Destiny FINALLY Debates Dillahunty, Gets Stumped w/ Hardest Question In Existence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 ก.ย. 2024
- DEBATE: Destiny finally debates Matt Dillahunty hosted by Modern Day Debates...
Date: 19 Nov, 2022
▼Follow Destiny▼
►STREAM - www.destiny.gg/...
►DISCORD - discordapp.com...
►REDDIT - / destiny
►INSTAGRAM - / destiny
►MERCH - shop.destiny.gg/
Follow Modern-Day Debates
►TWITTER - / moderndaydebate
►TH-cam - / moderndaydebate
Matt Dillahunty
/ @sansdeity
Check Out My Amazon: www.amazon.com...
Buy My Merch: shop.destiny.gg/
#destiny
![Shareปลาวาฬ ส่งท้าย SS1 พาเปียโน ขึ้น Ferrari ก่อนไปขาย แลก Nissan l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KAknGkTNIvg/mqdefault.jpg)
This is so much better than all the streamer drama. Actual good faith debates are so interesting to watch.
Its hard to find people like this ngl. I hope they talk again in the future.
Ill take this over drama any day.
Ill take 3 hour lav talks over Richard Wolfe
I no. Sometimes I think Steven waists so much time playing high school games. I think thats why alot of the bigger politics guys don't take him seriously. I'm not gonna deny I get caught up in it, but then I realize how stupid it is. A soap opera drama. Waist of a good mind .
Just debunked Richard Spencer on race and iq in my recent video
@@drdavinskythat sounds like something we needed 3-4 years ago. Why not cover more recent asshats?
PLEASE have him back on stream to do more and longer debates! this and the debate with the theology professor are the best, most educational and reasonable content youve done
Just debunked Richard Spencer on race and iq in my recent video
Who’s the theology professor?
But LAV and DAN and REM and ABA and MR METOKUR are in chat!!!!
@@jameswhitaker4357 gordon menzies
Nah he is a little boring outside of religious debates.
"I don't give a sh*t what sells better, I care about what's right" -- Best statement in the video.
inane tough guy shit
That's pretty much the point that wins the debate for him. I don't think Destiny ever took the high ground after that. Because democracy doesn't function without a bill of rights and freedoms. Otherwise it's tyranny of the masses.
Except he spends the whole duration saying that he doesn't care about the ethics of what's right and is interested in the legality....
Right around 37 minutes he says he doesn't give a shit about morality.
@@zakpodo
You're misrepresenting there. He said:
"with body autonomy, I don't give a shit about morality"
Which holds up. If you're saying that people have body autonomy, it doesn't matter what's moral or immoral, it's saying that people have rights to their bodies and how they're used.
If body autonomy is accepted as a right, the morality doesn't affect that right. Is it immoral to not donate blood? Is it immoral not to do living organ donations? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter. It's your body, and you have the right to decide how it is used.
@@xenophiliuslovegood6914 it is a blatant self contradiction. I actually agree with him on a lot, but it's a cheap tactic to try to play both sides; simultaneously claiming to not be interested in the morality discussion but dropping the indignant chestnut that he's only interested in what's right at an opportune moment.
What is what is right? It's what is in accord with an ethic or morality. Whether on an individual or societal level, it's a moral claim. Which he's not interested in...
The quality of this conversation is incredibly high. Amazing hearing Destiny debate someone who is actually intelligent and principled, versus the low quality thinkers Destiny usually debates on his own channel. More like this, please
I’d rather hear him call [redacted] a [redacted] [redacted]
Don’t let this distract you from the fact Destiny (manlet) is running from our debate after blocking me on Twitter
Matt is brilliant. He is one of the smartest people in this space I'd say.
So far I'm 3/4 the way in and the discussion has been "I don't care about the moral argument." And then Destiny arguing the morals of it. So it's definitely not a mud slinging drama fest but I don't feel like the conversation has been all that high quality, honestly. This discussion has taken 20x longer than it could have been.
@@darestone3335 tbh doesn't seem that smart, seems like a great speaker who has homed his arguments. However, I'm 7 minutes in and there's already a huge hole in his argument.
Theres no fundamental difference between bodily autonomy and labor autonomy, yet a parent isn't allowed to abandon their child for death? You cannot recind consent after creating a life, you can't choose to not use your body to labor for your child, because that child never consented to exist.
Edit: It takes until 25:00 for Destiny toncounter him with this argument and he gets stumped lol
Kinda trippy seeing them both in the same room. I grew up watching Dillahunty and then slowly transitioned to watching Destiny without ever even imagining they would ever interact with each other. It's like my teenage years and present day mixing up.
yes, this has those strange MCU crossover vibes. Dillahunty and Destiny. the closest thing i saw before was when Kyle Kulinksi debated Destiny on Destiny's stream about free trade v protectionism. (imo Destiny won.)
"transition" to Destiny??
@@Cheesesteakfreak we just started to prefer watching people with girl's names.
Same here. Watched a lot of Dillahunty with TAE during my university years, before I even knew who Destiny was (and perhaps before _anybody_ knew who he was).
