Thank you to Dr. Miller for the clearest, most succinct thing I've ever seen/heard on the ethics of abortion. Thanks to you Mr. Bertuzzi for organizing the interview so well. And thanks for your channel, I'm happy I discovered it--your open mind and teachable spirit are a delight.
Going back to the “would you save a 5 yo or embryo” question. Let’s ask the same question, but instead it’s a pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman. Who do you chose? I’d be interested to see the outcome, but it seems plausible that most would pick the pregnant woman. Why? Because we all see value in what pregnancy means. We value to unborn even if we don’t realize it. No abortion advocate walks up to a pregnant woman and says “that thing is morally valueless until it’s born.” No, they ask, “when’s the baby due?” Or “what name have you picked out?” The same conclusion provided in the video can be given here, we aren’t saying the pregnant woman is more valuable, but we are saying while we do TRIAG there is something about pregnancy that give the one woman a higher priority.
Very good exchange with very good answers from Calum. One can learn a lot by listening and analyzing carefully these answers. Congratulations for this great interview. 👍🏻👍🏻
Conscious from 10 weeks?? Uhm sources cited? The actual possible range is 20-28 weeks according to like… all of the literature, so sources?? Also, GO OFF KING, FINALLY AN ANIMALSIST🙏🙏 thank god a pro-lifer who actually understands there position.
One of the strongest rebuttals against the violinist argument (and with bodily autonomy arguments in general), is that your organs fulfill their intended function when they support your own body. The uterus only fulfills its intended function when it is supporting another *separate* life. This makes it unique to any other organ in the body; that its function is more for the offspring of the mother than the mother itself.
That's a really good natural law argument. Also, the mother put the baby/fetus in the positon it's in (caused the predicament), wheras the woman did not cause the violinist's predicament in any way
It's a good argument. Another approach is to distinguish rights and duties. A drowning man does not strictly have a right to be saved. If a passer-by is not a good swimmer, he doesn't have to risk his own life to save the drowning person (he still has the duty to call for more capable help). But a an able-bodied good swimmer does have the duty (at least in many legal contexts) to try to save the drowning person. Apart from more theoretical debates, I dislike the violinist argument because an unwanted pregnancy is almost never like the "abduction to save the violinist". The proportion of abortions because of pregnancies after rape is about or less than 1 in 1000. But rape cases are usually one of the first pro-choice points being made which seems utterly disingeneous.
It's incomplete, part of the *"intended function"* of the uterus is to _"abort all offspring whose perceived quality falls below some threshold"_ (1) p13 Which is why the proportion of miscarriages in humans is so high. (1) "Genetic Conflicts in Human Pregnancy" David Haig 1990
I have heard that the hormonal imballance of preparing for a baby interrupted by an abortion can lead to breast cancer. Does anybody know if this is true?
Studies differ on this. The science behind it is that breast tissue development happens in stages. The further along the cells develop, the more resistant to cancer they are. So if you stop their development halfway through, there's a lot of tissue vulnerable to cancer.
Thank you Cameron for these videos, they are so helpful. Question, In regards to the opinion that a woman who was raped should be able to get an abortion should she become pregnant…I had the thought of this….if a terrorist invaded an building and brought his/her child with him/her and forced the child to stay in the building that was lined with explosives but you have the ability to blow up the building to kill the terrorist,…but you have to explode the building with the child in it…in order to do away with the terrorist…would you be ok to blow up this building with the child inside it…if it means that you can kill the terrorist? A child that has no choice to be in the building but was placed there by an evil person that caused you and others much harm…is it ok to blow up this building and kill the child that the terrorist placed there? Or would you try to save the child from the building and hope that it has a safe family or place afterwards? What do you think of this question and example to this objection? Would it be a good one to use or not?
Terrible analogy. The fetus of a rape event isn’t a child, it’s a burden that the woman didn’t ask for and is completely inhumane to suggest a woman give up her bodily autonomy to bring an unwanted pregnancy of a traumatic event against her will.
Being pro life and having an exception for rape makes no sense. The child is innocent in the matter. Were already going to force woman to remain pregnant in normal instances of pregnancy by being pro life, rape should be no different becaue it's about saving the life of an innocent child. Making an exception for rape is not pro life. At that point you are basically telling an innocent child sorry but your dad was a criminal so we are going to make the exception to murder you. How a child is conceived should have no bearing on whether or not its ok to kill them in the womb.
The UK has much more restrictions about abortion than we currently do in the US. The US has some of the most extreme abortion laws anywhere in the world. Most countries I. Europe restrict abortion to the first trimester
What is the philosophical position that says we ARE a body and we ARE a soul, even if we still think that the body and soul aren’t identical? Like when we die our soul goes to paradise (Luke 22), but our body stays in the ground(or wherever, for cremation). Then in New Creation, God makes us whole again by giving us new bodies, and we still are soul/body at that point.
OK as a pro-choicer I would like to comment on what is said here. I think these one-sided conversations are not very useful other than confirming already existing biases. Specially when the side they are talking about isn't there to defend. @1:48 they are for RvW but against 2nd trimester abortions. Which means most ppl are for abortions but draw the line before 2nd trimester. This is not the pro-life position, this is in fact a stricter pro-choice position. @2:32 nice cherry picking, china, north korea and a few others like most european countries! @3:48 i know i have the power of hindsight but 11 states had laws in place restricting abortions for the moment RvW got overturned, so yes it did. @3:57 while i agree states deciding their own course is theoretically the best. Lets not forget that america has a freedom of (and from) religion. But all these states intermediately make laws based on christian believes which only shows how america has freedom from all religions except for Christianity. So yes i do think the supreme court decision better represents the constitution than the states do at this point (i mean that is their job as the supreme court after all). @4:23 i would point you to the lawsuit in texas where the jewish community argues their new law inhibits their freedom of religion as they require abortion in certain circumstances in their faith. @4:51 protect women from the harm of abortion? This is something you choose. taking away this choice and force 1 upon them is not in the best interest of that person. @6:54 exchange of opposing few. except for this interview i guess. @7:31 yes i agree, no women should be allowed an instant abortion. Many countries therefor have a mandatory 5 day waiting period. violinist argument: @10:12 i fail to see why this is a pro-choice argument (i bet some use it), because in pro-choice you are able to prevent this from occurring by aborting the fetus before it has the right to life. After that moment, You choose that situation and you go in willing. So i do think that the "right to life" holding baby should not be aborted if the mother was able to get out of the situation but choose not too for all the reasons Mr. Miller gives. This is why pro-choice does not allow abortions up to the day of birth... In pro-choice the base argument violinist situation would not occur (excluding exceptions because that's not really what we should base our laws on). @15:03 "killing" depends on if a person has a right to life (i will call this personhood from now on). technically killing can be ending any life (like ants) but i assume we mean ending a human life with personhood. @15:11 not all abortions are the same. pro-choice distinguishes abortions before personhood and after. Before is not killing, after is killing using the above definition for killing. @15:23 and so do i, and pro-choice is comparable with this position. @15:34 so if both sides agree, why is this framed as a pro-choice argument? Double effect argument: @16:00 never heard of it before either, should be interesting. @17:50 ok, i agree killing someone is wrong. -> abortions before personhood is not killing... @18:45 there are no negative consequences with maybe the exception of the womens mental health. this is why it should be her choice. @19:48 Again calling it a child sounds like person with personhood so i agree and so does pro-choice. If talking before personhood than no there is no moral implication. @20:06 Abortions are about more than saving a career. Its also about having to raise a child with everything that comes with it in the next 18-21 years or more! Soul argument: @22:30 I like this argument. It shows the christian position slowly changing to the pro-choice position, Progress!!! I am gonna assume that with ensoulment we can equate that as granting personhood for a non duelist like me. ensoulment at 9 weeks, welcome to the pro-choice side. @24:23 human individual organism with or without personhood? is it an organism? yes. is it a human, yes. It is individual? Maybe, it literately cant survive or has any moment prior in which it could not survive without another organism. But ok lets grant it (even if i disagree). Now does that mean this organism has rights? undetermined by this statement. If you think it does. Great don't have an abortion. no1 is forcing you. But stop forcing others to your views. @26:44 yes be cautious with when you exactly grant personhood. This is prob why in the netherlands abortion is allowed till 24 weeks you actually cant get 1 passed 22 weeks. Wriggle room is indeed a good thing. @28:43 holding this position means that you agree that the potential of a thing is that thing. This cant be so. You would not need the word potential if that is the case. but without the word it does not mean when you meant to say anymore. Also than you need a potential breaker somewhere or else we can go back before conception to sperm cells having potential ect. Prudential argument: @30:14 Objective morality does not exist. So being 100% sure if off the table when it comes to morality. it is decided by the society. So if the society agrees personhood is granted at lets say 10 weeks. than wriggle room is 8 week or something. I agreed to this earlier. Not if it happens at all. In subjective morality/non religious view there is no other option than granting person-hood at some point. Even if you think that should be at conception. Lets also not forget that if you think it happens at conception. No1 is forcing you to get an abortion, you can act out your personal views. Just dont force yours on others like you would not want theirs forced on you. @33:15 after personhood very much so, equal to a life. @33:55 again not the pro-choice position after personhood those things would also not be permitted under a pro-choice views. personhood: @34:34 ohhh finually personhood!!! eventho i consider the ensoulment thing to be the same. In my position personhood should be granted if both of the following conditions are met: 1) has the potential to become a conscious human organism. (potential being broken by the requirement of the 2nd rule so it cannot go backwards like my earlier objection). 2) The person is for the first time an individual separated from the mother. As in it has its own separated survival chance and would not be solely reliant on the continued existence of the mother anymore. So basically when the baby can survive if the mother was to die (around 24 weeks with our current medical capabilities). So personhood is granted to a conscious individual human organism (with my definition of individual). In case people think my view is rare, these also happen to be the laws in my country (the netherlands). @37:17 yes consciousness alone is not enough i agree. @37:45 having the parts to be conscious does not mean you are conscious. @37:47 what? sophisticated cognitive abilities? sounds vague indeed. As a pro-choicer i do not hold this position but ok. @38:05 i don't. neither does my country (the netherlands). @38:22 i would not call it a strawman because i am sure there are people who hold this position. But it is not inconsistent with mine. @39:07 what spectrum? they are all yes or no questions. Conscious? Human? individual? organism? If you answer all with yes than grats you are a person. @39:17 it doesn't follow from pro-choice but yes different people have different value. Just as doctors help young people before old ect. We imprison people for the safety of other instead of imprisoning the others to keep them safe from criminals. Parents sacrificing themselves for their child. Just as long as the lowest valued person is still higher than the right to life you are fine. @39:47 it does if the gradient starts with right to life at the lowest possible value and goes up from there. but i agree that it looks inconsistent with this cognitive abilities stuff. Ok i cant be bothered to do the rest. So far they either have not been pro-choice arguments that he objects too. Or some different version i don't hold too.
