AI Doctors CLASH Over ABORTION debate
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ต.ค. 2024
- I configured a pro-life Neonatologist and a pro-choice Obstetrician-Gynecologist (large language models) to engage in a debate over the most profound questions: How should we understand the beginning of human life and at what point should it be protected?
Through scientific evidence, philosophical arguments, and personal experiences, they dissect the moral and ethical implications of personhood, viability, and consciousness. To make it even more interesting, I've included 15 different AI models from some of the largest companies in the world to judge each response.
Leave your thoughts in the comments.
If you enjoy the video, please consider hitting the like button, and subscribing with notifications for more.
I'll add chapters after I get some rest.
FOOTNOTES:
1. Vanhatalo, S., & Lauronen, L. (2006). Neonatal SEP and EEG in preterm infants: clinical interpretation. Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, 11(6), 464-470.
2. Arduini, D., Caforio, L., Cerekja, A., & Rizzo, G. (2023). Fetal brain development and behavior. Prenatal Diagnosis, 43(7), 791-802.
3.Marquis, D. (1989). Why abortion is immoral. The Journal of Philosophy, 86(4), 183-202.
4. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (2020). Early Pregnancy Loss.
5. Moore, K. L., & Persaud, T. V. N. (2013). The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology. Elsevier Health Sciences.
6. Thomson, J. J. (1971). A defense of abortion. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 47-66.
7. Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
8. Lee, S. J., Ralston, H. J. P., Drey, E. A., Partridge, J. C., & Rosen, M. A. (2005). Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. JAMA, 294(8), 947-954.
9. MacDorman, M. F., & Mathews, T. J. (2009). Behind international rankings of infant mortality: how the United States compares with Europe. NCHS Data Brief, (23), 1-8.
10. George, R. P., & Tollefsen, C. (2008). Embryo: A Defense of Human Life. Doubleday.
11. Beckwith, F. J. (2007). Defending Life: A Moral and Legal Case Against Abortion Choice. Cambridge University Press.
12. March of Dimes. (2021). Providing support for mothers and babies.
Had limited time this week, so I kept the debate short by giving the debaters a 10-minute limit. Hopefully, it still sparks plenty of thought-provoking discussion!
As always, your ideas inspire these videos, so feel free to comment and upvote your favorites.
What a great video topic I was wondering when this would be covered my new favourite channel.
Personally, I love the long-form videos with more arguments/expansion of the AI's points.
Would be nice to see a part two then focusing on the after math of forcing mothers bringing unwanted children.
Yooo you listened to my comment
@@JonOleksiuk Biblical Old earth vs Biblical Young earth Please
The debate was already bound to be better than what happens in politics when the Choice side conceded that life began at conception scientifically rather than playing games and jumping around an inconvenient truth like what we see
To be honest it’s not that it conceded, pro choice side said it first.
@@deancollinss what he meant if that normally pro-choice people claim that the baby isn't alive.
they say things like: "it's not a human life", "it's not living", "I value the one who is alive first", etc.
He was more like saying, that finally pro-choices will stop claiming so terrible basic biology
@@MichaelMayor-k6twhen pro choice people mean when they are not alive they usually mean they are not a conscious person
I agree. I'm pro-choice, but I don't bother to argue that. Abortion is killing a child, there's no question about it. The only question is whether that killing is Justified, or should be treated as a crime.
Now do a Jewish A.I. vs Christian A.I. that debates if Jesus Christ is the Messiah or not.
They've done similar video ideas before.
th-cam.com/video/GOOgHN24WcQ/w-d-xo.htmlsi=Q8Fm6EtiGSKVTByq
th-cam.com/video/eY_il2MZjxc/w-d-xo.htmlsi=1rtBfJp9PiiGkeN1
@@EdanClarke-xg4ip Now do a Jewish A.I. and a Christian A.I. debating if Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
@Methodius-and-Cyril they crucified Him for claiming to be the messiah they said we are not stoning you for any good work but because you a mere man claim to be God
Yes please
That is totally useless though, the Jews like me believe Jesus didn’t perform miracles in general and don’t believe they happened, and that Jesus was just a good Jew, while Christian’s believe he did do miracles, and some of the only records of these miracles come from the Bible, so it’ll just be a back and forth “yuh huh” vs “nuh uh”
Now make them debate whether or not cereal is a soup
Plz I want to see it❤❤❤
DO IT FOR THE BOYS ❤️❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🙏
Yes
finally someone who uses AI to its full potential
Is the sea soup too?
@low-keyvibin3189 Good question🤔
This debate felt weird in my opinion, because they constantly say "in my experience as" despite not being actual doctors.
More than likely, they have to role-play as the specialist, in order to actually talk about a subject like this.
Your channel is one of the best ideas I’ve ever seen. Love this. You need to turn this into a podcast. Literally just upload the mp3 as is.
Another great video! I am Pro Life and found myself answering the against side in my head and was happy to hear the pro side coming up with very similar or even better replies. Really can’t get enough of these videos. Thanks for taking in this topic! I’ll be re-watching this one (like all the others) so many more times!
I too am pro life leaning (with exceptions). I understand both perspectives and see how people logically reach their conclusions. Unfortunately in today's society emotions run high during debates and get heated with talking points heard online very quickly. It was nice to hear two opposing sides making arguments without emotion on such an emotional topic.
How would you answer the statement that we don't force organ donations so we also shouldn't force birth?
@@patrolgaming4094 You've reduced the relationship between a mother and child to trivial strangerhood, making the innocent life nothing more than an inconvenient burden. We already legislate that mothers cannot murder their infants, and we do not force organ donations in doing so. Nothing would change, and this is a non-argument.
@@skylershuman7705all murder is illegal. The question is whether or not abortion is murder or self-defense. If you were swimming far out at sea, and a helicopter flew overhead and threw a person into the water near you, are you required by law to put your life at any risk to save that man, or can you simply say after his drowning that you were afraid he might drown you as well?