@@joeysantoro4835 girls of color*
We've wanted to see Destiny v. Dillahunty for ages. Kudos to Modern-Day Debate for facilitating this epic match-up.
Don’t let this distract you from the fact Destiny is running from our debate after blocking me on Twitter
Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Destiny is a girls name
True, I soy'ed out hard when I saw this lineup
I wanna see them team up, maybe they can even throw a bone to the good Dr above and make him look silly if that's what he really wants
Oh! This was modern day debates? Fantastic work MDD!
jesus christ it's nice to see a good faith disagreement where two people are willing to say, "i'm sorry let me clarify," or "oh yeah, i misunderstood you," or how Matt even started with, "And to see if I might be wrong."
It's just such better content than two people trying to "win"
Sure it's nice to see but remember that they mostly agree with each other on fundamentals. Get two people together who don't fundamentally agree on core issues and you'll be lucky to have it be as civil as this.
You weren't able to infer that I already knew that by the inflection of my comment? Wild... @@faismasterx
@@markfelt5650 Words on a screen can have inflection? What? lol
Of course they can. Look at the usage of "lol" in your previous comment. You used the common acronym "lol" in order to denote your inflection by writing that you are literally vocalizing laughter out loud. Essentially, tone and inflection mean the same thing within communication. Albeit, tone is generally for speaking and writing with inflection generally being relegated to speech.
But if you wanted to focus on being a pedant - go off I guess. @@faismasterx
@@markfelt5650 Honest question, are you on the spectrum?
I love that Destiny openly and proudly brags about him being stumped or proven wrong, it shows a level of open-mindedness most political commentators don't have.
The opposite of destiny’s approach to potentially being incorrect, is often cognitive dissonance. I see it everywhere and it’s incredibly disappointing. Any opportunity to learn should be appreciated. Obviously delivery matters but regardless that fact stands
That's because they agree on most things.
Because that almost never happens to him
It's called "clickbait"
@@mikerotchersonYou're simply too dense to understand what's going on here.
So good to see Destiny in a conversation with someone, actually finding common ground, and picking at each other when they disagree, picking each others brains. We need more of THIS.
THIS
It is a relief to see intellectuals taking rationality as far as they can. It is a beautiful thing to watch"
However, the frustrating conversations with people who haven't reach rationality yet, MUST BE DONE nonetheless! We cannot just consider a large part of society a "lost cause" (in a democracy) since they VOTE, right?
Matt is correct. Destiny and others are trying, but cannot come up with a solution to tyranny over the pregnant female.
Debates won't solve this. Better science can. Want to save fetuses ?? Invent a machine for carrying them to term without forcing your will on human females.
An actual intellectual conversation without someone crying and back peddling for 3 hours. My day has been made
Yeah just bad arguments being made.
Glad you enjoy both of the types of content the D man does. One of which he does a lot more of and get most of his views from. I'll let you guess which one.
@@lampad4549none of the arguments are bad you just disagree. Just because you disagree with an argument doesn’t make it bad. That just makes you a partisan hack.
@@peewee130946 They aren't strong arguments, just by definition. Countless exceptions, vague standards, open ended moral quandaries (the drinking while pregnant). Just judging by strength of argument, it's poor at best.
@@MrGgabber countless exceptions- literally no neither of them really had many exceptions at all. There was no vague standards one guy standard is conciseness and the other is extreme bodily autonomy neither is vague they are clear and precise. Open ended moral quandaries that argument is so vague I barely no wtf you’re talking about. If you are talking about drinking while pregnant specifically then yeah no shit it’s open ended because and destiny explained why. The arguments on both sides where very strong and most importantly very consistent. So again if you disagree that’s ok but to say the arguments are bad is bad faith.
all these live debates destiny does recently, are so much better than the online arguments.
@@KennedyIvy true, but live debates can get pretty heated too
Neither one of them even brought up what happens if you get pregnant by a shark.
@@bigcrackrock This is easy. This phenomenon led directly to the creation of the song baby shark do do do do do. Which caused a great amount of harm in society, therefore it's amoral.
@@jamesbarnett6772 dude… so effin annoying. But amoral means it had no moral bearing, I think you mean immoral.
A very decent and productive debate where the participants show mutual respect for each other. This is how it should be done, when the opponents actually are listening to each other and learn from each other.
Love watching two good faith debaters having a conversation.
i am not sure that guy has an open mind tho. Seemed like he was pre stubborn
Let me know when you find one.
hardest question timestamp?
two hwyte males talking about aborting a bebe
Matt doesn't Iike faith
Two good REASON debaters* 👍 😁
Damn Dillahunty, that was a loong time ago, the atheist experience was one of my first introductions to debate content.
One of the original debate-bros!
Was my first as well makes me feel old seeing how different he looks now
And then he fell for all the feminist BS and went braindead.
Yeah, the Bible is a fairytale. That's the easiest puzzle to figure out. You're not special.
I bet he could "beat" Destiny on somthing they truly disagree with. He just has too much experience. Hell, I agree with him on the bodily autonomy viewpoint.
Me too!
It's almost unbelievable hearing a good-faith debate where each participant is truly trying to understand each other's, and their own, positions to the best degree possible.