I didn't read this response but will say this way way more thorough than your average TH-cam response. This TH-cam guy should invite you for an interview.
Abortion is nobody’s business except the pregnant woman in question and her doctor. No fetus nor embryo is entitled to woman’s body against her continued consent. This is a violation of bodily autonomy and unconstitutional. There isn’t a single reason outside religion to ban abortion.
Say you have a 3 month old child who is starving to death. The only available option for nutrients is the breastmilk inside either yours (if your are the mother) or the mother's breasts, thus part of the woman`s body. Can the mother, whether it is you or someone else, withhold the breastmilk from the child and allow the child to starve to death? Would that not be parental neglect? Also, abortion isn`t explicitly about stopping the use of the woman's body. It's about killing the fetus. No one is talking about safely removing the fetus alive from a woman's body if the woman chooses to, it's whether the woman can have the fetus killed. As an analogy, say that you find yourself as the edge of a cliff, with their hands out over the edge. Say that you have a baby in your hands, YOUR baby. Now, the baby is using your body and if you let him go, the baby will fall to his death. The question about abortion is not about whether you are allowed to move the baby away from the edge and place it out of your hands and safely on the ground, or even whether you are allowed to just let the baby go over the edge of the cliff. It's about whether you are allowed to strangle the baby to death in your hands since he is using your body against your consent. Do you think you should be allowed to do that?
@@billyg898 Terrible analogy. Once a baby is born, the parents are obligated by law to care for the child until age 18. Also, did you forget that baby formula is exists as well?
Okay! Good for you! Get pregnant and have your baby. No one is stopping you. Just don’t go trying to prevent others in different circumstances from being able to make their own decisions. You don’t get to make the decision for them.
@@therese6447 BS - you people don’t don’t a damn about a baby after it’s born, so long as it’s born. You don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. What right do you have to impose your irrational beliefs on others?
In relation to when does a soul / spirit begin. The Bible says in Jeremiah 1:5 when God is speaking to Jeremiah about his destiny... "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”. What does this then say? Surely it says that God forms the human spirit in the womb, at conception? That in fact it is God himself that gives life and in fact allows conception to succeed. Therefore, from conception, to kill the fetus by poisoning it, dismembering it or otherwise, is in fact murder. Murder is taking an innocent human life. Biologists affirm that from the time of conception, when a zygote is formed, human life exists. the genetic instructions for sex, eye colour, skin colour, and all other instructions for the production of a complete human being are fully in place at this moment of conception. the rest is merely time (9 months to be precise)
Any objection to the following argument ? : P1 - We endeavor to rid our bodies of parasites when they are detrimental or harmful. P2 - The owner of the body decides what is detrimental or harmful to it. P3 - Human foetuses and embryos are parasitic on the the mother's body. C1 - We endeavor to rid mothers of embryos and foetuses that are detrimental or harmful to them C2 - The owner of the body (the mother) decides which embryo is detrimental or harmful to her body. 48:05 "to end the life of an innocent human being" That's something I often hear pro-life advocates say. But I never understood it, in what sense can an embryo who manipulates the mother's physiology to his own benefit, described in the field of biology as the "parent-offspring conflict", be described as _"innocent"_ ? What is _"innocent"_ about diverting blood flow and taking control over blood pressure and glycemia of one's host, in order to feed on it ?
How is a fetus a parasitic entity? It did not enter the host, it was generated by the host. It does not feed off of resources not intended for it. The female body has organs tailor made for reproduction. It is the female body that adjusts for the fetus. The fetus has its own distinct DNA and chromosomes. It is a fly defined human, growing toward maturity. It begins to divide as its own entity within the womb as it heads down the fallopian tube to then embed itself in the uterine wall intended for it. It is not a parasite.
1:08:20 "When exactly does its [the baby's] right to life outweigh the right to bodily autonomy of the mother. Many people say 12 weeks, 24 weeks, pro life is just saying as soon as it begins to exist, because all human beings are equal, and that is the most consistent view." The other "consistent" view is to say : never ! The bodily autonomy of the mother ALWAYS outweighs the foetus' right to life. Funny Calum would fail to mention the diametrically opposed "consistent" view...
@@MrGustavier yet, the female body is simply acting in a natural way. Her hormones, her whole physiology and purpose for that physiology is reproduction. Her whole body changes to produce a child. A woman produces a child. Let's not forget too, that the fertilized egg was produced by none other than her own body. This autonomy argument is half baked and ignores the fact that it is her own body doing all of these things. Her body produces the baby. So, if you want to argue bodily autonomy, consider that her body did this to her. It's a natural process. Abortion is unnatural. It's like you are trying to say pregnancy is an unfortunate, unnatural occurrence. How ridiculous is that? Women have breasts made to nurture babies. They aren't eyecandy. They have wombs there to bear children. They have ovaries with many eggs that are there with the purpose and intent of being fertilized. She has a monthly cycle that happens so that she can get pregnant. Her body is made for that. Killing a baby is killing your very purpose for existence. That's a true tragedy. You cannot extrapolate the case of a woman who has been raped, or had a pregnancy out of incest, or a medical emergency (ectopic pregnancy) and use that as a justification for abortion on demand. They are non-sequitur arguments. Over all, abortion is a tragedy. A woman is designed to be a mother. It's a tragedy that society has so denigrated that lofty place to where young women are taught they cannot be fulfilled as a mom, and children are viewed as a burden.
So you are saying that a panda's fetus, while developing inside of its panda mother, is a parasite to the mother? Do you know how ludicrous you sound? You need to actually look up the definition of a biological parasite.
Great interview! I'd be interested in knowing if Calum has made available those studies about women who keep the baby after rape don't regret it and find meaning.
Yahweh/Jesus treating the unborn with love. Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. LOL
@@CausingLewis Yahweh/Jesus LOVED REAL ESTATE. And committed lots of genocide to get it. Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3) Midianites (Numbers 31:15-18) Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21:10-11) Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
By what right does the government take control over the bodily autonomy of an individual? I thought the US was a country founded of the ideals of citizens' rights.
The government has the right to illegalized abortion for the reason that it is a murder of an innocent being. It is their job to protect human rights cause zygote, embryo, or fetus-- are also human beings worthy of life and has the right to live. And never call it a citizen's right to murder a fetus. It is never a right to kill
@@calligraphersnote2481 It's not murder, but it is a violation of autonomy. You argue that every "human" has a right to life, but what about the quality of that life. Do you care about this? Because if you do, maybe concern yourself with the 23,000 kids in the US you age out of the foster system ever year, half of whom become immediately homeless. Or the 11 individuals who die of starvation every minute. Where's the concern? Where's your god? MIA it would seem. You do not care about fetuses; what you care about a political wedge you can use to control women.
We will never know when the baby’s soul is attached to the body. That’s just one more reason why abortion should not be permitted except of instances where the mothers life is in danger. To purposely kill and innocent human life is immoral
Yeah think of it this way: suppose you and your pal are hunting for deer in the woods and he goes off to take leak. A minute later, you hear rustling in a nearby bush. It could be a deer, or it could be your pal coming back. Do you shoot the bush? The answer is clearly no. The possibility of killing a human far outweighs the possible reward of tasty venison.