@@skylershuman7705 I hate to tell you, fetuses consume the flesh of mother. You can remove a fetus without doing anything at all to prevent it from growing. It dies because someone else didn't give it permission to feed on their body for 9 months
It doesn't matter how "special" you consider it. "Trivial", "strangerhood", "innocent", "inconvenient", and "burden" are all useless terms that say nothing about who has the right to what. I could say similar things about piece of shit liars who only care about their fear of the word "abortion" and nothing else because they have been programmed to do so. Demonstrated by fetuses that are already terminal costing the life of the perfectly innocent mother. Demonstrated by the horrifying torture experienced by children that are born unwanted: unprepared for at best; abused at worst. You have reduced the human life to the triviality of being born
No one has the right to force you to donate your flesh and blood to another person. And no innocent child should be forced to live life unwanted. Period
I love these debates because they are actual debates, they are being objective while treating the theme at hand with it´s due sensitivity, if more situations like this happened IRL I´m convinced we would understand eachother better
Well said. Totally agree! Civil and on point and on time debates are so refreshing to watch!
@@BibleN3rdon top of that people who might be this smart are pressured because they are on stage, and get fatiged over time which degrades their arguments. These ai could go on for the rest of eternity
Most people aren’t as intelligent as Artificial intelligence designed to be extremely well-versed and knowledgeable
@@kingchromo2293 That is obvious, but the manners and sensitivity is smth that we could totally recreate as individuals
Dr. Choice got 6 points
Dr. Life got 8 points
Saved you a minute.
Dr choice was weak. Pro abortion is the only way
Pro-Abortion for late-term fetuses😎😎
@@Sachii-o2d Ragebait -_-
@Sachii-o2d hell yeah
@@Sachii-o2dnice ragebait
I'd like to see a debate about Biblical Old earth vs Biblical Young earth.
And where exactly does the bible state the earth is young thats just pure misinterpretation
Both are false.
@@Neon-bs7es Exactly.
@@Neon-bs7es Where does it state it is old? 'an old Earth' idea is based on the big bang and there is no reason to think it is old except it and the 'evidence' they have come up with. If you're making a biblical comparison as @_Helix_Nebulous requested, then there is no reason to think it is old because the God of the bible is all knowing and he doesn't need to make experiments to learn how to create the world and life. Additionally, it is said he created Earth on the first day and man on the seventh day. And a day is a day, it is 24 hours. There are lots of reasons why but I am in no mood to make a long comment. The recorded history of humans, population, and human artefacts all suggest that the Earth is 6000 years old
@@MAGNETO-i1i then whats correct?
The pro-life contender mopped the floor with the pro-choice bot.
Its indefensible. Abortion is very evil.
No it's not @@planes3333
Abortion is still defensible in cases of gr**pe, but generally, it's not, even if you think the fetus is a person or not.
@planes3333 evil is relative.
@@nelson4225 therefore evil is justified 🥱
I love how well thought out, how well formed and put together this is, and then I remember, yeah. Humans.
Most will not watch this video, at-least fully. And actually care to see another perspective, but rather just go down here, to the comments, and begin fighting over the arguments that they themselves will never actually participate in, in any meaningful life changing way personally.
I'd give my opinion on the subject, but that feels like it would dismay from my point. Please, watch the video, appreciate a nice, not screaming, high school debate.
Thanks you for this because i want a discussion of the morality and facts on controversial topics like adoption without the heated emotions.
Best response to the Violinist argument (on forced organ donations like kidneys) I've heard is that the uterus is the only organ in the human body that exists to grow ANOTHER (different) body. Credit to Stephanie Gray Conners discussing the question with Matt Fradd.
I actually think it's a poor response to the violinist argument. That's because there is more that is needed than just the uterus to grow an embryo. We need the heart for blood circulation, the blood for transporting nutrients, the kidney for expelling the baby's waste products, and so on.
At best, this response just kicks the can down the road. The violinist proponent could simply agree for the sake of argument that the uterus belongs to the baby, and ask if they can have an abortion by removing both the baby and the uterus. And we are back to the violinist argument, just with extra steps.
Ultimately, we know that simply having the uterus would not allow the baby to live, without all the auxilliary organs that join in to produce a viable environment.
Another thing about the violanist argument is that it is a disanalogous to pregnancy. When you abort, you are directly causing someone's death (like pushing someone in a lake). When you don't donate your kidney or in the violanist argument when you unplug, you are only letting someone die.
Letting someone die and directly causing someone's death is different. If letting someone die equates to directly causing someone's death therefore you already have directly cause someone's death because you didn't save a child by donating to charity..
Force Organ Donation analogy is already flawed by thinking it is the same as directly causing someone's death. A right to control one's body doesn't mean a right to kill someone, a right to undermine your dignity, and a right to be evil.
In law, you are not obligated to save one. In law, you are obligated to not kill someone. See the difference? A lot of pro-choice are confused by the difference.
Plus, bodily autonomy argument justified late-term abortion, that's why Thomson said that she doesn't support late-term abortion, either way her argument does support it.
@@Sachii-o2d I would say this is one of the better responses to the violinist argument. But it does suffer from the same problem of focusing too strictly on the details of the analogy rather than the core idea it is trying to present.
Here, someone could suggest a reformulation where you are plugged to the violinist in a manner closer to some kind of horror movie - where if you were to pull the plug, it will automatically trigger a mechanism that kills the violinist. Does the principle and intuition that one should not be compelled to stay plugged still work here? It would still appear to be debatably so.
One might be tempted to say that the fault lies not in the one who unplugs, but the one who setup such a mechanism in the first place - such as the consenting couple. But this also provides an out, because the pregnant woman isn't necessarily involve in setting up the mechanism. For instance, in the case of rape, then only the rapist is responsible for setting up such a mechanism. Thereafter, if we were to say the woman is free to unplug from the violinist because only the kidnapper is responsible for setting up the trigger death mechanism; then we are compelled to also say that abortion is not immoral in the case of rape.
@@shadowc5 Well, now that's different, but I think it is now directly causing someone's death. And that's actually a big problem on the trolley problem, would you save one person but you need to destroy 4 kidneys that are going to save 4 lives? Like 1 person and 4 kidneys scenario. That's why Peter Singer said if the fetus has a right to life, you cannot just kill it. I think it doesn't matter, either way, you are still going to kill it.
Im saddened that you didnt go deeper into the life vs autonomy argument cuz the logical extreme of autonomy vs life is suicide. We shouldnt force the person to seek help who actively are for suicide. Because its ultimatley there autonomy. This is a very problamatuc view that i wish the debators explored a little more if the right to life is an even more important right
Maybe you can make a video on wether assisted suicide is moral or not. Which takes place in countries like switzerland
legitimately he made the ais too biased tbh
@@christopherlin8661 idk if I would say that
@@elibonham4388 there's never one where the side he doesn't want to win, wins.