Sorry, but Destiny is not “listening” to Matt - he is just waiting for his turn so he can cite random references and Gish gallop.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 I’m not getting that from this debate. Can you reference where destiny is lying? Or where is he throwing half truths? Otherwise I cannot see your argument.
Destiny is Hillary Clinton on Adderall.
@@4Mr.Crowley2 can you link some timestamps on that?
@@4Mr.Crowley2 If that is how you view Destiny approaching this conversation, who would you cite as examples of debaters who don't use this approach? so I can see the difference?
Properly one of the best debates I have ever listened to, never mind a subject like this. Provided extra clarity on my position which is all one could ever hope for. Thank you.
Wasn't expecting this. Always enjoy listing to Matt and Destiny, and had no idea they were going to talk. Glad this happened.
As long as you make it clear you're still in good faith and engaging genuinely, you can always get an excellent conversation out of Matt Dillahunty. He's one of the most enjoyable debaters on the internet, and has been for many years.
a master, if you will >_>
It’s too bad he got the woke mind virus. Around 2010 it seemed like atheism was picking up speed and might even sweep across America; then woke infected it and it burned to the ground like everything else.
@@therainman7777 When has he ever been woke..? He even had to leave the ACA because he wasn't woke and the ACA didn't like that.
@@halosaft You haven’t been paying enough attention. Even in this conversation he references the fact that they shouldn’t really be talking about abortion because they’re both men 🙄
@@therainman7777 And right there you just highlighted that you didn't pay attention to Matt at all. He *clearly* explained, in detail, why he said that. He said it's purely because of the optics. Then he even clarified that abortion is *not* a womans issue, not even a "people with wombs"-issue. It's an everyones issue. That's him basically saying FU to the woke crowd that's been telling him for years that he can't have an opinion on abortion because he's a man.
Listen next time.
This actually made my brain feel good. So many debates get lost in the weeds and no actual conversational progress occurs. I enjoy both of these individuals!
Its just so refreshing seeing two people with different views have a discussion like this.
Are they both not godless atheists?
@@Khyrid What is your point? Their views are still different. You could ask aswell "aren't they both human beings?". Still wouldn't change a thing about my statement.
@@TehTip Don't worry, I'm just being silly
@Khyrid im gonna kiss you 💋
Greatest pet peeve of these debates as much as i love them is not giving the audience microphones when they ask questions.
At least have a moderator who can repeat the question with a microphone
I've followed Matt for around a decade and Destiny for a couple years. This discussion was a blast to listen to. I hope they have more conversations.
Omg it's so weird Matt was like the first online person I followed in circa the early 2010s. To see him with Destiny( someone I have followed more so in the past 5 years )is such a shock. Makes you think home much you change in a decade.
İkrrr
Small world
Yeah followed matt from atheist experience for like 10+ years and destiny from starcraft
@@Pwnagemerchant dam u old timer 😅
Same. Matt is the reason why I'm an atheist today. I've been watching him for about 10 years & only destiny for about 5 too. It's awesome seeing them together.
This is content I love. This debate wasn’t about winning, it was about trying to be correct. This was fascinating and better at promoting thought than typical debate bro content.
They agree on the issue they're discussing though, so why are you worshiping them for that
@@DjZephy worship? I’ll leave that for the delusional god botherers. I just respect the fact the agree and still challenge each others position to test the voracity of argument. More productive that debating talking points or watching idiots get taken apart.
@@DjZephy They agree on the end result, sure, but there is still value to be had in figuring out what makes you get to that end result. And they both differ quite a bit in that regard.
@@Uhdksurvhunter I'm an atheist so I respect Dillahunty. However I also lean pro-life. As things like "rights" are simply a humanistic construct, I found it extremely concerning how Dillahunty dismissed the fetal personhood issue altogether by way of cobbling together a poorly reasoned statement that the "fetus doesn't have the "right" to use your body". As if there's intent by the fetus or some directed force other than nature.
As life is purely materialistic, I find it odd a biological imperative would be classified in such terms by him - a hierarchical weighing of "rights". Sadly not even atheist thought-leaders are immune to political beliefs that borderline on the religious. Once he introduced "rights" into the debate, he set himself up for losing. Because if we use rights to judge an issue, what possible "right" can trump the basic and essential right to life itself??
@@Reclaimer77 It depends on where you arbitrarily draw the line, like anything else in society. Preferrably this would be logically consistent.
Personally i lean more towards Destiny interpretation of the morality of abortion, over Dillahuntys.
The case is very logically consistent, if your line for where life is valued is after having had a concious experience.
Been a while since i talked about abortion. Its usually a boring subject since 99% of people arguing against is doing so purely on emotional grounds.
I could only listen and not watch, but it sounded to me like while they were taking the discussion seriously, they were having a great time going through it.
And honestly the good faith, "hey I just want to understand you and where the lines you draw are" from both of them is just... So good.
Not a moment of my time felt wasted. Excellent job.
guess the algorithm is pushing this because people are saying the same thing about the cenk debate lol
@@Toxodos that's weird. The Chenk debate was really disappointing. Destiny let him get away with so many lies.