51:00 I do not think comparing a 5 year old who has been conceived due to sexual assault to a unborn that has been conceived by sexual assault is a good comparison. I think viability out of the womb is what should be seen here
@@Miatpi Well my reasoning is not just viability . but yes it would entail the time right before birth. Though the time before birth can vary and probably will vary as technology increases allowing kids to be born sooner.
I think if we follow the logical implications of your argument, we have fewer rights because we are not viable outside the boundaries of the earth. If the unborn can be killed because they can't live outside of the boundaries of the womb, then the born can be killed because they can't live outside the boundaries of the planet we live on.
How did this guy get through medical school? Abortion just means ending a pregnancy; it never has to mean dismembering... To claim as such is just manipulating the conversation. Thus we have two strikes against your so called doctor in 15 min.
Abortion ends a pregnancy by killing the human in the womb. It doesn’t “have” to mean dismemberment, but in practice abortion procedures often involved dismemberment of the child.
No, abortion doesn’t just mean “ending a pregnancy.” That would entail that c-sections and births are also abortions, which is false from a medical perspective. The medical field defines abortion as the ending of a pregnancy *before fetal viability* (that last part is crucial, because it guarantees the baby’s death.) And yes, abortions do in fact involve dismemberment. You don’t what this procedure involves or how it’s even defined.
Do you ever consider how sheltered you are from other cultures, philosophical frameworks and worldviews that you would be genuinely suprised that a prolife theist could become a doctor? Try to get outside the prison of your late modern, securalist monoculture and the world will open up to you like a universe of rapturous beauty that you didnt know existed.
Here's the trick: "Cognitive ability" is a large set that includes two kinds of things. Morally irrelevant things and morally relevant things. For instance ability to play basketball is irrelevant, morally speaking, but ability to have consciousness IS morally relevant because it allows good and bad experiences. He's using examples from the first set (morally irrelevant things) to try and prove that there there are NO morally relevant cognitive abilities, that our moral treatment relies on something else, whereas I think that's false.
This makes no sense, the first set allows for good and bad experiences too, it's not clear why it's relevant to whether a person may be permissibly killed, the separation of these sets is arbitrary, etc.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I should've clarified. By "Morally relevant" I mean things that would significantly affect the moral or legal treatment of a being. For instance someone who's good at basketball might be a more serious loss if they die because so many people liked them, but it doesn't mean you could sacrifice a normal non-basketball person to save their life, for instance. As for the arbitrariness, I think that's always the case with morals because as we learn more stuff through history, it affects our understanding of outcomes, hence our moral rules change. Many rules are pretty obvious, but some less so, and I think abortion is one area of ambiguity. I think we'll need a much more advanced understanding of neuroscience and consciousness to truly settle the debate, which we probably won't have for decades.
@Qwerty I don't think they're completely arbitrary, I just mean there's SOME arbitrariness that's logically unavoidable. There are some Morals and values that are low-hanging fruit, but they're just heuristics and there's corner cases within those propositions that defy clear answers. That's why we have courts, ethicists, moral philosophers, etc. I think it makes more sense to talk about the factors that stabilize and influence and change them, such as human nature, the environment, rationality, lessons of history, culture, learning, etc. Rather than trying to over-simplify things.
38:18 *”We disagree about … does it have the same rights, does it have the same value as any normally functioning adult human being.”* The question isn’t really does a preborn life have the same value as a fully developed adult. A pro-life position doesn’t have to hold that all human life is of equal value, only that all human life is of sufficient value to be endowed with the right to life. For the pro-abort, then, it’s not sufficient to argue that a preborn life is of less value than a mature adult. It could be true, and the preborn life is still endowed with the right to life. That would only be a consideration only if one life were being weighed against the other, which is almost never the case.
The right to life isnt based on value or a gradation of value. That is silly. That is what happens when you have no valid theory of rights. If that was valid, then dogs and cats should have a right to life and so should pigs and ants, since they all have value.
@@nathanaelculver5308 *"only that all human life is of sufficient value to be endowed with the right to life"* Didn't you say this? Which is making the situation about value
42:00 "It also threatens the entire notion of human equality for everyone else as well. And so some philosophers would be prepared to bite that bullet and accept that, I would hope that most would not be, that most ordinary people would generally have sounder opinions than academics philosophers. I would hope that would not be plausible to them as well..." So what is the "objection" here exactly ? That academic philosophers' opinions are "not sound" ? How so ?
Backup about 45 seconds from that timestamp. The objection is that if personhood is based on a trait that exists on a spectrum, then it is ad hoc to pick a particular point on that spectrum and make a binary jump from non-person to person; instead if the trait(s) that determine personhood exist on a spectrum then it would seem that we should conclude that different people have different amounts of value as persons.
@@John_Fisher 40:52 _"But the problem is not just with those, the problem is also that if the ground of human value or if the basis of human value is in a cognitive ability that exists on a spectrum that can come in degrees, then all human beings naturally, it would seem to follow, should have different levels of value. So if I say for example that you need to have a certain level of intelligence to count as a person, and I'm making the level of intelligence the criterion of personhood, it seems very ad hoc and arbitrary and contrived to say that once you reach a certain level of intelligence, every human being is equally valuable, there doesn't seem to be any natural or plausible way of making that conclusion, it seems that the most natural implication of that view is that the more intelligent you are, or the more sophisticated cognitive abilities you have, the more valuable you are."_ *-"The objection is that if personhood is based on a trait that exists on a spectrum, then it is ad hoc to pick a particular point on that spectrum and make a binary jump from non-person to person"* That's not what he says, he says : _"it seems very ad hoc and arbitrary and contrived to say that once you reach a certain level of intelligence, every human being is equally valuable"_ Which is not the same thing. If the _"academic philosophers bit the bullet"_ and rejected the _"entire notion of human equality"_ , then there is no such _"arbitrary level of intelligence"_ after which humans are _"equally valuable"_ . In that case, the more intelligent you are, the more valuable you would be, one would only be as valuable as the people with the same level of intelligence. Furthermore, to address your point : is picking ad hoc or arbitrary points on spectrums for criteria _"unsound"_ ? We do it all the time in virtually every facet of human behavior or human understanding... *-"instead if the trait(s) that determine personhood exist on a spectrum then it would seem that we should conclude that different people have different amounts of value as persons."* Exactly, which is the _"bullet"_ that academic philosophers bite. How is that unsound ? In the passage I quoted, he says : _"there doesn't seem to be any natural or plausible way of making that conclusion"_ By making a reference to _"nature"_ here, he seems to imply that the _"ground of human value, or the basis of human value"_ somehow needs to be _"natural"_ . Which looks like an appeal to natural law ethics that would be, of course, rejected by the _"academic philosophers"_ that he mentions. Therefore that could be the topic of his next interview on Cameron's channel : why natural law ethics ? What objections to it etc...
@@MrGustavier Regarding how what he said was an objection, my take is that it was an attempt to make a reductio or maybe an appeal to common intuition that all humans do have the same value. I agree with you on that natural law ethics would be a great follow up point for a discussion/interview.
@@MrGustavier You are focusing too much on the word natural. He isn’t using the word natural in the literal sense as evidenced by him also using the synonym “plausible.” He is saying that it is unreasonable to ground personhood in a quality or qualities that exist in degrees while also asserting personhood begins at some distinct point in that spectrum of degrees with full admittance being acquired by all once they reach it. It would be more coherent to say that personhood itself exists in degrees depending on your level of development of those qualities. That is the natural or plausible outgrowth given the prior assumption. Though, because he is a believer (I think), he knows that that is evil and that all people have equal value being made in the image of the creator. That is the real grounding of his objection.
@@MrGustavier Either human rights are a categorical property of human nature or they aren't, that's the point. It makes no sense to talk about gradation in human rights unless you're willing to accept notions like subhumans.
16:00 I think comparing an unborn to an out of womb daughter that has experiences and notices she is conscious is not a good comparison. I do agree the violinist question is not that good of a question thought
I think that it is a good comparison, though. Specifically, we need to recognize that things like "experiences" and "knowing one is conscious" are very arbitrary markers. So, since those are arbitrary and don't necessarily factor into a living being (plants are living, though it is hard to assume any level of "consciousness" or "experience.") So, it's important in that we can see that experiences and consciousness are not necessary factors in a living individual.
The differences between the unborn human and the born human are a matter of age and development (of dna that is already fully present in the unborn child). Regardless of the differences, the only comparison that is necessary is that they are both HUMAN and they are both ALIVE.