@christopherlin8661 wdym the freewill argument was dead even and what about the election argument. The consensus is it needs to be changed among the judges.
And how would you know what side he necessarily is on
We have to differentiate the philosophical concept of life from the psychological perspective of life, to be brief, the life has inherent value that integrates a final cause or way of being, on the concept of good, we understand it as the fair ordering of the being in function of their final cause, being the life the precondition of human being, therefore the human has the natural instinct to continously living because of their essence, but the way the mental or physical pain restricts us to contemplate the beutiful things of life makes us degrade the inherent value of life. So the professionals on their practice never have to abandon the idea for searching the way the patient can appreciate their life and not to run from it, this applies on almost all mindsets of suicidal thinking, but for the tragic cases of cancer is different because we can't guarantee their lives
Kinda want to see ai debate refugee intake, trans athletes in sports, forcing people to use pronouns, the war in Gaza. If it's in the news then ask AI
I've always wondered. What anyone at any age passed away (or aborted). Could have lived to become
Which is a very interesting thought.
America would not be below the rate of replacement.
It is irrelevant because it only feeds your dreams or fantasies, not contact with reality. When we appreciate things that are so far in the past or in the future, we must acquire capacities that are in the middle of reality and gradually developed towards the edges. This would mean if we "try" to answer and manage to visualize a little what is hidden in a distant past or in a distant future, that we already have or are acquiring paranormal abilities. So it is so stupid both by the nature of the desires and by the capacity that develops for a more complete understanding of the reality that undergoes transformations over time.
@@danstoica2824 Your writing could use some finessing as its somewhat difficult to understand and its somewhat verbose.
Person is an an individual substance of a rational nature, a fetus is an individual substance of a rational nature , thus the fetus is a person. The debate would then be if all persons are valuable.
I think the quality of the argument here isn't as good when the AI is trying to argue from the perspective of an expert. A pro-choice Oby/Gyn probably would not have made the viability arguments as he/she would be very familiar with the current research and status of medical breakthroughs in keeping preterm newborns alive. Either way, I love these videos. Please keep up the good work!
Bias. Both sides has issues. It's just an interesting video with a cool concept.
They wouldn't have argued that way because they are liars. 90% of pro abortion arguments rely on lies, faulty evidence and ignorance.
Ais don't have any incentive to lie, so if they're wrong... well they're just wrong, whatever. It makes no difference to them. But it makes ALL the difference to us.
"Moral Principles should consistently protect those who cannot advocate for themselves, regardless of their stage of development" I think that sums it up
Or do Orthodoxy vs Catholicism vs Protestantism!
I asked ChatGPT O1-Preview to Define a Hypothetical Civilization and Find and Define the Middle Ground for abortion after uploading the transcript from your video.
*BTW this would've been a great addition to this video topic*
Why would there need to be a hypothetical middle ground?
@@Crazy_Based_Mf Frankly, the Abortion debate isn’t going to be won or lost at either extreme. Regardless of your personal beliefs, if there ever was a line drawn in the sand on the issue, it would be somewhere in the middle.
@@RS_AFKing I think it can. We just need more time. Our priorities as a civilization change, and with that change the things we value change. Prime example: Lobotomies (for the ailments they were used for). Before seen as the Standard of Practice, now not only NOT the standard of practice, seen as actually EVIL and inhumane.
@@NarutoUzumaki-vc4wy It's not that values change, just information shows it actively harms you. We have always been against harm, we just debate if something is harm and if it's a lesser extent than the alternative
What i dont get is why no one promotes the use of condom and discourage rawdogging.
Both sides are just panicking to do the right thing as selfless as it can be. But neither side talked about definite death punishments to rapists
Because the conversation is not about abortion, its like a few blocks down the road. Not entirely irrelevant, but also not very relevant either.
At some point in my life I actively tried to change my mind on this subject...
I never heard much of a valid pro choice argument and the pro life side were very consistent.
However, despite the consistency and rationnal of their argument I've never agreed...
At first I thought I was just being emotionnal but after consuming more and more prolife content I arrived to the conclusion that I never thought the arguments were compeling cause it comes from a religious point of view.
As an atheist, human life isnt inherently valuable. A human being is, but not human life itself.
So yes life starts at conception. No debate here.
But when does the fetus goes from a clump of cells to an actually human being.
This is more complex of a question to answer.
Also I'd argue that anyone who believe in an higher power. Ought to me pro life...
I could see atheist be pro life also.
But theist should all be pro life without exception.
From a legislative stand point.
IMO Fully banning abortion cause less harm than fully allowing it.
But allowing it in a specific time frame and circumstance would likely minimized any harm done.
I think human life is that special and precious, do you value your own life? Have u ever fallen in love with someone? Have u ever contemplated life? I don't think it doesn't need a higher power. Life is complex, the fact on the opposite side, their arguments are soooo dehumanizing that our value is just based on rationalisation, like consciousness, personhood blah blah, when life is much more than that. Just stating that a fetus or an embryo isn't valuable just completely missed the point of the value of life. That is why we don't directly causes someone's death because we wanted money, that is why mothers cry when their baby miscarriaged, that is why we are sad when a human life dies. Life is too precious to lose.
I think a complete human being starts when you are 25 years old. I think that's where a full personhood starts, fully rational blah blah.
I think people should choose a side based on this question: would you be okay being aborted by your mother? If so, be a pro-choice, if not, be a pro-life. Treat others as you want to be treated.
Banning abortion can cause much harm.
@@Sachii-o2di agree, but disagree. Human like doesnt really matter and none of us do. A 5 weke old fetus doesn't really matter as they cant do anything, arent contious, and cant feel pain.
just search on internet "abortion video" you will have another proof pro choice is bad, it's so horrible to see little embryo limbs being taken out of a mother
@@BunchOfGreyGrapes Abortion can cause just as much harm as fully allowing it. It will always remain a tragic issue
Finally. The blue woman is gonna smoke the orange guy, yet again.
All I gather so far from computers debating is that nothing is resolved or settled.