Props to Matt and Destiny for a refreshingly cordial conversion.
One of the very few conversations online that I must put in my favorites. It's so refreshing to see actual good faith debates and very compelling arguments
Part of the problem is too many people are willing to continue conversations of contentious philosophical topics, where this amount of good faith is not present.
When I debate on my show or in person, I regularly guard for and check for continued good faith in the discussion, or it stops. Your interlocutors owe it you, and you should feel just in demanding it, but most people don’t think that way.
That’s an idea worth spreading so we can have better conversations moving forward.
The last two years has shown support for abortion when the mothers life is at risk seems to make no difference in several states when in the mothers life is at risk. The mother becomes disposable.
Both are clearly intelligent and well-reasoned, but this didn't need to be an hour. It felt like after 20 minutes they were talking in circles.
Agreed. Destiny kept trying to define where Matt believed ethical/moral virtue became obligatory etc, when he clearly said this is not what he is interested in and has no relation to the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal. Annoyed me a bit how they didn't dive into a more legal POV
Destiny is the analogy master. These debates are about as riveting as abortion.
@@pakchoy9334 Just because Matt insists there is no relation doesn't mean that's true. There is a clear relationship between legal rights and moral duties, namely that legal rights entail negative moral duties. Matt needs to take Ethics 101.
@Sop Lip (Lily) As Matt pointed out, there are morals that do not have laws associated and there are laws that do not have moral obligations associated.
While the two are often linked, and for good reason, that does not mean that we are required to establish moral obligation in line with a well-reasoned law before we can enact it.
@@CatOnFire Yes... but the whole point about the abortion debate is that there are two rights clashing. He cannot simply assert one is legal and the other is moral lol; insofar as rights are concerned, they are directly associated to positive or negative moral duty (Please know there is a distinction between meta-ethics and ethics/ rights and laws).
Destiny is attempting to finetune which right trumps the other, while Matt is not even understanding the fundamental ethical issue.
Destiny, this is SOOO refreshing! I think it's a good idea to talk more with (1) informed people (2) who have an adult brain (3) the ability to listen and (4) to formulate their own views properly. That's what happened here and it's SOOO much better. I mean, respectfully, 90% of your arguments are with dumb, narcissistic, childish, narrow minded, arrogant kids who can't string one complete sentence together. We need more real conversations where two functional human beings have a good discussion like here. Thanks for that! Hope we can have it more often :)
Because that's what gets clicks
good faith debate by two pseudointellectual hacks with identical opinions sounds like such a fascinating debate!
Destiny is immature. He is addicted to sex and he plays video games all day long.
@@shuheihisagi6689 so you’ve stated that he’s immature and then you’ve utilized two examples (one of which isn’t factual), of which indicate maturity, as a means of justifying that? How does that work? His “video games” are his work. It’s a job. Furthermore, he does a lot more than just “play video games”. Your logic is a fallacy.
Dude they're not even fucking having a debate you're literally just discussing without any real counter arguments. What you're really saying is you want to see two people that you essentially agree with reinforced each other.
Holy shit what a blast from the past, I was in my teens when I last watched The Atheist Experience. This was a fantastic conversation, both sides brought good arguments and it remained good natured and civil. Breath of fresh air against all the drama bullshit.
i was wondering why he looked familiar
I used to watch videos of him and prank callers that he would take the bait of and tip his fedora to, and then thunderf00t making fun of what this guy did to the whole atheism shit. Besides that he always seemed very boring and only repeated things that you'd expect and stereotype an atheist to say.
@@chewbecka2067 It’s not his fault that he has to talk with any prank callers and treat them seriously (unless it’s like just a terrible troll job and it’s blatantly obvious). Just like it’s not firefighters’ fault that they have to take calls seriously even when it’s some immature edgy 15-year-old making false reports. Because fighting fires and blind faith are both very important things to do.
@@ZhangK71 let's not get too extreme with the comparisons lol, I was talking about his atheist talk show and yes it seemed pretty obvious.
@@chewbecka2067 Show us on the doll where Matt hurt your theistic beliefs.
The main issue with telling woman they CANT have an abortion, is that at that point we are essentially taking control of her body. And I can't in good conscious reconcile with that.
That might be the most stupid comment on this subject I have ever read.
If you believe the child in the womb is a person, and you allow abortions, then you are allowing the mother to kill a child. This logic can be flipped the other way around.
I think that being forced to carry a child to term is not as bad as killing a person.
I think a big point is the idea that if you believe it is murder then its easy to make an argument that you CANT murder somebody.
@@thomasmusgrave7595 But I think the ease of justification based on bodily autonomy is evidence that it is not in fact murder.
Pro abortion people seem to not understand that they should argue why abortion is not murder. No one that is agaist abortion cares about this argument about bodily autonomy. This argument is so weak that it leads to accepting a pregnancy termination even in preterm pregnancies when the fetus is 'completely formed' but not mature yet.
I used to watch Matt on The Atheist Experience in the mid 2000's, this is a crossover I never thought I would see.
Why does an interaction like this feel so rare? Why does this feel so special? This display of coexistence should be normal for everyone. Great conversation with many considerations.