@@skullo5557 Why is consiousness the point at which human life matters (in itself, as opposed to the value assigned to it by others)? Is a human adult who's knocked temporarily unconscious less human or valuable during the short period of unconsciousness than before or after? This may seem like a cheap argument, but it's actually not if you think carefully through the objections to it. Like the adult who suffers an accident and is rendered briefly unconsious, the embryonic human's unconsiousness is only a stage that it passes through. All of the complex biological ingredients to it's adult life are already packed into its DNA, as its body goes through the process of rendering itself by the replication of its cells.
@@JW_______ Yeah you see, consciousness starts starts one point and ends forever at one point. Sleeping and being on medication or something wouldn’t be the same because it isn’t when your consciousness ends forever
If you support the principle of customary right then the fetus achieves the right to use the uterus after a certain period of time where the woman consents to the pregnancy.
1:08:20 "When exactly does its [the baby's] right to life outweigh the right to bodily autonomy of the mother. Many people say 12 weeks, 24 weeks, pro life is just saying as soon as it begins to exist, because all human beings are equal, and that is the most consistent view." The other "consistent" view is to say : never ! The bodily autonomy of the mother ALWAYS outweighs the foetus' right to life. Funny Calum would fail to mention the diametrically opposed "consistent" view...
Can the mother use her body to do drugs and drink while she’s pregnant? Why is it limited to the fetus? Does she have an obligation to feed her infant with her body?
Actually, the "never" view is not consistent. The never view would make "post-birth" murder of a child allowable since the mother would still need to care for and nurse the child using her body in some way, shape, or form. So no, the "never" view is NOT actually consistent in that it would then make the murder of a mother's child at ANY AGE permissible if the mother can find some way to justify how it affects her body.
@@TheistBrooks *-"Can the mother use her body to do drugs and drink while she’s pregnant?"* That's a good question. As far as I know it is not illegal. So yes, she can. *-"Why is it limited to the fetus?"* It's not, no parasite has legitimate claims to their host. *-"Does she have an obligation to feed her infant with her body?"* The answer to that question would basically solve the whole question wouldn't it ?
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 *-"Actually, the "never" view is not consistent. The never view would make "post-birth" murder of a child allowable since the mother would still need to care for and nurse the child using her body in some way, shape, or form."* I don't think that is correct. the term "bodily autonomy" doesn't refer to the back pain incurred by carrying your 5 years old child in your arms.
No. Being a person is not a spectrum. Intelligence is not what determines that an individual is a person. An animal is not a person. People do not have a certain value. People have rights and dignity, not value. Being a person must be something determined and what allows being a person are the neurological components that determine such nature. A person is alive when the neural components that produce the characteristics that correspond to a person are functional. These elements must be present. They must exist. When these elements do not exist, due to necrosis, amputation, not having developed, etc. the individual is not a living person.
@@mnmmnm925 There is nothing circular. If A produces B, there being no A, there is no B. In case there are any doubts, if the neurological components that determine a person do not exist in an individual, that individual is not a living person.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd - Yes, your definition is circular. You said “being a person is when we have neurological criteria that correspond to a person,” but you never explained _what_ those criteria were. So this is basically the discussion so far: “We have a triangle when there’s a certain amount of sides that correspond to a triangle.” “But how many sides?” “Uh, the amount needed for a triangle.”
@@mnmmnm925 That does not make the reasoning circular but incomplete. It seems to me that you are not clear that paraphrasing is not quoting. The criteria is the same that neurology uses to determine whether a person is alive or dead. Do you want a detail of the parts of the neocortex that enable the characteristics that are attributed to people?
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Yes, can you go over the criteria that determines if a person is dead or alive, the characteristics that are attributed to people, and the relevant parts of the neocortex that enable such characteristics. I’m genuinely interested in this discussion and would like to hear more on this.
I like to throw the question about the burning lab back on them by asking if they’d save 100 people from a burning building or save their 5 year old daughter from burning to a crisp or any other loved one they care about. Or if you could save 100 people but you’d die in the burning building. These scenarios show how useless the scenario is for the pro choice position as well
These scenarios with pseudo-precision in numbers mostly show that humans are not utilitarians, or even that utilitarianism is wrong and only applicable within bounds set by other ethical principles. (This was realized by secular critics of utilitarianism long ago; Bernard Williams used in a similar scenario (saving a fat wife instead of two slim strangers or so) the phrase "one thought too many" if one even considered letting the wife drown.) This also becomes obvious in cases like Singer who is some kind of utilitarian but not consistent. They usually want to avoid the "abhorrent conclusion", i.e. that as many humans are possible should exist because as long as a human life has slight "positive utility" and if (plausibly) a non-starving human not in pain for most of his life has a positive utility, we should bring more and more humans into the world even if the humans that eventually would exist were reduced to a very low living standard. From this follows a strong utilitarian anti-abortion argument: The typical utility of a whole additional life even below average living standard (e.g. because given up for abortion or in an orphanage) in a country like the US should clearly trump a bit of lost utility if the pregnant college student "only" becomes a HS teacher, not an attorney because of her early child curtailing education. (This basically follows directly from marginal utility gains/losses, so the utilitarians are caught in their own trap of quantifying things that cannot really be measured...)
Great discussion! Lots of great points! The only thing I would add for the issue of rape is that we shouldn't end the life of a child because of the crimes of their father. We do that for no other crime, and rape shouldn't be an exception.
@@natebozeman4510 If you made a point, it's in serious need of sharpening. You'd force a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term, that was your point, was it not?
@@markgordon5266 The point was that you don't kill a human being based on the crimes of their father. In order to debunk the claim, you'll need to do so without lousy appeals to emotion. Why should we kill a baby for the sins of their father, when studies show that women who keep their babies in those horrible situations are happier than those who get an abortion, and say their baby is the only light they have from that horrible trauma?
@@natebozeman4510 Let me ask you a question just to clarify, fair enough? At what point do you believe the fertilized egg has a soul? Note that I'm not at all saying that either sperm or egg are not human, that would be ridiculous. I'm asking when the organism that is a potential person has a soul.
Is it your born child? Yes? Then it's your choice to decide to not feed it until it starves to death. No? Then it's none of your business! and why would you want a law on the books that accurately reflects the moral reality of the desicion?
@@briendoyle4680 my comment points out the flawed logic of the original comment. If the life to be killed is human, the woman's right of bodily autonomy is obviously secondary to the other humam being involved's right of bodily autonomy to not be attacked and destroyed
People die of every different type of flu and pneumonia every year. So you can say that for those people as well. The reason covid APPEARS particularly bad is because of how they categorize causes of death, how they locked down and supported bad health practices, and how they filled people with fear(which is proven to make you physically ill). Not to mention the psychological damage of masks and being afraid to be with loved ones, getting the mRNA jab, and the increased suicide rate.
At only few months old, a kangaroo baby is blind and deaf, but it's will to live gives it the ability to climb into it's mother pouch, imo, pro choice woman would flick this thing to the ground, stand on it, and call it there choice, this is murder.
Thank you to Dr. Miller for the clearest, most succinct thing I've ever seen/heard on the ethics of abortion. Thanks to you Mr. Bertuzzi for organizing the interview so well. And thanks for your channel, I'm happy I discovered it--your open mind and teachable spirit are a delight.
Dr. Calum Miller is really on another level on this topic
Such an underrated interview!!
Going back to the “would you save a 5 yo or embryo” question. Let’s ask the same question, but instead it’s a pregnant woman and a non-pregnant woman. Who do you chose? I’d be interested to see the outcome, but it seems plausible that most would pick the pregnant woman. Why? Because we all see value in what pregnancy means. We value to unborn even if we don’t realize it. No abortion advocate walks up to a pregnant woman and says “that thing is morally valueless until it’s born.” No, they ask, “when’s the baby due?” Or “what name have you picked out?”
The same conclusion provided in the video can be given here, we aren’t saying the pregnant woman is more valuable, but we are saying while we do TRIAG there is something about pregnancy that give the one woman a higher priority.
Dang this is something that I never thought of, really interesting perspective and twist on the scenario. Thanks for letting me think Abit more
like asking if we should save a smart person, or you.
that is subjectiv. Between and embryo or a 5 yo. way closer to an objective answer there.
Very good exchange with very good answers from Calum.
One can learn a lot by listening and analyzing carefully these answers.
Congratulations for this great interview.
👍🏻👍🏻
Conscious from 10 weeks?? Uhm sources cited? The actual possible range is 20-28 weeks according to like… all of the literature, so sources??
Also, GO OFF KING, FINALLY AN ANIMALSIST🙏🙏 thank god a pro-lifer who actually understands there position.
One of the strongest rebuttals against the violinist argument (and with bodily autonomy arguments in general), is that your organs fulfill their intended function when they support your own body. The uterus only fulfills its intended function when it is supporting another *separate* life. This makes it unique to any other organ in the body; that its function is more for the offspring of the mother than the mother itself.
That's a really good natural law argument. Also, the mother put the baby/fetus in the positon it's in (caused the predicament), wheras the woman did not cause the violinist's predicament in any way
It's a good argument. Another approach is to distinguish rights and duties. A drowning man does not strictly have a right to be saved. If a passer-by is not a good swimmer, he doesn't have to risk his own life to save the drowning person (he still has the duty to call for more capable help). But a an able-bodied good swimmer does have the duty (at least in many legal contexts) to try to save the drowning person.