This is true for all debates. The goal is not to convince the other side, but rather to convince the audience.
Debating isn't about what's right or wrong, it's about who's more prepared, and what an unbiased audience thinks won. Not based on pre existing information
people who claim abortion should be ok up because up to 24 weeks, the baby isn't aware he's alive, or he doesn't feel pain. Still don't think the mother should be prosecuted as a murderer if she kills the baby past that point.
the only honest argument I have seen for abortion is "I value my life more than the life of my child". all other arguments are mere smoke screen
isnt there no scientific consensus of when babies in the womb are conscious, from what ive heard its debated between 35 and 40 weeks, and basically all abortions that late are medical emergency
@@Hyperfixationeliminationconsciousness does not equate to moral value, try again
The stark decline in child mortality after the Industrial Revolution due to advancements in medicine has effectively castrated Natural Selection, which will eventually lead to widespread and degenerative genetic degradation in humans.
@@Hyperfixationelimination if someone becomes paralyzed and becomes a vegetable, are they then not alive?
They can’t perceive pain, or suffering, they can’t move or wake up, they can’t live without outside care. So to you are these people not alive?
Because if you say yes, then wether or not a fetus is conscious does not matter as to wether they are alive or not.
Duh? Lots of people have reasons for abortion.
Their poor
Their unfit to be a parent
They could potentially die
Its also not even a baby, its not "alive", in a sense. Really the only argument you have is emotion
For the survival of mankind, which is better: Selfishness vs selflessness
UP
Evolution vs creation next please!
Not mutually exclusive, you can believe that God created the universe but also used evolution as a mechanism to develop biological life
@@thebrickaniac Not macro evolution. Micro yes not macro.
@@planes3333 plenty of Christians believe in an old earth and macro evolution
@@thebrickaniac Yeah some believe in old earth. It could be older but then if thats true and if you look at the amount of erosion and continental decay, if we are billions of years old why are there any land masses at all. If you measure what gets eroded yearly and calculate the continents should all be eroded and underwater.
Also science denies a worldwide flood but that is a fact. Look at soil amplitudes. If macro evolution is true then how is it that we have primates but we dont have any Neanderthals.
Do you really think a star flying by the earth sprinkled dust into a primordial soup and humans and blue whales and hummingbirds came out millions of years later. Do you think mankind was once a fish.
Do you really deny the bible?
Did you know evolution was originally taught in schools from a false bone of a pig being put on a primates skull,.
Micro evolution and adaption yes. Macroevolution, no way.
Darwin said he was wrong about evolution on his death bed. Also perhaps try reading Darwin's Doubt by Stephen Meyer.
Also there is never ever a case of life coming from non life.
Macro Evolution gave atheists and communists the idea that there is no GOd. This resulted in 70 million dead in this century alone. Macro Evolution is a curse from Satan. Its been refuted and its evil
@@thebrickaniac Some do. Those who are too ignorant or lazy to look into the issue., they are cowardly too. Most of them deny the virgin birth or miracles of the bible. They are on par with dawkins the atheist who calls himself a cultural christian.
There instances of fetus having congenital deformities that prevent the fetus from engaging in labour and delivery, it would just stay in the womb past 40 weeks putting the mothers life at great risk. Look up the case Savita Halappanavar, an Indian dentist in Ireland whose death due not being provided late term abortion (because of law following Catholic ban on abortion) resulted in a referendum in 2012 that the scrapped the abortion ban in Ireland, her fetus literally begane to rot inside her body causing sepsis and ultimately shock leading to death of the Mother. There also cases of immune incompatibility between fetus and mother where immune system of either recognizes the other as a threat leading to things like Erythroblastosis fetalis (were the fetus dies) or pre-eclampsia (which is fatal to the mother).
Use some logic.
If the reasoning behind the pro-life argument is that all human life should be protected equally, well then it only makes sense that if the fetus is basically already dead, or dying, has no chance of survival, or if the mother is almost 100% certainly going to die if the pregnancy continues, well then OBVIOUSLY she should be able to seek an abortion in "self-defense".
The pro-life argument just means that the mother shouldn't be able to arbitrarily decide to get rid of another life. Instead, the only circumstances in which she should be able to seek an abortion are the same circumstances in which any other person would be allowed to end any other life.
Loved this debate ❤ Thanks for making this!
I have watched everything posted on this channel, and historically this channel does appear to lean positively towards Christian ethics and beliefs. At the start of the debate, both acknowledge life begins at conception, which is not a consensus in the real world at all, and weighs heavily on the possibility of the debate. Disappointed that this would start in such a small scope. I also have seen that the woman picture for the ai historically wins all her debates. This channel may be pushing a Christian worldview more than trying to present arguments neutrally
You would be correct. They DID say life begins at birth. However, the pro choice (as it stated) was merely speaking of a physical life (in a similar way we can say a plant is alive but understand it doesn't require special rights)
Life absolutely does begin at conception, this is scientific fact and is absolutely the consensus in the scientific community. The disagreement comes when determining the moral worth of the unborn
Yes, biologically life starts at conception... I'm afraid you can't just deny that. It's alive. I guess the "dilema" - pro-lifer here - it's whether this life is human or not. Of course it is so the pro-choice stance falls apart...
Dawg most of the Western worlds values are grounded on Christianity so obviously they would base their morality off of Christian values or just societal values that have been rooted in Christianity. And like others have said scientifically life does begin at conception even if you don't agree for whatever reason, you cannot debate when you have different definitions because then you wouldn't be debating on the same thing but rather 2 separate things.
@@thebrickaniac I really doubt the statement that there is scientific consensus about when life starts, considering that scientists are still arguing over the definition of life itself. They have still not even decided whether a virus is a living thing or not
Less than a minute in and I’m already blown away.
Look, I’m pro-choice, but I can’t stand when people on my side argue that a fetus isn’t alive. That’s like showing up to a debate with a blindfold and a “kick me” sign. You’re just begging to lose. The real question is personhood-that’s the whole ethical battleground. Where’s my 20-24 week squad at?
Exactly, life begins at conception. The problem is when does the baby become conscious, and that happens at about 26 weeks. Before then it's a growing fetus, after that it's a pre-birth baby.