Because you are looking in the wrong place. You are likely spending all of your free time perusing the internet instead of local venues or regional institutions that promote open debate and intellectualism.
@@Lord_Vadr fair point. But not all my free time goes to interesting internet debates lol :P thanks for the suggestion as i do hope more these types of cordial conversations are out there.
this is what a true good faith debate looks like, not just when you're sacrificing intellectualism for vanity like most political content creators.
Because people got used to screaming while having conversations (I might be wrong but this is my guess).
I don't understand you people acting like this is special this is literally to left-wingers, both of which are pro-choice merely discussing just how extreme they should be with their pro-choice standards
Matt was THE guy that actually made me question my faith as a kid, helped me understand the world just a bit better. Great guy with a great mind for challenging hard-baked beliefs.
And where do you believe now?
Or are you too afraid to share your current worldview?
@@danielsmithiv1279 I’m definitely still atheist bc that’s how I was born and I was never indoctrinated into a cult as a child so I’m still a free man.
Same here his atheist experience show was good
Same here, I've learned a lot from Matt and those around him, and they have opened my mind to explore more. Though I don't agree with all of his options about certain things, there's no denying that he has influenced me greatly.
I’m glad he helped you become a nihilist and believe life has no ultimate meaning. I hope you in the long term are happy on your death bed that “this is it”.
I've listened to hundreds of abortion related debates and I'm still not actually sure where I sit. But I appreciate these two guys sitting and hashing it out. Still pro-choice, but I'm leaning more towards the 20-week cut off.
Mind you, in the cases where the mother is in danger, there is no question in my mind that she deserves absolute and singular consideration.
I think I have it figured out and there is no intellectual copyright: the abortion debate is confounded by the physical act of abortion, which is performed by a third party. In order to properly make the value judgments for either side, we must divorce the concept of abortion from the action. Because when you do this, the implications of the abortion of a 2nd trimester pregnancy are much different, and for me this closes the moral gap. If aborting the pregnancy means killing the baby and that act is not facilitated by a third party, there is no doubt to me what the morality of abortion is and no one else has any doubts either.
So many words, yet so little substance
THE ETHICS OF ABORTION:
Even though (illegitimate) abortion is merely one of a long list of crimes, it is such a controversial issue that it is being given its own subsection.
Although some pro-life advocates use the term “abortion” solely in those cases in which the aim and purpose of the procedure is to terminate the life of the unborn child (as opposed to those cases in which the aim is to save the life of the mother, and the death of the embryo is an undesired consequence of the procedure), this author sees no semantic advantage of making such a distinction, and so, in this document, the term “abortion” is applied to any medical procedure in which the life of an embryo or a foetus is DELIBERATELY terminated, for any reason.
Of course, just as there is a definite distinction between justified (i.e. legitimate) animal consumption and unjustified (i.e. illegitimate) animal consumption, so too is there a distinction between legitimate abortion and illegitimate abortion. Thus, the terminology has been established.
Regarding ABORTION, it is pertinent to make mention of a particularly controversial issue, and that is, whether or not an unborn human (whether zygote, embryo, or foetus) is fully human. The undeniable and blatantly obvious fact is, that a child conceived by two parents of the Homo sapiens species (or even cloned from a single parent) is without a doubt, a unique human being from the very moment of conception. Those in favour of illegal abortion (i.e. killing of an unborn child for unlawful, illicit reasons) are quite adamant that it is perfectly fine to end the life of an unborn child (sometimes even a birthed child, believe it or not!) due to it being underdeveloped, insentient, and/or unconscious.
Because there are some pro-abortion (that is, pro-unjustifiable-abortion) advocates who make desperate attempts to find flaws in the pro-life position, here, “conception” refers to the very moment that a spermatozoon nucleus fuses with an ovum nucleus, and syngamy takes place. However, it is important to understand that the question of the precise millisecond when a unique human life begins is completely redundant, because nobody is likely to surgically operate on a woman shortly after sexual intercourse has taken place, in order to prevent a fertilized egg from achieving syngamy! As mentioned in Chapter 28, whenever any one of the procreative, recreative, or unitive aspects of sex is omitted, sex becomes a selfish, sinful act, and so, to prevent a newly-fertilized ovum from its natural course of events, would count as a criminal act.
Any human with adequate intelligence knows that even after an infant child has been birthed, it is still not fully developed, since it has yet to pass through the preliminary phases of life such as childhood and adolescence. So then, why stop killing at the foetal stage? Why not destroy the life of a twelve-year-old boy, since he has not yet fully developed unto adulthood? The fact remains that a human is fully human, regardless of the phase of life in which it is situated. It is not partially human and partially giraffe - it is fully human. The aforementioned prenatal stages (zygote, embryo, and foetus) are just that - merely stages of the human life cycle, and although, according to normative mores, the life of an embryo may not be quite as morally valuable as that of a five-year-old child, that is insufficient justification alone for extinguishing its very life! Therefore, it is debatable whether or not a human zygote or an embryo is, by the strictest definitions of the terms, a conscious person, but it is INDISPUTABLE that it is a human being, worthy of protection, and must not be unlawfully terminated in a just society. Before contemplating the brutal destruction of an innocent human being, one should have an exceedingly-justifiable rationale. Demonic humans (see Chapter 14) are constantly inventing multifarious excuses for murdering poor, innocent, defenceless children, purely in order to rationalize their wicked agenda, but there are only two scenarios in which abortion may be lawful. It is indeed fortuitous that the mothers of outstanding historic personalities such as Lords Krishna, Gautama, and Jesus decided to not murder their precious offspring!