Apart from more theoretical debates, I dislike the violinist argument because an unwanted pregnancy is almost never like the "abduction to save the violinist". The proportion of abortions because of pregnancies after rape is about or less than 1 in 1000. But rape cases are usually one of the first pro-choice points being made which seems utterly disingeneous.
It's incomplete, part of the *"intended function"* of the uterus is to _"abort all offspring whose perceived quality falls below some threshold"_ (1) p13
Which is why the proportion of miscarriages in humans is so high.
(1) "Genetic Conflicts in Human Pregnancy" David Haig 1990
@@MrGustavier You don’t understand natural law.
@@mnmmnm925 *-"You don’t understand natural law.
"*
I'm always happy to learn...
I have heard that the hormonal imballance of preparing for a baby interrupted by an abortion can lead to breast cancer. Does anybody know if this is true?
Studies differ on this. The science behind it is that breast tissue development happens in stages. The further along the cells develop, the more resistant to cancer they are. So if you stop their development halfway through, there's a lot of tissue vulnerable to cancer.
Great points and video! Thank you to both of you!!
Great video! I learnt a lot.
Thank you Cameron for these videos, they are so helpful.
Question, In regards to the opinion that a woman who was raped should be able to get an abortion should she become pregnant…I had the thought of this….if a terrorist invaded an building and brought his/her child with him/her and forced the child to stay in the building that was lined with explosives but you have the ability to blow up the building to kill the terrorist,…but you have to explode the building with the child in it…in order to do away with the terrorist…would you be ok to blow up this building with the child inside it…if it means that you can kill the terrorist? A child that has no choice to be in the building but was placed there by an evil person that caused you and others much harm…is it ok to blow up this building and kill the child that the terrorist placed there? Or would you try to save the child from the building and hope that it has a safe family or place afterwards?
What do you think of this question and example to this objection? Would it be a good one to use or not?
Terrible analogy. The fetus of a rape event isn’t a child, it’s a burden that the woman didn’t ask for and is completely inhumane to suggest a woman give up her bodily autonomy to bring an unwanted pregnancy of a traumatic event against her will.
Being pro life and having an exception for rape makes no sense. The child is innocent in the matter. Were already going to force woman to remain pregnant in normal instances of pregnancy by being pro life, rape should be no different becaue it's about saving the life of an innocent child.
Making an exception for rape is not pro life. At that point you are basically telling an innocent child sorry but your dad was a criminal so we are going to make the exception to murder you. How a child is conceived should have no bearing on whether or not its ok to kill them in the womb.
@@2l84me8 it’s a human being and it’s innocent. That is an indisputable fact no matter your perspective on it
@@MarcusGreen-y7g
How does that address anything that person said? You ignored it and just went for emotional rhetoric.
@@Dhorpatan what I said isn’t emotional at all. It is a fact
This is an amazing video. Thank you!
The UK has much more restrictions about abortion than we currently do in the US. The US has some of the most extreme abortion laws anywhere in the world. Most countries I. Europe restrict abortion to the first trimester
What is the philosophical position that says we ARE a body and we ARE a soul, even if we still think that the body and soul aren’t identical? Like when we die our soul goes to paradise (Luke 22), but our body stays in the ground(or wherever, for cremation). Then in New Creation, God makes us whole again by giving us new bodies, and we still are soul/body at that point.
These are some of the best points I’ve heard on the topic. Thank you both for sharing this and keep up the good work!
OK as a pro-choicer I would like to comment on what is said here.
I think these one-sided conversations are not very useful other than confirming already existing biases.
Specially when the side they are talking about isn't there to defend.
@1:48 they are for RvW but against 2nd trimester abortions. Which means most ppl are for abortions but draw the line before 2nd trimester.
This is not the pro-life position, this is in fact a stricter pro-choice position.
@2:32 nice cherry picking, china, north korea and a few others like most european countries!
@3:48 i know i have the power of hindsight but 11 states had laws in place restricting abortions for the moment RvW got overturned, so yes it did.
@3:57 while i agree states deciding their own course is theoretically the best. Lets not forget that america has a freedom of (and from) religion.
But all these states intermediately make laws based on christian believes which only shows how america has freedom from all religions except for Christianity.
So yes i do think the supreme court decision better represents the constitution than the states do at this point (i mean that is their job as the supreme court after all).
@4:23 i would point you to the lawsuit in texas where the jewish community argues their new law inhibits their freedom of religion as they require abortion in certain circumstances in their faith.
@4:51 protect women from the harm of abortion? This is something you choose. taking away this choice and force 1 upon them is not in the best interest of that person.
@6:54 exchange of opposing few. except for this interview i guess.
@7:31 yes i agree, no women should be allowed an instant abortion. Many countries therefor have a mandatory 5 day waiting period.
violinist argument:
@10:12 i fail to see why this is a pro-choice argument (i bet some use it), because in pro-choice you are able to prevent this from occurring by aborting the fetus before it has the right to life.
After that moment, You choose that situation and you go in willing. So i do think that the "right to life" holding baby should not be aborted if the mother was able to get out of the situation but choose not too for all the reasons Mr. Miller gives. This is why pro-choice does not allow abortions up to the day of birth... In pro-choice the base argument violinist situation would not occur (excluding exceptions because that's not really what we should base our laws on).
@15:03 "killing" depends on if a person has a right to life (i will call this personhood from now on). technically killing can be ending any life (like ants) but i assume we mean ending a human life with personhood.
@15:11 not all abortions are the same. pro-choice distinguishes abortions before personhood and after. Before is not killing, after is killing using the above definition for killing.
@15:23 and so do i, and pro-choice is comparable with this position.
@15:34 so if both sides agree, why is this framed as a pro-choice argument?
Double effect argument:
@16:00 never heard of it before either, should be interesting.
@17:50 ok, i agree killing someone is wrong. -> abortions before personhood is not killing...
@18:45 there are no negative consequences with maybe the exception of the womens mental health. this is why it should be her choice.
@19:48 Again calling it a child sounds like person with personhood so i agree and so does pro-choice. If talking before personhood than no there is no moral implication.
@20:06 Abortions are about more than saving a career. Its also about having to raise a child with everything that comes with it in the next 18-21 years or more!
Soul argument:
@22:30 I like this argument. It shows the christian position slowly changing to the pro-choice position, Progress!!!
I am gonna assume that with ensoulment we can equate that as granting personhood for a non duelist like me. ensoulment at 9 weeks, welcome to the pro-choice side.
@24:23 human individual organism with or without personhood? is it an organism? yes. is it a human, yes. It is individual? Maybe, it literately cant survive or has any moment prior in which it could not survive without another organism. But ok lets grant it (even if i disagree). Now does that mean this organism has rights? undetermined by this statement.
If you think it does. Great don't have an abortion. no1 is forcing you. But stop forcing others to your views.
@26:44 yes be cautious with when you exactly grant personhood. This is prob why in the netherlands abortion is allowed till 24 weeks you actually cant get 1 passed 22 weeks.
Wriggle room is indeed a good thing.
@28:43 holding this position means that you agree that the potential of a thing is that thing. This cant be so. You would not need the word potential if that is the case. but without the word it does not mean when you meant to say anymore. Also than you need a potential breaker somewhere or else we can go back before conception to sperm cells having potential ect.
Prudential argument:
@30:14 Objective morality does not exist. So being 100% sure if off the table when it comes to morality. it is decided by the society. So if the society agrees personhood is granted at lets say 10 weeks. than wriggle room is 8 week or something. I agreed to this earlier. Not if it happens at all. In subjective morality/non religious view there is no other option than granting person-hood at some point. Even if you think that should be at conception. Lets also not forget that if you think it happens at conception. No1 is forcing you to get an abortion, you can act out your personal views. Just dont force yours on others like you would not want theirs forced on you.
@33:15 after personhood very much so, equal to a life.
@33:55 again not the pro-choice position after personhood those things would also not be permitted under a pro-choice views.
personhood:
@34:34 ohhh finually personhood!!! eventho i consider the ensoulment thing to be the same.
In my position personhood should be granted if both of the following conditions are met:
1) has the potential to become a conscious human organism. (potential being broken by the requirement of the 2nd rule so it cannot go backwards like my earlier objection).
2) The person is for the first time an individual separated from the mother. As in it has its own separated survival chance and would not be solely reliant on the continued existence of the mother anymore. So basically when the baby can survive if the mother was to die (around 24 weeks with our current medical capabilities).
So personhood is granted to a conscious individual human organism (with my definition of individual).
In case people think my view is rare, these also happen to be the laws in my country (the netherlands).
@37:17 yes consciousness alone is not enough i agree.
@37:45 having the parts to be conscious does not mean you are conscious.
@37:47 what? sophisticated cognitive abilities? sounds vague indeed. As a pro-choicer i do not hold this position but ok.
