.
@@JasonH17 The anti-abortionist's misreading of Exodus 21:22-25 defies the legislative logic of the Hebrew Bible to have a husband impose a fine where there is no material loss whatsoever.
The Old Testament sees a fetus more as property of the father than as a full legal and moral person. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses two men fighting who injure a pregnant woman and cause her to abort spontaneously or go into labor. The death of the fetus is not treated as a criminal offense but rather one that requires monetary compensation to the father for the loss of his potential offspring. If the woman was injured, she is also entitled to compensation for her injuries. If she dies, the man or men are liable for her death.
Hey Hayden, genuine question, do you posit yourself as more of a pro-lifer or would you be more of an abolitionist? I see a lot of your videos and you seem to take the stance of abolition.
See his videos "Are Incremental Pro Life Bills Sinful? I Changed My Mind" and "On Using The Term Pro Life". He supports both immediate abolition and incremental change. This is much better than prolifers and abolitionists wasting time fighting each other.
According to Genesis 2:7, God does not see a fetus as a "living person" because a fetus does not become a "living being" until birth when God breathes into a newborn's nostrils the "breath of life." Biological life creates a "'living creature" (see Genesis 2:19). A human fetus is a "living creature" like the beast and bird. The "breath of life" elevates a "living creature" to a "living person" "a little lower than the angels" (see Hebrews 2:7-9). The Old Testament's concept of life is more holistic than the Christian view, which sees human life as merely biological. From the Old Testament point of view, human life begins at birth, not conception.
A human zygote is a single human totipotent stem cell. That cell is alive and is capable of dividing to create identical daughter cells. BUT, the human zygote is NOT a human being. It is the progenitor cell where human beings will develop from, but itself is not a human being.
At the time of conception, that one-celled zygote is the entirety of that particular human organism. It is the very first stage of the organism's life cycle, and starts a continuous process of growth and development that spans all the way through to adulthood. The zygote doesn't "produce" a human as if building something outside of itself. It IS the human.
@@SquirrellyFries Well, so to be philosophically consistent, based on what you said, you would agree that monozygotic twins are together one human being, correct? Are monozygotic twin 2 different human (beings), or 1 collective human being?
@@callistoscali4344 I reject your assumption that a human is not a human in the zygote stage. And the zygote is a cell but it's going to rapidly develop into a fully-fledged human body and the other cells in the human body do NOT do that so I reject equating a zygote to just any other cell. Barring extraneous circumstances or abortion the end result will be a baby that is born into the world.
@@noxplay4906 Not true. The zygote has to undergo successful development into an embryo. Then it has to successfully implant onto the uterus. Then it has to successfully develop into a fetus and undergo fetal development. In fact, the more likely result is to fail in any of these steps. Implantation and successful development into a fetus has only a 1/3 probability under ordinary circumstances. Nothing is guaranteed and the likelihood of success, even after successful fertilization remains low.
@@callistoscali4344 They are 2 separate human organisms once they are separated. Scientifically speaking, before they are separated, they are one single human organism.
He was very respectful. I think many people are thinking compassionately about women, they just don’t value the child as much, sadly. Nice to see someone willing to listen. Great job, Hayden!
"Property rights" is crazy.
To be clear, he is saying that people have a right to their own body, which is true. He also acknowledges from the start that the conflict arises from the fact that the baby also has a right to its body.
@@taffysaurright and if both have a right to their own bodies, NO ONE should interfere until after the birth. Until the child can be separated if the mother wants to place the child up for adoption.
@@varsedothat's a violation of property rights. Imagine I force myself to live in your house for a certain period of time, you have the property right to reject me from living in your house.
@@varsedo
I subjectively define human S, p3rm to be "human beings" so do I now get to impose my subjective perspective onto you and demand that w3t dreams are criminalised??
@@varsedo
A zygote does not have "body" dear, nor a brain 🤫
What is it with the particular generation and the uptalk? Are they all Canadian now?
Because they don't interact with real people or socialize.
They spend most time on Tiktok and TH-cam where a lot of "influencers" use the uptalk as well. So they adapt it for themselves and keeps spreading it. It's annoying af
It’s interesting how eugenics has come back en vogue
Wow. Eugenics. This is insane
Very respectful conversation 👍💯
Those darn bells! 😅
General position - property rights... what does that sound like?? NO doubt how this dude would have stood in different periods of time/history.
The Old Testament's view of a fetus is that it is more like property of the father than an individual or person (see Exodus 21:22-25).