In brief, abortion is justified only in the case of rape or if the mother’s life is endangered. Obviously, that does not imply that the life of the baby of a raped woman MUST be terminated. As mentioned in the next paragraph (in relation to my own course of action in the hypothetical case of the rape of a female family member), I would do everything in my power to convince a raped family member to lovingly nurture the child unto birth, and then relinquish the child to an adoptive family. Therefore, when all is said and done, the need for any kind of (legitimate) abortion would be such a tiny fraction of one percent of all pregnancies that it would be more simply expressed as a negative exponent. Only if the expectant mother is acutely distressed by carrying the child of her rapist, should abortion be considered, and it would be preferable for the raped woman to do so as soon as practical. It would be a truly savage, barbaric act for her to kill her child in the third trimester of pregnancy!
Personally, I don’t think that I could ever condone the abortion of a child, by a woman in my family, even if she was the victim of rape, because I could NEVER perform the act of inserting my arm into the uterus of my mother, one of my wives or daughters, and manually extracting the embryo or foetus. And if I could not bring myself to perform such a despicable deed myself, I ought not pay a (so-called) doctor to execute the baby on my behalf. Sometimes, I feel faintly guilty destroying the life of an insect, such as a mosquito or an ant, even when it is attacking me or my food supply, what to speak of terminating the life of a fellow human being, the most highly-evolved species of life in the known universe!
As noted in the glossary of this book, it could be seen as hypocritical, or at least somewhat disingenuous, for a person to kill a non-human animal unless that person is willing to do so with his or her bare hands. I could never squeeze a rat to death using just my bare hands, so I ought not dismember a member of my own species, no matter how small it may be, without proper justification, according to moral norms.
Perhaps the most common justification for illegitimate abortion (that is, the murder of innocent, defenceless, unborn human beings) is that a woman ought to have AUTONOMY over her own body. Of course, those who raise such arguments conveniently overlook the fact that the pre-born human, by the same token, is entitled to the very same bodily autonomy as its mother! Those who are afflicted with a demonic mentality (which, after reading Chapter 14, as well as many other chapters of this treatise, one should come to understand to be practically every person on the planet), especially those persons residing in nations/countries with a predominantly leftist (“adharma”, in Sanskrit) populace will never come to accept the fact that no human being who has ever lived is his or her own master/mistress, and therefore, has no such “right” as autonomy over his or her own body. Does a newborn child have autonomy over him/herself? Obviously not, otherwise no parent would dare to regulate the activities of their offspring. Does a mother have autonomy over herself? Definitely not, since her lord and master (the word “husband” literally denotes the master of a house - see Chapter 27) has absolute authority to direct and control her actions and movements. Again, this bitter truth, will never ever be accepted by the vast majority of the population, but the truth must be proclaimed, nevertheless.
Incidentally, the very same paradigm outlined above, applies also to societal organization, in which a father has full authority over his family, a grandfather has full authority over his extended family, a patriarch has full authority over his clan, a chief has full authority over his tribe, a (genuine) king has complete and utter authority over his subjects, and finally, a (genuine) priest has authority over his entire society. The only humans who can possibly claim to have complete AUTONOMY over themselves are those excruciatingly-rare men who have risen to the role of World Teacher (“Avatāra”, in Sanskrit), and only then, solely upon their actual entry to the Holy Priesthood. As children, Avatars are subject to the authority of their mothers, then, upon adulthood, to the authority of their fathers, and if they happen to perform some kind of work prior to entering the Priesthood (as with Lord Jesus Christ, who worked as a carpenter before He began His priestly ministry), to their employers.
Possibly the saddest aspect of the abortion debate is the fact that the sex that has evolved to MOST nourish and protect vulnerable human offspring, is more in favour of illegitimate abortion. Personally, I am very thankful that my mother was not a miserable, rabid feminist who would have considered murdering the next World Teacher for any trivial reason whatever. Apart from the legitimacy of abortion in the very rare instances of rape or danger to the life of the mother, not a single one of their frivolous reasons is reasonable to a person of civility and intelligence. There will always be at least one decent family that will gladly take an unwanted newborn baby from a murderous parent.
N.B. It is rather important to refer to the Glossary definitions of some of the terms used in this subsection.
@@ReverendDr.Thomas are you a unitarian universalist leaning more towards Christianity? I would argue that when we come to politics we should leave religion out and apply morality here. The reason being morality is practically and logically discussable in comparison to something most might contrast themselves as not having the leap of faith. Religion gives us the stance, but then we should further justified it other than just "faith", which is why it is always an ongoing process of even more learning of how this position aligns us with universals.
@@thienyetan2035, have you ACTUALLY read my comment?☝️
If not, I suggest you ACTUALLY read it.