@38:05 i don't. neither does my country (the netherlands).
@38:22 i would not call it a strawman because i am sure there are people who hold this position. But it is not inconsistent with mine.
@39:07 what spectrum? they are all yes or no questions. Conscious? Human? individual? organism? If you answer all with yes than grats you are a person.
@39:17 it doesn't follow from pro-choice but yes different people have different value. Just as doctors help young people before old ect. We imprison people for the safety of other instead of imprisoning the others to keep them safe from criminals. Parents sacrificing themselves for their child. Just as long as the lowest valued person is still higher than the right to life you are fine.
@39:47 it does if the gradient starts with right to life at the lowest possible value and goes up from there. but i agree that it looks inconsistent with this cognitive abilities stuff.
Ok i cant be bothered to do the rest. So far they either have not been pro-choice arguments that he objects too. Or some different version i don't hold too.
I didn't read this response but will say this way way more thorough than your average TH-cam response. This TH-cam guy should invite you for an interview.
This Dr. Miller guy is great
"Sounder opinions than academic philosophers"
1:22:20 Poland being based as always
Ave Christus Rex!
Abortion is nobody’s business except the pregnant woman in question and her doctor. No fetus nor embryo is entitled to woman’s body against her continued consent. This is a violation of bodily autonomy and unconstitutional. There isn’t a single reason outside religion to ban abortion.
Say you have a 3 month old child who is starving to death. The only available option for nutrients is the breastmilk inside either yours (if your are the mother) or the mother's breasts, thus part of the woman`s body. Can the mother, whether it is you or someone else, withhold the breastmilk from the child and allow the child to starve to death? Would that not be parental neglect?
Also, abortion isn`t explicitly about stopping the use of the woman's body. It's about killing the fetus. No one is talking about safely removing the fetus alive from a woman's body if the woman chooses to, it's whether the woman can have the fetus killed. As an analogy, say that you find yourself as the edge of a cliff, with their hands out over the edge. Say that you have a baby in your hands, YOUR baby. Now, the baby is using your body and if you let him go, the baby will fall to his death. The question about abortion is not about whether you are allowed to move the baby away from the edge and place it out of your hands and safely on the ground, or even whether you are allowed to just let the baby go over the edge of the cliff. It's about whether you are allowed to strangle the baby to death in your hands since he is using your body against your consent. Do you think you should be allowed to do that?
@@billyg898 Terrible analogy. Once a baby is born, the parents are obligated by law to care for the child until age 18. Also, did you forget that baby formula is exists as well?
Someone didn’t watch the video methinks.
@@Starrboy94
I'm shocked ANYONE watched a 1 hour and 30-minute video like this.
Thanks for posting this Cameron. May God reward you for the work you are doing.
52:50 Q&A
Thank you Calum! I learned so much
Pro life 💯❤💕
Okay! Good for you! Get pregnant and have your baby. No one is stopping you.
Just don’t go trying to prevent others in different circumstances from being able to make their own decisions. You don’t get to make the decision for them.
@@Bomtombadi1 abortion is murder...there are other options like adoption and community support for the mother.
@@therese6447 BS - you people don’t don’t a damn about a baby after it’s born, so long as it’s born. You don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. What right do you have to impose your irrational beliefs on others?
@@therese6447
That's some strong rhetoric about abortion being murder, backed up by nothing logical.
1:01:16 note to self
In relation to when does a soul / spirit begin. The Bible says in Jeremiah 1:5 when God is speaking to Jeremiah about his destiny... "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”. What does this then say? Surely it says that God forms the human spirit in the womb, at conception? That in fact it is God himself that gives life and in fact allows conception to succeed. Therefore, from conception, to kill the fetus by poisoning it, dismembering it or otherwise, is in fact murder. Murder is taking an innocent human life. Biologists affirm that from the time of conception, when a zygote is formed, human life exists. the genetic instructions for sex, eye colour, skin colour, and all other instructions for the production of a complete human being are fully in place at this moment of conception. the rest is merely time (9 months to be precise)
Dr. Calum my boyyyyy
Any objection to the following argument ? :
P1 - We endeavor to rid our bodies of parasites when they are detrimental or harmful.
P2 - The owner of the body decides what is detrimental or harmful to it.
P3 - Human foetuses and embryos are parasitic on the the mother's body.
C1 - We endeavor to rid mothers of embryos and foetuses that are detrimental or harmful to them
C2 - The owner of the body (the mother) decides which embryo is detrimental or harmful to her body.
48:05 "to end the life of an innocent human being"
That's something I often hear pro-life advocates say. But I never understood it, in what sense can an embryo who manipulates the mother's physiology to his own benefit, described in the field of biology as the "parent-offspring conflict", be described as _"innocent"_ ? What is _"innocent"_ about diverting blood flow and taking control over blood pressure and glycemia of one's host, in order to feed on it ?
How is a fetus a parasitic entity?
It did not enter the host, it was generated by the host.
It does not feed off of resources not intended for it.
The female body has organs tailor made for reproduction.
It is the female body that adjusts for the fetus.
The fetus has its own distinct DNA and chromosomes. It is a fly defined human, growing toward maturity. It begins to divide as its own entity within the womb as it heads down the fallopian tube to then embed itself in the uterine wall intended for it.
It is not a parasite.
Premise 2 seems false. What classifies as a parasite is an objective, not a subjective, classifications.
1:08:20 "When exactly does its [the baby's] right to life outweigh the right to bodily autonomy of the mother. Many people say 12 weeks, 24 weeks, pro life is just saying as soon as it begins to exist, because all human beings are equal, and that is the most consistent view."
The other "consistent" view is to say : never ! The bodily autonomy of the mother ALWAYS outweighs the foetus' right to life. Funny Calum would fail to mention the diametrically opposed "consistent" view...
@@MrGustavier yet, the female body is simply acting in a natural way. Her hormones, her whole physiology and purpose for that physiology is reproduction. Her whole body changes to produce a child. A woman produces a child.
Let's not forget too, that the fertilized egg was produced by none other than her own body. This autonomy argument is half baked and ignores the fact that it is her own body doing all of these things. Her body produces the baby. So, if you want to argue bodily autonomy, consider that her body did this to her. It's a natural process. Abortion is unnatural. It's like you are trying to say pregnancy is an unfortunate, unnatural occurrence. How ridiculous is that?
Women have breasts made to nurture babies. They aren't eyecandy. They have wombs there to bear children. They have ovaries with many eggs that are there with the purpose and intent of being fertilized. She has a monthly cycle that happens so that she can get pregnant. Her body is made for that. Killing a baby is killing your very purpose for existence. That's a true tragedy.
You cannot extrapolate the case of a woman who has been raped, or had a pregnancy out of incest, or a medical emergency (ectopic pregnancy) and use that as a justification for abortion on demand. They are non-sequitur arguments. Over all, abortion is a tragedy. A woman is designed to be a mother. It's a tragedy that society has so denigrated that lofty place to where young women are taught they cannot be fulfilled as a mom, and children are viewed as a burden.
So you are saying that a panda's fetus, while developing inside of its panda mother, is a parasite to the mother? Do you know how ludicrous you sound? You need to actually look up the definition of a biological parasite.
Great interview! I'd be interested in knowing if Calum has made available those studies about women who keep the baby after rape don't regret it and find meaning.
I always saw the law of double affect as the bread and butter of medical ethics.
Yahweh/Jesus treating the unborn with love.
Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
LOL
Ironically, he's treating them like people part of a nation- which they are.
@@CausingLewis Yahweh/Jesus LOVED REAL ESTATE. And committed lots of genocide to get it. Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3) Midianites (Numbers 31:15-18) Jabesh-Gilead (Judges 21:10-11) Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)
@@sanjeevgig8918 and so not a word against ancient child sacrifice eh average internet atheist kid?
@@Tzimiskes3506 YOUR ALL-powerful god just had to KILL ALL. He just couldn't think of any other way, below average KOOL-AID Xtian. LOL LOL LOL
Context is vital
By what right does the government take control over the bodily autonomy of an individual? I thought the US was a country founded of the ideals of citizens' rights.
Murder and assault laws tell you what to do with your body. Citizens don’t have to right to kill others.
The government has the right to illegalized abortion for the reason that it is a murder of an innocent being. It is their job to protect human rights cause zygote, embryo, or fetus-- are also human beings worthy of life and has the right to live.
And never call it a citizen's right to murder a fetus. It is never a right to kill
@@charles4208 Convenient considering that you can't get pregnant.
@@calligraphersnote2481 It's not murder, but it is a violation of autonomy. You argue that every "human" has a right to life, but what about the quality of that life. Do you care about this? Because if you do, maybe concern yourself with the 23,000 kids in the US you age out of the foster system ever year, half of whom become immediately homeless. Or the 11 individuals who die of starvation every minute. Where's the concern? Where's your god? MIA it would seem.
You do not care about fetuses; what you care about a political wedge you can use to control women.