Fetus means baby😑
@@vitriolveio definition wise, fetus is the first 8 weeks after conception, meanwhile a baby is a young human. These are not the same thing. They are not even synonyms.
@@user-ko7gk7wp5xYou use that number 26 weeks is when they develop consciousness. What happens at 26 weeks for them to deploy consciousness?
May I request a debate about wether humans are essentially good or evil, just how Jean-Jaques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes argued for their according philosophical standings?
Great video man, love the ideas
I am surprised that the pro file agent did not question completely the argument of body autonomy. The pro choice AI said that there are case in which the pregnancy is caused by rape. That is arguable. But also mentioned about failed contraception. That should not count. The woman should be aware of the risk of pregnancy. She had a choice of having relations or not. Even with contraceptives that is a choice. The woman do not lose her choice power if abortion is not allowed in the case of failed contraception, she had a choice.
In extreme cases, I would argue that it's okay to allow abortion, but if it's your fault, the risk you know, I don't think that is a justification especially if you are the one who is directly causing someone's death.
Plus, there is a special obligation to care for that life if we accept that the fetus has a right to live.
Pro life side should have answered differently about viability. Yes it's a moving, but babies don't stop relying on the mothers body when it's outside the womb. It still needs to be looked after and fed. You can't just leave it to fend for itself because it's not viable without human care.
It seems that both AI's are in complete agreement when it comes to being against late term abortions
Yep. In general late teem abortions are only in my opinion in special cases like rape, insest, severe fetal abnormalities(missing brain), and life of mother. I say 25 weeks and below is a good general rule for allowed abortions imo.
@@Shark-pj8in eugenics
@@Crazy_Based_Mf There instances of fetus having congenital deformities that prevent the fetus from engaging in labour and delivery, it would just stay in the womb past 40 weeks putting the mothers life at great risk. Look up the case Savita Halappanavar, an Indian dentist in Ireland whose death due not being provided late term abortion (because of law following Catholic ban on abortion) resulted in a referendum in 2012 that the scrapped the abortion ban in Ireland, her fetus literally begane to rot inside her body causing sepsis and ultimately shock leading to death of the Mother. There also cases of immune incompatibility between fetus and mother where immune system of either recognizes the other as a threat leading to things like Erythroblastosis fetalis (were the fetus dies) or pre-eclampsia (which is fatal to the mother).
Both sides agreed human life begins at conception in the first minute and half. How is there 11 minutes left? The debate is over.
Because for Pro Chooicers, if they can't Ideologize him or her it's like isn't alive and disposable for them.
the debate is on when life becomes valuable
@@santiagodelpilar6701 that doesn’t seem like a charitable or accurate representation of the Pro Death position.
because the debate is about abortion not about when human life begins
@@ConfidentialDreamerMaybe to you. But to me it seems trivially true that human life has moral value such that you ought not take it, bar some extreme circumstances.
I’d love to see a debate about Morality: whether it’s objective or subjective ❤
"ex-muslim" 💀nah lil bro. islam left YOU
@@justone4272 didn’t get what you said, but I like it
Morality is intersubjective.
@@TheOneAndOnly-t5hobjective
I mean logically morals are objective because there’s an objective set of things.
Like murder for example is universally hated or frowned upon.
It’s usually when someone tries to make morality subjective that bad things happen.
For example “is a fetus alive” started and now people have a legal excuse to kill babies.
I bet this will be just as hated as slavery in the far future.
You know you have 0 arguments when you immadently side step the conversation, Even the Ai doesn't want to deal with the problem with Life and goes straight to personhood ignoring he prompt.
The life question is so completely pointless. In biology, EVERY SINGLE CELL is considered a life
I thought this was an extremely interesting and almost nuanced take by the AI.
One thing that stuck out was the pro-choice argument on functionality and consciousness. I wonder if there was any input in the AI involving births that result in babies with diminished mental capacity. For instance, I heard in some cases for termination in circumstances when genetic defects are confirmed and such. Would have liked to see where the AI would go with that.
You can't be pro-choice if your mom was not pro-life.
or maybe your mom just didnt have any reason to want an abortion.. also if i didnt exist i wouldnt care
Wow that’s a good one! Might be using that one!
@Hyperfixationelimination "If I didn't exist, I wouldn't care" I feel like it's unlikely that you truly believe that. Why do you bother to eat, drink, or do anything for that matter, if your life doesn't matter. If you dont care to exist or not exist, why keep existing.
@@llamahguy7229Because they already exist? Dying is painful ijbol, but If they never exist they wouldn't or feel any pain
@SerenHoe So, are you really saying the only reason they want exist, isn't actually for some desire to live, but just because dying seems worse. Do you not see how depressing that is??
Even then, some people actually have a desire to live, in fact most people do. So when you are doing an abortion, you are taking away that. This argument that "I don't even care about living", doesn't matter, if most people do want to live. It's the silliest argument I've ever heard.
Yeah Dr.Lofe won his by quite a margin. I've never come across a 'pro-choice' argument that doesn't come with a better pro-life rebuttal.
Im actually pretty on the fence about this issue, so this should be really interesting.
Edit after watching: neither was convincing. Neither was able to convincingly answer the fundamental question of if a fetus is a person, and all arguments beyond that are irrelevant until that is answered first. Dr choice tried by saying we shouldn't consider them people until they're sentient, but we don't know what causes sentience, so that's kinda a non-starter.
Don't take this as me trying to shove my beliefs on you, but wouldn't this be a reason to oppose abortion? If you are uncertain of whether it's a person whose life we are ending, then wouldn't it be common sense to oppose ending it's life? If I'm unsure if there is a person in a building that is about to be demolished, I think I'd have a strong reason to stop people from demolishing it.
fetus just mean a mammal who is still in the womb, a baby 1 second before birth is still a fetus.
the idea that human beings need to follow some social criteria for us to consider them "persons", it's very problematic. it how we dehumanised blacks and jews in the last centuries. We knew they were humans, but being human wasn't enough, they needed to qualify as "people" this vague term that we can decide according to how useful is to kill them.
Imagine if abortion wasn't a possibility, can you conceive we having this debate wether a baby in the womb doesn't deserve rights ?
The dehumanisation of the baby in the womb is a tool in order to kill him, there is no other reason for it, even if I had doubts about his human statues I would vouch for the position in which I don't kill humans who "maybe" have a right to life.