I'd kill for a weekly call-in show hosted by Destiny and Dillahunty. Dillahunty just left the ACA a few weeks ago, he's got some spare time. For shts and giggles they could call it D&D.
Videos like this give me hope for civilization. To find calmed, intelligent discussion on TH-cam over such polarising issues is a breath of fresh air. A huge thank you to both for showing what a true debate/discussion should look like.
They're both leftist how is this fucking a debate this is two guys on the left discussing just how extreme they should be.
Rather an arrogant grown ass man who hates his mom saying killing babies is okay because he decided it is, mind you he wasn’t aborted what a joker
Your hope is misplaced.
Hope for civilization? you just listened to Dillahunty say nobody has the right to anothers person body, according to his logic a mother can give birth to a child and not breastfeed him and let him die as a result and she's not guilty of anything cuz the baby doesnt have the right to the mothers body, and people sat around listening to him and thought that doesnt sound strange at all. what kind of twisted morals do u live by?
@MarkoGh your missing the point. It's not that we don't have morality, it's that we have no way to anchor that morality in terms of absolute morality.
I really appreciate how Destiny clearly put a meaningful amount of effort into preparing for this discussion. Matt has been doing this sort of thing for decades so there isn't really a question to me that he is the stronger "debater" on the topic. I think this turned out to be a really great and respectful back and forth between these two and as someone who doesn't follow destiny or anything this made me far more impressed with him.
Na. Dillahunty lost this debate. He cemented his failure when he used his tired " I'm not convinced" statement. His and Destiny's job is to debate and "convince" the audience.Dillahunty is not the audience.
I dunno about that. Most of Destiny's debate was morality whereas Dillahunty was debating legal rights. It was a bit of a muddied debate in that regard, so I don't see a winner, just a good conversation among two intelligent people.
@@marstru1498 Yes. And the position of US law, and in effect, moral duty of society is to come up with a principle that defines when it is okay to take away the rights of a pregnant human. I am sorry, feeling bad for the fetus is not enough to force someone to do something with their body that is in fact life threatening. Destiny and others cannot come up with a solution, so they appeal to emotion and polling. That is not an argument.
If you want to save the fetus' life, become a biologist and a doctor and invent an artificial womb. Forcing your will on someone based on your emotions is the F word.
@@marstru1498l pop lzzzzzzzzz
@@marstru1498 Matt said several times that he doesn't give a shit about the moral aspect and that's what Destiny kept doing, so I'm not sure how you got the idea Matt lost.
Watch again and use your brain this time.. This was just an interesting conversation that shows several potentially new points of view for the audience to think on.
In short, there were no winners or losers, just an interesting conversation on a topic.
I think the problem with the abortion debate is we start from the supposition that a human life is a precious and inherently valuable thing. They aren’t. Life in general is a disposable. Nature treats it this way often. Humans treat it like this depending on who we think deserves to live or die. As a society we routinely kill off masses of innocent humans, humans who have already lived and contributed to the world. If a woman does not want to be pregnant, that’s her decision alone and no one else should have any say in the matter.
More of this!!! Intellectually stimulating content with smart people presenting smart ideas instead of interpersonal drama.
Its really weird, i was just thinking this the other day.. i’ve seen a lot of matts atheist podcasts and he’s brutal af. I wondered if destiny would ever work with him
@@phantasticmrphasma9874 Watch his formal debates, he's much calmer
This aint intellectual...
You have a God sweetheart youre a creature
@@chadingram6390 ok. Well, i’m not saying i dont like his brutal delivery 😅 well sometimes he can take it a bit far, but punks respect pressure
Usually I avoid debates but this was fascinating. I appreciate the respectful disagreement. I think a huge part of growing involves engaging with ideas/opinions we don’t completely agree with
It's always good to see Matt finally debate an honest person.
What about Ray Comfort? He's honest , 😆
@@inrealitywetrust2610 lol, in a very disingenuous way 😂😂
@@tshepokgwele1789 Exactly 😁
If he was honest he’d actually listened and asked different questions. I saw several points where he could asked and continue from Matt’s answer but he did not and instead went on to ask questions more related to his points
Destiny is not an honest person; that being said the video is fun to watch.
I’m 36 years old and i remember watching and binging episodes/clips of The Atheist Experience and seeing Matt Dillahunty destroying Christian callers with insane facts and logic. I was such a fan of this man. Seeing Destiny debate him on this topic, and in such respectful manner is so nice and nostalgic!
I’m 35 and feel the same thing. Loved him on early AE.
I still have a playalist on here of the atheist experience I used to binge it as well. Also why does destiny look forward looking angry as hell for the first like 2 mins? I don't watch him all that much so idk his mannerisms.
@sowersass2 Well, if you watch enough Destiny videos you'll come to realize he's generally an arrogant douchebag.
"destroying"
People can be Atheist and still realize that a baby is a baby no matter how small. Most pro-life Atheists are pro-life because they are Atheist, and figure that this life on this Earth is the only life they'll have. And just because people can discuss a subject in a civil manner without losing their temper, doesn't mean that what they're saying is automatically true.