Vasectomies prevent abortion. How do you feel about mandatory reversal vasectomies for all unmarried males?
We will never know when the baby’s soul is attached to the body. That’s just one more reason why abortion should not be permitted except of instances where the mothers life is in danger. To purposely kill and innocent human life is immoral
Yeah think of it this way:
suppose you and your pal are hunting for deer in the woods and he goes off to take leak. A minute later, you hear rustling in a nearby bush. It could be a deer, or it could be your pal coming back. Do you shoot the bush? The answer is clearly no. The possibility of killing a human far outweighs the possible reward of tasty venison.
I've never heard of the "violinist argument". How dumb.
51:00 I do not think comparing a 5 year old who has been conceived due to sexual assault to a unborn that has been conceived by sexual assault is a good comparison. I think viability out of the womb is what should be seen here
What's your objective reasoning for that conclusion?
Wouldn't that reasoning entail that abortion should be ok right up 'till the moment before birth?
@@Miatpi Well my reasoning is not just viability . but yes it would entail the time right before birth. Though the time before birth can vary and probably will vary as technology increases allowing kids to be born sooner.
I think if we follow the logical implications of your argument, we have fewer rights because we are not viable outside the boundaries of the earth. If the unborn can be killed because they can't live outside of the boundaries of the womb, then the born can be killed because they can't live outside the boundaries of the planet we live on.
@@josephpostma1787 Na fam lol, earth doesn’t even matter in this conversation
A sincere and heartfelt FU to the both of you.
How did this guy get through medical school? Abortion just means ending a pregnancy; it never has to mean dismembering... To claim as such is just manipulating the conversation. Thus we have two strikes against your so called doctor in 15 min.
@EMB123 Oh gotcha.... Well that's not at all Christ-like... :/
Abortion ends a pregnancy by killing the human in the womb. It doesn’t “have” to mean dismemberment, but in practice abortion procedures often involved dismemberment of the child.
No, abortion doesn’t just mean “ending a pregnancy.” That would entail that c-sections and births are also abortions, which is false from a medical perspective. The medical field defines abortion as the ending of a pregnancy *before fetal viability* (that last part is crucial, because it guarantees the baby’s death.)
And yes, abortions do in fact involve dismemberment. You don’t what this procedure involves or how it’s even defined.
@@mnmmnm925 lol that’s actually true from a medical perspective, but nice try. God bless.
Do you ever consider how sheltered you are from other cultures, philosophical frameworks and worldviews that you would be genuinely suprised that a prolife theist could become a doctor? Try to get outside the prison of your late modern, securalist monoculture and the world will open up to you like a universe of rapturous beauty that you didnt know existed.
Here's the trick: "Cognitive ability" is a large set that includes two kinds of things. Morally irrelevant things and morally relevant things.
For instance ability to play basketball is irrelevant, morally speaking, but ability to have consciousness IS morally relevant because it allows good and bad experiences.
He's using examples from the first set (morally irrelevant things) to try and prove that there there are NO morally relevant cognitive abilities, that our moral treatment relies on something else, whereas I think that's false.
This makes no sense, the first set allows for good and bad experiences too, it's not clear why it's relevant to whether a person may be permissibly killed, the separation of these sets is arbitrary, etc.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
I should've clarified. By "Morally relevant" I mean things that would significantly affect the moral or legal treatment of a being.
For instance someone who's good at basketball might be a more serious loss if they die because so many people liked them, but it doesn't mean you could sacrifice a normal non-basketball person to save their life, for instance.
As for the arbitrariness, I think that's always the case with morals because as we learn more stuff through history, it affects our understanding of outcomes, hence our moral rules change. Many rules are pretty obvious, but some less so, and I think abortion is one area of ambiguity. I think we'll need a much more advanced understanding of neuroscience and consciousness to truly settle the debate, which we probably won't have for decades.
@@paulmarko
If morals are arbitrary then there's no reason why we shouldn't sacrifice a random person for the sake of the basketball player
@Qwerty
I don't think they're completely arbitrary, I just mean there's SOME arbitrariness that's logically unavoidable.
There are some Morals and values that are low-hanging fruit, but they're just heuristics and there's corner cases within those propositions that defy clear answers. That's why we have courts, ethicists, moral philosophers, etc.
I think it makes more sense to talk about the factors that stabilize and influence and change them, such as human nature, the environment, rationality, lessons of history, culture, learning, etc. Rather than trying to over-simplify things.
@@paulmarko
Then they aren't arbitrary
38:18 *”We disagree about … does it have the same rights, does it have the same value as any normally functioning adult human being.”*
The question isn’t really does a preborn life have the same value as a fully developed adult. A pro-life position doesn’t have to hold that all human life is of equal value, only that all human life is of sufficient value to be endowed with the right to life.
For the pro-abort, then, it’s not sufficient to argue that a preborn life is of less value than a mature adult. It could be true, and the preborn life is still endowed with the right to life. That would only be a consideration only if one life were being weighed against the other, which is almost never the case.
The right to life isnt based on value or a gradation of value. That is silly. That is what happens when you have no valid theory of rights. If that was valid, then dogs and cats should have a right to life and so should pigs and ants, since they all have value.
@@Dhorpatan *”The right to life isn’t based on value or gradation of value.”*
Hmm, pretty sure that’s what I said.
@@nathanaelculver5308
*"only that all human life is of sufficient value to be endowed with the right to life"*
Didn't you say this? Which is making the situation about value
42:00 "It also threatens the entire notion of human equality for everyone else as well. And so some philosophers would be prepared to bite that bullet and accept that, I would hope that most would not be, that most ordinary people would generally have sounder opinions than academics philosophers. I would hope that would not be plausible to them as well..."
So what is the "objection" here exactly ? That academic philosophers' opinions are "not sound" ? How so ?
Backup about 45 seconds from that timestamp.
The objection is that if personhood is based on a trait that exists on a spectrum, then it is ad hoc to pick a particular point on that spectrum and make a binary jump from non-person to person; instead if the trait(s) that determine personhood exist on a spectrum then it would seem that we should conclude that different people have different amounts of value as persons.
@@John_Fisher 40:52 _"But the problem is not just with those, the problem is also that if the ground of human value or if the basis of human value is in a cognitive ability that exists on a spectrum that can come in degrees, then all human beings naturally, it would seem to follow, should have different levels of value. So if I say for example that you need to have a certain level of intelligence to count as a person, and I'm making the level of intelligence the criterion of personhood, it seems very ad hoc and arbitrary and contrived to say that once you reach a certain level of intelligence, every human being is equally valuable, there doesn't seem to be any natural or plausible way of making that conclusion, it seems that the most natural implication of that view is that the more intelligent you are, or the more sophisticated cognitive abilities you have, the more valuable you are."_
*-"The objection is that if personhood is based on a trait that exists on a spectrum, then it is ad hoc to pick a particular point on that spectrum and make a binary jump from non-person to person"*
That's not what he says, he says : _"it seems very ad hoc and arbitrary and contrived to say that once you reach a certain level of intelligence, every human being is equally valuable"_
Which is not the same thing. If the _"academic philosophers bit the bullet"_ and rejected the _"entire notion of human equality"_ , then there is no such _"arbitrary level of intelligence"_ after which humans are _"equally valuable"_ . In that case, the more intelligent you are, the more valuable you would be, one would only be as valuable as the people with the same level of intelligence.
Furthermore, to address your point : is picking ad hoc or arbitrary points on spectrums for criteria _"unsound"_ ? We do it all the time in virtually every facet of human behavior or human understanding...
*-"instead if the trait(s) that determine personhood exist on a spectrum then it would seem that we should conclude that different people have different amounts of value as persons."*
Exactly, which is the _"bullet"_ that academic philosophers bite. How is that unsound ?
In the passage I quoted, he says : _"there doesn't seem to be any natural or plausible way of making that conclusion"_
By making a reference to _"nature"_ here, he seems to imply that the _"ground of human value, or the basis of human value"_ somehow needs to be _"natural"_ . Which looks like an appeal to natural law ethics that would be, of course, rejected by the _"academic philosophers"_ that he mentions.
Therefore that could be the topic of his next interview on Cameron's channel : why natural law ethics ? What objections to it etc...
@@MrGustavier
Regarding how what he said was an objection, my take is that it was an attempt to make a reductio or maybe an appeal to common intuition that all humans do have the same value.
I agree with you on that natural law ethics would be a great follow up point for a discussion/interview.
@@MrGustavier You are focusing too much on the word natural. He isn’t using the word natural in the literal sense as evidenced by him also using the synonym “plausible.” He is saying that it is unreasonable to ground personhood in a quality or qualities that exist in degrees while also asserting personhood begins at some distinct point in that spectrum of degrees with full admittance being acquired by all once they reach it. It would be more coherent to say that personhood itself exists in degrees depending on your level of development of those qualities. That is the natural or plausible outgrowth given the prior assumption.