@charliewatts6007 this is not about losing a baby but causing a baby to be born prematurely, but no injury, even if you want to misinterpert parts of this, this text is not about intentionally murdering which is already addressedin the law of Moses. Any "issues" with one interpretation of any text and you should use the rest of the text to understand it. So many examples like psalm 139 13-16 Jeremiah 1 Luke 1 etc... don't just Google want pro choice wants you to misuse and take out of context.
Exodus 21:22-25 discusses two men fighting who injure a pregnant woman and cause her to abort spontaneously or go into labor. The death of the fetus is not treated as a criminal offense but rather one that requires monetary compensation to the father for the loss of his potential offspring. If the woman was injured, she is also entitled to compensation for her injuries. If she dies , the man or men are liable for her death.
@@HonkyTonkGirls I assume these are bot responses now. a month old comment getting the exact response twice within 30 mins. any way I'm not arguing with bots read my other response you are mis interpreting the scripture.
@@JasonH17 The anti-abortionist's misreading of Exodus 21:22-25 defies the legislative logic of the Hebrew Bible to have a husband impose a fine where there is no material loss whatsoever.
Property rights?!?!?!? Are you kidding me!!!! This guy's morality: feet planted firmly in mid-air
The Old Testament sees a fetus more as property of the father than as a full legal and moral person (see Exodus 21:22-25).
This guy's uptalk is very strange and a little concerning.
The Old Testament sees a fetus more as property of the father than as a full legal and moral person. Exodus 21:22-25 discusses two men fighting who injure a pregnant woman and cause her to abort spontaneously or go into labor. The death of the fetus is not treated as a criminal offense but rather one that requires monetary compensation to the father for the loss of his potential offspring. If the woman was injured, she is also entitled to compensation for her injuries. If she dies, the man or men are liable for her death.
Hey Hayden, genuine question, do you posit yourself as more of a pro-lifer or would you be more of an abolitionist? I see a lot of your videos and you seem to take the stance of abolition.
See his videos "Are Incremental Pro Life Bills Sinful? I Changed My Mind" and "On Using The Term Pro Life". He supports both immediate abolition and incremental change. This is much better than prolifers and abolitionists wasting time fighting each other.
According to Genesis 2:7, God does not see a fetus as a "living person" because a fetus does not become a "living being" until birth when God breathes into a newborn's nostrils the "breath of life." Biological life creates a "'living creature" (see Genesis 2:19). A human fetus is a "living creature" like the beast and bird. The "breath of life" elevates a "living creature" to a "living person" "a little lower than the angels" (see Hebrews 2:7-9). The Old Testament's concept of life is more holistic than the Christian view, which sees human life as merely biological. From the Old Testament point of view, human life begins at birth, not conception.
A human zygote is a single human totipotent stem cell. That cell is alive and is capable of dividing to create identical daughter cells. BUT, the human zygote is NOT a human being. It is the progenitor cell where human beings will develop from, but itself is not a human being.
At the time of conception, that one-celled zygote is the entirety of that particular human organism. It is the very first stage of the organism's life cycle, and starts a continuous process of growth and development that spans all the way through to adulthood. The zygote doesn't "produce" a human as if building something outside of itself. It IS the human.
@@SquirrellyFries Well, so to be philosophically consistent, based on what you said, you would agree that monozygotic twins are together one human being, correct? Are monozygotic twin 2 different human (beings), or 1 collective human being?
@@callistoscali4344 I reject your assumption that a human is not a human in the zygote stage. And the zygote is a cell but it's going to rapidly develop into a fully-fledged human body and the other cells in the human body do NOT do that so I reject equating a zygote to just any other cell. Barring extraneous circumstances or abortion the end result will be a baby that is born into the world.
@@noxplay4906 Not true. The zygote has to undergo successful development into an embryo. Then it has to successfully implant onto the uterus. Then it has to successfully develop into a fetus and undergo fetal development. In fact, the more likely result is to fail in any of these steps. Implantation and successful development into a fetus has only a 1/3 probability under ordinary circumstances. Nothing is guaranteed and the likelihood of success, even after successful fertilization remains low.
@@callistoscali4344 They are 2 separate human organisms once they are separated. Scientifically speaking, before they are separated, they are one single human organism.
It's 5 o'clock
@@Conan_Burns 🔔🔔🔔😁
You changed what you call yourself to pro lifer from abolitionist. Why? Is it just better for the algo?
I really hope not. That would be a sell-out in my opinion.
@@Whyshouldyouknow4 It'd reach more people, so I strongly disagree
He has a video on his opinion on if "incrementalism is or is not necessary sinful vs immediatism"
@chelyfranco5037 thanks
How can abortion be murder when, according to Genesis 2:7, a fetus is not "a living soul?"
Pro life? Or abolitionist?