@@Nox-mb7iuIf there is a murderer about to kill a woman, would you rather (possibly the police) to shoot the murderer, or leave them to kill the woman?
In this case, the murderer is a foetus and the woman is a pregnant woman. This is not every circumstance (obviously), but it is definitely a reality for some.
>humans are persons
>human life begins at conception
>killing unborn humans is wrong
Literally where are you getting confused.
@@BunchOfGreyGrapes I appreciate your perspective and again, don't take this as me trying to push my beliefs on you or anything like that. When it comes to the thought experiment, I don't think someone evil who intentionally wants to hurt a woman is comparable to a fetus who just happened to be born at the wrong time and place. If anything, I think both the fetus and the mother would be victims in this type of a situation.
However, I am aware of these situations where a child and a mother are both at risk and in those cases I think we should try to save both. If it isn't possible, then I am not opposed to saving at least the mother's life.
The problem with laws controlling abortions is very simple:
Politicians are not doctors and they are not the slightest bit educated about the multitude of cases that are possible. Even if you are pro-life, you should have no problem conceding that medically non-viable pregnancies should be terminated.
However, because Republicans have made sure that the clauses of the law that regulate exceptions are as vague as possible, doctors are refusing treatment even in such cases. Not because giving treatment IS illegal but because they don't even know whether it is
If you legislate an exception to make "non-viable" pregnancies legal to terminate, then doctors will find a way to either induce non-viability, or teach women how to make their pregnancies non-viable.
There is simply too much money at stake for the medical industry to trust them with such exceptions. Not only is the abortion surgery lucrative, but the stem cells are essential components of pharmaceutical research and development, and their status as biowaste allows companies to obtain these resources for free. You cannot give even the slightest bit of leeway, sadly. Too much perverse incentives.
"Life of the mother" is a hard line that can easily be assessed and determined at autopsy.
You have to consider the baby as well. No Republican will risk an innocent child dying
@@commiehunter781 I am talking about unviable pregnancies in which the offspring has little to no chance of survival and the mother's life is at serious risk as well
Now let's flip the script and imagine that a woman who's in this situation already has kids to take care of. Would you dare to tell THEM that their mother had to die because as low as that chance was, it wasn't zero?
@@todorstojanov3100 I am saying that the laws need to make sure that the laws have to be strict enough to protect healthy babies in healthy pregnancies.
Just incredible! ❤
I find the woman AI is always the "good guy"
That is quite literally your problem, the are no "good guys" in a debate, it´s just your opinions getting in the way of thinking in objective ways
@@juanchisilverio3610 Your not the type of person who thinks men can get pregnant are you. Are you telling me there is no objective reality, that its all subjective. AM I understanding this properly?
@@planes3333 you don´t get, what you just said can also be debated, as well as reality itself, what you are saying shows that you don´t understand what you watch in the slightest
@@juanchisilverio3610 There are good and bad guys in a debate. An abortion doctor is similar to Ted Bundy. Someone who adopts a baby is more like JEsus. There are morals and absolutes in love and mercy evil and vile behavior. Or are you someone who thinks nazi deathcamp's were only subjectively wrong?
@@juanchisilverio3610 Your a modern day confused kid, dont worry you may grow out of it. Hang in there fella.
Most people in the field of medicine side with the pro choice position, this debate does not represent the general medical opinion.
Can an AI give me some reasons not to skip to the end? 😅
Ladies and gentlemen, the fundamental question is: Who is the master of life and death? There is a novella by Carl Zuckmayer from 1938 and a film based on this novella from 1955. This novella and the film are titled "The Master of Life and Death." As I write this, it is raining outside. We notice an increase in rain and storms. I have had an epiphany, wherein I have been told that all this heavy rain cannot halt the fire that will come from the heavens. We are once again in the days of Noah, but this time the deluge will not be with water, but with fire. Our society has become unbelievably depraved and godless. This is evident in how people dare to consider themselves the masters of life and death. This is one of the worst blasphemies against God, if not the very worst. That is why the issue of abortion is not merely the murder of an innocent child in the womb, but the blasphemy that underlies it. This is the most grievous sin. The wages of sin is death - the second death. Satan whispers to people that they have a right to their bodies, yet he omits that the body is meant to be a temple of the Holy Spirit. Just as cursing (which does not encompass the demand for justice for evil deeds unless one repents) and blessing (wishing good upon someone) should not come from the same mouth, the body cannot harbor both good and evil simultaneously.
The entire debate surrounding abortion and its legalization only serves to illustrate one thing: society lacks compassion. When it is claimed that one must feel pity for women who wish to have abortions, that is true, but this compassion, as well as freedom, comes with responsibility. This responsibility is to God, who is the true and only ruler over life and death. Only one person who walked this earth had the right to decide about His life-to end it or not-and that was Jesus, the Son of the living God. Yet Jesus emphasized that life is sacred and that every soul has infinite value. He reached out to the marginalized and weak, to sinners and those who suffer, and proclaimed the message of love, forgiveness, and hope. Jesus spoke of the deeper meaning of life-that it is not solely about physical existence but about the spiritual and soulful connection to God.
In today's world, where life is often seen as negotiable, it is more important than ever to recognize and embody this message. When people presume to decide over life and death, they forget that we are all part of a greater plan known only to our Creator. The challenge is to protect life and promote its appreciation, even in the most difficult situations. It is the duty of each generation to listen to the countless voices of the innocent and defend their right to exist.
As we approach the issue of abortion, we should not only focus on the legal and political aspects but also on the moral and spiritual dimensions. As a society, we need to foster a culture of life in which help and support for expectant mothers and their children are paramount. Instead of supporting hasty decisions, we should create opportunities that acknowledge the value of every life and address the challenges many women face with true compassion.
It is up to us to be the voice of hope and to spread the message of love. We must not fall into a ghettoization of human values, where life is seen as a bargaining chip. Instead, we should have the courage to stand up for the principles that have been conveyed to us by God. Through our actions, we can bring a ray of light into the darkness and convey the certainty that every life story is unique and valuable.
Let us work to create a world where every individual, from the moment of conception, is regarded as valuable. Only in this way can we honor the claim of the true Master of life and death. It is this fidelity to principles that will help us grow and thrive as a community-during these times of trials and challenges. Amen.