Though, because he is a believer (I think), he knows that that is evil and that all people have equal value being made in the image of the creator. That is the real grounding of his objection.
@@MrGustavier
Either human rights are a categorical property of human nature or they aren't, that's the point. It makes no sense to talk about gradation in human rights unless you're willing to accept notions like subhumans.
16:00 I think comparing an unborn to an out of womb daughter that has experiences and notices she is conscious is not a good comparison.
I do agree the violinist question is not that good of a question thought
I think that it is a good comparison, though. Specifically, we need to recognize that things like "experiences" and "knowing one is conscious" are very arbitrary markers. So, since those are arbitrary and don't necessarily factor into a living being (plants are living, though it is hard to assume any level of "consciousness" or "experience.") So, it's important in that we can see that experiences and consciousness are not necessary factors in a living individual.
The differences between the unborn human and the born human are a matter of age and development (of dna that is already fully present in the unborn child). Regardless of the differences, the only comparison that is necessary is that they are both HUMAN and they are both ALIVE.
@@JW_______ I would say the significant thing is the consciousness part which factors into the “right to life”
@@skullo5557 Why is consiousness the point at which human life matters (in itself, as opposed to the value assigned to it by others)? Is a human adult who's knocked temporarily unconscious less human or valuable during the short period of unconsciousness than before or after? This may seem like a cheap argument, but it's actually not if you think carefully through the objections to it. Like the adult who suffers an accident and is rendered briefly unconsious, the embryonic human's unconsiousness is only a stage that it passes through. All of the complex biological ingredients to it's adult life are already packed into its DNA, as its body goes through the process of rendering itself by the replication of its cells.
@@JW_______ Yeah you see, consciousness starts starts one point and ends forever at one point. Sleeping and being on medication or something wouldn’t be the same because it isn’t when your consciousness ends forever
If you support the principle of customary right then the fetus achieves the right to use the uterus after a certain period of time where the woman consents to the pregnancy.
1:08:20 "When exactly does its [the baby's] right to life outweigh the right to bodily autonomy of the mother. Many people say 12 weeks, 24 weeks, pro life is just saying as soon as it begins to exist, because all human beings are equal, and that is the most consistent view."
The other "consistent" view is to say : never ! The bodily autonomy of the mother ALWAYS outweighs the foetus' right to life. Funny Calum would fail to mention the diametrically opposed "consistent" view...
My bodily autonomy to manspread outweighs the rights of those around me to space. What? I'm not robbing them of their right to life.
Can the mother use her body to do drugs and drink while she’s pregnant?
Why is it limited to the fetus? Does she have an obligation to feed her infant with her body?
Actually, the "never" view is not consistent. The never view would make "post-birth" murder of a child allowable since the mother would still need to care for and nurse the child using her body in some way, shape, or form. So no, the "never" view is NOT actually consistent in that it would then make the murder of a mother's child at ANY AGE permissible if the mother can find some way to justify how it affects her body.
@@TheistBrooks *-"Can the mother use her body to do drugs and drink while she’s pregnant?"*
That's a good question. As far as I know it is not illegal. So yes, she can.
*-"Why is it limited to the fetus?"*
It's not, no parasite has legitimate claims to their host.
*-"Does she have an obligation to feed her infant with her body?"*
The answer to that question would basically solve the whole question wouldn't it ?
@@unapologeticapologetics6953 *-"Actually, the "never" view is not consistent. The never view would make "post-birth" murder of a child allowable since the mother would still need to care for and nurse the child using her body in some way, shape, or form."*
I don't think that is correct. the term "bodily autonomy" doesn't refer to the back pain incurred by carrying your 5 years old child in your arms.
No. Being a person is not a spectrum. Intelligence is not what determines that an individual is a person. An animal is not a person. People do not have a certain value. People have rights and dignity, not value.
Being a person must be something determined and what allows being a person are the neurological components that determine such nature. A person is alive when the neural components that produce the characteristics that correspond to a person are functional. These elements must be present. They must exist.
When these elements do not exist, due to necrosis, amputation, not having developed, etc. the individual is not a living person.
“Being a person is when you meet certain neurological criteria that correspond to a person” - nice circular definition
@@mnmmnm925 There is nothing circular. If A produces B, there being no A, there is no B.
In case there are any doubts, if the neurological components that determine a person do not exist in an individual, that individual is not a living person.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd - Yes, your definition is circular. You said “being a person is when we have neurological criteria that correspond to a person,” but you never explained _what_ those criteria were. So this is basically the discussion so far:
“We have a triangle when there’s a certain amount of sides that correspond to a triangle.”
“But how many sides?”
“Uh, the amount needed for a triangle.”
@@mnmmnm925 That does not make the reasoning circular but incomplete.
It seems to me that you are not clear that paraphrasing is not quoting.
The criteria is the same that neurology uses to determine whether a person is alive or dead. Do you want a detail of the parts of the neocortex that enable the characteristics that are attributed to people?
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Yes, can you go over the criteria that determines if a person is dead or alive, the characteristics that are attributed to people, and the relevant parts of the neocortex that enable such characteristics. I’m genuinely interested in this discussion and would like to hear more on this.
I like to throw the question about the burning lab back on them by asking if they’d save 100 people from a burning building or save their 5 year old daughter from burning to a crisp or any other loved one they care about. Or if you could save 100 people but you’d die in the burning building. These scenarios show how useless the scenario is for the pro choice position as well
These scenarios with pseudo-precision in numbers mostly show that humans are not utilitarians, or even that utilitarianism is wrong and only applicable within bounds set by other ethical principles. (This was realized by secular critics of utilitarianism long ago; Bernard Williams used in a similar scenario (saving a fat wife instead of two slim strangers or so) the phrase "one thought too many" if one even considered letting the wife drown.)
This also becomes obvious in cases like Singer who is some kind of utilitarian but not consistent. They usually want to avoid the "abhorrent conclusion", i.e. that as many humans are possible should exist because as long as a human life has slight "positive utility" and if (plausibly) a non-starving human not in pain for most of his life has a positive utility, we should bring more and more humans into the world even if the humans that eventually would exist were reduced to a very low living standard. From this follows a strong utilitarian anti-abortion argument: The typical utility of a whole additional life even below average living standard (e.g. because given up for abortion or in an orphanage) in a country like the US should clearly trump a bit of lost utility if the pregnant college student "only" becomes a HS teacher, not an attorney because of her early child curtailing education. (This basically follows directly from marginal utility gains/losses, so the utilitarians are caught in their own trap of quantifying things that cannot really be measured...)
Great discussion! Lots of great points!
The only thing I would add for the issue of rape is that we shouldn't end the life of a child because of the crimes of their father. We do that for no other crime, and rape shouldn't be an exception.
You'd force a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term? That's barbaric.
@@markgordon5266 You didn't engage with the point being made at all. That's barbaric.
@@natebozeman4510 If you made a point, it's in serious need of sharpening. You'd force a victim of rape or incest to carry a child to term, that was your point, was it not?
@@markgordon5266 The point was that you don't kill a human being based on the crimes of their father.
In order to debunk the claim, you'll need to do so without lousy appeals to emotion.
Why should we kill a baby for the sins of their father, when studies show that women who keep their babies in those horrible situations are happier than those who get an abortion, and say their baby is the only light they have from that horrible trauma?
@@natebozeman4510 Let me ask you a question just to clarify, fair enough?
At what point do you believe the fertilized egg has a soul?
Note that I'm not at all saying that either sperm or egg are not human, that would be ridiculous.
I'm asking when the organism that is a potential person has a soul.
Is it your foetus..?
Yes? --> then it is your choice to decide!
No..? Then it is NONE of your business!
Is it your born child? Yes? Then it's your choice to decide to not feed it until it starves to death. No? Then it's none of your business! and why would you want a law on the books that accurately reflects the moral reality of the desicion?
>Totally ignores all the arguments in the video
@@JW_______ This is about foetuses! Stay on the issue!
@@mnmmnm925 The issue is about destroying Women's Rights!
@@briendoyle4680 my comment points out the flawed logic of the original comment. If the life to be killed is human, the woman's right of bodily autonomy is obviously secondary to the other humam being involved's right of bodily autonomy to not be attacked and destroyed
Covid is not “particularly severe”
tell that to the million dead
It was for the people who died from it.
People die of every different type of flu and pneumonia every year. So you can say that for those people as well. The reason covid APPEARS particularly bad is because of how they categorize causes of death, how they locked down and supported bad health practices, and how they filled people with fear(which is proven to make you physically ill). Not to mention the psychological damage of masks and being afraid to be with loved ones, getting the mRNA jab, and the increased suicide rate.
@@forehead949 I see your point
The sheer name of your channel gives me creeps. Capturing? Really?
He’s a photographer, capturing refers to capturing something with a camera.
At only few months old, a kangaroo baby is blind and deaf, but it's will to live gives it the ability to climb into it's mother pouch, imo, pro choice woman would flick this thing to the ground, stand on it, and call it there choice, this is murder.