Make a Shia Islam VS Sunni Islam
Trust me don't good idea
Whoa whoa whoa, basing the value of life on the ability to feel pain is very inconsistent. What about people who have CIPA (people who don’t feel pain). Do they just not become a human because they don’t feel pain?
Also, what about people who are in comas? They are completely helpless without outside help, just like a fetus.
This argument is based on the wrong premise.
Why do we, on the right, always do that?
We ALWAYS allow them to set up the framework and then we seek to “defend”! STOP with the defending! That’s the losing position.
How about we start with, “abortion ISN’T birth control!”
How about we start with, “If you didn’t want to be pregnant, then why did you set up all the conditions to become pregnant?”
How about we ask, “You want bodily autonomy, then why didn’t you behave like you already had it before trying to kill!|| your very own flesh and blood?”
QUIT DEFENDING on their terms!
Make THEM defend on ours!!!!
Good point
well thats facinating, ive heard both sides claim that the other is always forcing them to be on the defense but as a result to your questions which are basically the same thing **the most common cases for abortion are due to pregnancies from unexpected circumstances and even if it were, it doesnt MATTER because fetuses arent aware of their surroundings and frankly its none of your buisness
@@Hyperfixationelimination That might be the worst argument I've ever heard. Fetuses don't understand their surroundings, but neither do newborns. Does that mean they deserve to die
That’s 100% logical.
We keep allowing these morons to set up the premise, and distort the truth.
Then we have to argue on their playing field.
If we set a premise we argue that premise despite their feelings.
Would love a debate about consumption of animals
How did you get ai to do this? Must have been really difficult to train ais and have them interact
Air on the side of caution , if we can’t seem to prove life exist any point why make assumptions and decisions in uncertainty?
Here before your channel blows up
Using Peter Singer for a pro-life argument is hilarious 😂😂😂
There is something holy about mother and child. The nature of giving life and sacrificing of one’s self to create and give life potential and opportunity to a being that has never been and will never be again. The symbol of mothers love and child souls be made holy again.
TL;DR I would like to see a normalization of each adjudicator debating against itself in order to see what its pre-conceived decisions are
There are clear problems with these videos
- For one, the debaters are clearly not zealous in advocating for their position. They share the same biases as the adjudicating AI, thereby making the debaters pretty much extraneous.
- All of the AI is clearly biased toward popularity of the data it was trained on and not any form of reasoning. It cannot actually compare the validity of arguments, either in strategy or in adjudication. That's why it favors quantity of argument over quality and why it doesn't do very well at critiquing the opposing arguments
- The worst sentiment that it has taken from us humans is that it assumes all logic is valid. Watch this person break when she has to reconcile "abortion is murder from conception" with "birth control and IVF trashes orders of magnitude more fertilized zygotes than abortion" : th-cam.com/video/68aej2qmCtw/w-d-xo.htmlsi=ERYk3481R-7V4eeF&t=4899
A.I. has a way of turning an interesting debate topic into something sooooooo dull.
The viability argument FOR abortion is so lame. A 2-year-old child isn't even viable by such a metric.
I do not think abortion can be ethically determined by mechanistic arguments; I think it depends on presuppositions about human dignity.
No way, you did it!
This is a pointless debate. In certain instances abortion should be allowed, and in some instances disallowed.
It’s not something to be for or against.
In no instance should it be allowed
@@Jk-ow8ny And what if, due to not doing it, you lose 2 lifes instead of 1? But that's like 1% of cases, the other 99% is just being used by women who dislike accountability.
Seriously, there were so many moments you could have avoided the pregnancy, and you shouldn't do it if you're not willing to accept what would happen in the "worst case scenario".
@@N12015 in 100% of abortion a human dies, i think the dying rate is much larger
Abortion should only allowed if you are dying or when there's a severe disability. Abortion should not be allowed in a late-term even if you are dying, because there's emergency C-section
@@N12015 Please give a source for the claim that it's used PRIMARILY to avoid accountability. Without a source, I absolutely will NOT believe that women would rather undergo an invasive medical procedure instead of properly using birth control
Do a debate on a scenario where Abrahamic religions don't exist please.
Title should be:
science from 107 years ago Vs. science today
why?
@@Luixxxd1 If you have to ask, do your research...
@@tylerjosephraywoods people only say do your own research if they do not know themselves
@@tylerjosephraywoods im asking because i literally have done the research and age is meaningess when it comes to reality?
@@jakef6974 no need to be hostile, best case scenario he is just disingenuous, worse case, absolute midwit
Even AI can detect evil
Please do democracy vs anidemocracy
Orange bot said 24 to 25 weeks.
Please explain the baby moving at 12 weeks…still okay to k!|| it?
My baby was wiggling around at 8 weeks during the ultrasound. It was a mind blowing moment. Changed a lot about how I view things. My wife is due in a month!
they still arent conscious enough to feell pain or care about life
@@Hyperfixationelimination Congenital insensitivity to pain and anhydrosis is a disability where you feel no pain, this shows that your value is not determined whether you feel pain or not.
@@Hyperfixationelimination I mean a paralyzed person who’s in a coma can’t feel pain or experience suffering.
Do you consider them also not alive?
@@HyperfixationeliminationThe fact that if we accept this premise, your life is only valuable because of consciousness, well, it isn't, your life is much much more valuable than that. The fact that to win an abortion debate is to dehumanize human life is already a moral mistake, life is too precious to lose and you are here devaluing it just because it isn't conscious. You are much more valuable than consciousness.
Dr. Life made the better argument. The premises for Dr. Choice's argument is inconsistent and mostly with little or no consideration of the little life form (fetus) with no voice.
Do a Messi vs Ronaldo Debate ❤
The pro-choice AI only mentions the mother's autonomy in an offhanded way at the very end, and then the pro-life AI simply makes the blanket statement that we have a legal obligation to protect the vulnerable, and then it's just left alone. It wouldn't matter if the baby in question was a 30 year old with two doctorates and a Nobel Peace Prize, you cannot under any circumstance attach yourself to another person's body for any reason without their continuous consent. Even if you find yourself connected to that person by no choice of your own and your very life relies on being connected from that point, you have no right to that person's body without their consent, and they can choose to disconnect from you at any point that they like to regardless of the fact that that would kill you, unless you could absolutely demonstrate that continuing to stay hooked up to you would have absolutely no effect at all on the person who you would be hooked up to. Protecting others is supererogatory, and no person can ever be required by law to put their own body or mental well-being at risk to protect another person. Even if you agreed to protect that person at some point. If you were a babysitter, and you stepped outside for a moment, only for the house to go up in flames before you could get back inside, even though you agreed to protect those kids, no one can hold you legally accountable if you choose not to run back into a burning building to save them. You are allowed to consider yourself first. Now does this mean you're a pretty bad babysitter, maybe it means that. But are you a double child murderer? Absolutely not.
That is a complete misunderstanding of how bodily autonomy works, the fact in Abortion it is a kill, not merely letting someone die. The thing is, if that is the case, late-term abortion is justified? That's ridiculous, that is literally the one that Thomson fears, using her argument as a justification for late-term abortion. Even a 27 week fetus isn't viable in my country. Plus, letting someone die and directly causing someone's death is completely different, if it equates therefore you have directly caused someone's death for not donating to a charity? Plus, there is a special obligation to protect that fetus if it has a right to life.
Actually, bodily autonomy could work only in extreme cases, which I wouldn't mention, but I think you know it, when women got victimized.
Here are better analogies:
1. Your body is connected to sustain 1 big block, severing the connection would squash those children. Then therefore it's okay to sever that connection when you directly cause someone's death? Following your logic, yes, it is okay as what your argument suggest.
2. Imagine your body is connected to a villainist, it is your son and if you sever connection there is a trap that would activate, killing him in the process. So, I think the one who is at fault here in this case is who set up the trap, in consensual act, the one who set up the trap is the women, but in extreme cases, it is the suspect who set up that trap. In law, you are not obligated to save someone's life, but you are obligated not to kill someone's life. The latter would work in a consensual act, even if you didn't consent to the fetus entering your body, it is still your fault for doing that, but it would not work in those extreme cases.
Another thing, there is a special obligation to protect and nurture that life, special oblitagation is created when there's dependency especially if it's a natural thing to happen or it is a promise. But most of the time, special obligation is created because there is a relationship, a unique biological relationship, it is natural to happen, there is dependency too.
Remember, the violinist argument is a disanalogy, The thing is, yes no one should have a right to be connected with ur body, but the important thing here is, there is a difference between directly causing someone's death and letting someone die, unplugging the connection would just let it die, but in one of my analogy is that it directly causes someone's death, because the act activates a trap.
woah
Thought experiment hypotheticals force discussion to be boxed in to false narrative resulting in absolutes. They’re fun… but stupid.
I’m Catholic and I’m mostly pro life I truly believe they should be cared for and I still think abortion is bad and killing a human being but the being raped or contraceptive accidents should ( sadly and regretfully) have a choice Mr choice was right about that part along with life but still….its a conflict I a catholic go thru even if I were to talk to my parish n etc about it
Not really, it could only work on crimes, plus you are being fooled here, killing and letting someone die is different here. If that is the case, pregnant women can have a late-term abortion because of that. Cconsider these analogies:
1. Somehow you found yourself connected with 1 big block, severing the connection would squash the children, then therefore it's okay to squash those children by severing the connection?
2. Imagine you found yourself connected with ur son, severing the connection would activate a trap, killing him in the process painfully, so therefore it is okay to sever the connection?
The reason why the Bodily Autonomy fails is because you are who's responsible for creating that child, even if you didn't consent that the fetus lived inside your body, it is the risk that creates moral obligation. An obligation to not be killed. It only works in criminalized cases, where you didn't do anything here. So, the analogy here suggests that the one who is at fault here is the one who created the trap, not the one who unplugged, which therefore abortion is bad in almost all cases..
Know that abortion is killing, not merely letting someone die. The violanist argument is a complete disanalogy here, it isn't that great to begin with.
I wonder what would happen if destiny would be facing off
Dr life cooked and is better
Please make socialism vs capitalism
Hey guys I got a question I was watching a video and it was saying how I got I got pregnant I was curious so I clicked on it but then it turned out to be a trans person who became a guy I was like that doesn't count
So what do you guys think does count or no?
Can you doo liberal AI vs conservative AI? I never heard a debate like that without screaming and slurs.😂
i havent watched it myself, but wasn't the JD vance vs tim walz debate suprisingly civil and respectful? atleast thats what i've heard
@GamerGod-fp1tj more civil and respectful than usually yes. A step in the right direction. Even if the bar wasn't too high.
Part 2?
Make the screen black bro
Pro-life all the way. If there ever was a law that has been abused more in not sure what it us. Millions of lives ending each year just because they are unwanted. Its a terrible shame.
Ai debate the existence of evil.
Evil as in someone like Satan? Or do you mean evil people and evil things?
@@shadowlemon69 the existence of evil in it of itself
Israel and palestine conflict next?
Let’s be honest… the pro life cooked the other
i think Dr. Life kinda cooked
I'd love to see a debate for communism vs capitalism. I think a very important topic as we see more and more of a dangerous rise in socialist ideologies in younger people.
I’m pro life.
Abortion is bad. Next question
This is dumb, it's a philosophical debate, not a scientific one. Idk what the "AI Doctors" are here for.
Second video I’ve watched where typically conservative arguments are favoured despite consistently ignoring the questions and considerations that the progressive side utilises.
If you want to make a religious/conservative propaganda channel, do it less obviously 🙄
First
I’m pro-choice who is personally against abortion
I’m gonna say, the family has the right to decide for the their and leave government out of it
if your pro-choice you are not against abortion. thats like saying I’m against theft, but I support people having the legal option to steal if they choose.
@@zotyhd8052it’s like saying people should legally be able to steal as long as it’s not from me
And I’m not for stealing but it applies to how I feel about abortion
So when should the government step in and when should it not?
Can we go around murdering innocent people and say “well I think the government should stay out of it, since it’s a problem between me and the ones I kill” would that go over well in court?
@@zotyhd8052 Your argument is the same as "religious people have to make homosexuality illegal because their book says it is."
That is a problem actually, if that is the case, organ selling shouldn't be prohibited because it's a personal choice. Hmmm 🤔
Am I first?
Yes
No “don’t skip ahead, this one starts with a bang” this time🥲