Matt would have a “debate” and not get upset every day if his opponents would just be honest and have a reasonable conversation.
Totally man, it's everybody else that's the problem.
@@jeremyinvictus I’m glad you agree😜
@@pete6769The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.
@@SkeletalMisunderstanding where did that show up?
That fallacy is not present here@@SkeletalMisunderstanding
I really enjoy the different thought processes and the concise discussion and exploration of ideas. Looking forward to more of this type of discussion.
Beautifull debate! Verry calm and deliberative. These kinds of things ACTUALLY help our society. They help everyone use this discussion to find new points of view and use that to reflect on their own thoughts and corresponding beliefs. Giving the chance to change your mind or create a stronger base for our belief. Love it
For those of you who call this a debate... you need to understand that this was an informal discussion, not a debate.
Of course since they are both baby killers. Nothing to debate
That’s the problem with atheism. Everything is beholden to subjective realities that cannot be parametrized in any meaningful way. Nothing serves as a limiting factor because there’s nothing that transcends their relationship with the natural world. Dillahunty could’ve saved his bullshit and say babies are humans only when I determine so, otherwise it’s just part of the material world.
@@billycheatham2860womp womp 😢
@@billycheatham2860 😂😂😂
@@billycheatham2860where's the babies they killed please show me
Two of my favorite content creators talking to each other: it's about time that Destiny and Matt had a discussion. This was an awesome talk to watch. 👍
It got boring after Destiny's 100th analogy.
One is redundant the other is a speed freak looking to never lose a debate.
Matt Dillahunty is so well spoken. I have seen many of his previous debates and he knows how to articulate his points in an effective manner. So it was nice seeing him debate Destiny. Really liked the conversation.
Unfortunately being well spoken is a great way to fool people into thinking you're smart. I don't think he's very smart. In fact, he spends much of his time yelling at people and cursing them out, which is a sign of someone who thinks that they are smart.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 unfortunately people never answer his questions honestly because of their cognitive dissonance.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 I think you would get upset too if every time you give a detailed comment the other person says you're wrong because of faith, magic and make believe.
Hos views of defending meat eating was really poor though. Will give it a try.
@@DangerRussDayZ6533 He did not use to do that but after years and years of hearing the same bs. re: religion, he has lost all patience with stupid people.
Great talk. A proper civil conversation. Something often lacking in the debatosphere.
Anyone that would argue that you would have an abortion at 7 months not to miss a vacation has never been pregnant nor been around a pregnant person.
Nobody would abort a baby that they’ve carried for seven months of sickness and toil for anything other than catastrophic reasons.
3rd trimester termination happens very rarely and is almost always a devastation to the would’ve been parents.
Taking away that right is dangerous for women, whom will die without it.
ALL abortion should be legal!!!
Man, this was something I never expected. Was a massive fan of Matt back in the day, and admittedly couldn't stand Destiny when I first watched him. Since, he has grown so much, to where I definitely see him as a source of reason and pretty grounded moral principles.
More of this, please.
Destinys problem is he can be abrasive. Then at times almost too charitable when he did his Nebraska Steve rant about the lengths he goes to accommodate conservatives I better understood what he was doing. For awhile I thought too much contact with the keffals of the world was poisoning his mind but rather he was twisting himself into a pretzel to accommodate conservatives in a debate maybe too much to the point where he was attracting conservatives in the same way he was attracting lefty fans.
I know this because we see dogshit DGGers who are super conservative being surprised and spewing dogshit arguments when he says something they don’t like (including that Nebraska Steve video) which mirrors early on the lefties in his audience being shocked by his capitalistic takes like supporting citizens United for some odd reason (maybe it’s misinterpreting the narrow ruling that should have happened with the actual ruling? Maybe I’m wrong but it’s been awhile)
It’s often easy especially if you see him clip chimped to have a real negative view of destiny.
@@OpiatesAndTits Literally me. I couldn't stand him a few years back in the Obama era. He always argued on hypothetical analogies that didn't really line up the way he made them seem. It made him come across just very "im right so hard, and there is 0 chance of me being wrong". But he slowly started to get more grounded in reality, politics and the material he talks about. He became much more interesting to listen to as you could track his developing ideas.
@Slava Ukraine you failed to consider those problems could have been caused by too much money in politics in the first place. also, people saying take money out of politics dont mean that people shouldnt have the right to donate to a campaign they agree with, they mean legal bribes ("lobbying") and corporations giving unlimited amounts of money to politicians, which effectively undermines democratic principles by giving unreasonably big sway over the opinion of people in power to corporations.
by the way, there are dozens of countries that do not have the so-called "money in politics" and they do not face the problems that usa faces.
@@OpiatesAndTits jesse wtf are you talking about
@@suckston Of course, you are correct. Crazy to me that someone would argue otherwise.
This was a fantastic conversation so fun to listen to!
Yo Pauly, where's the spice at?!
What a great conversation between them. Very interesting points!
I don't think you're an honest person if you label abortion as murder.
It finally happened. Good job MDD for bringing these two together.
This debate is a great exchange. Too many other debates devolve into "Why are you refusing to answer the question with a yes or no?!"
Two of my favorite liberal, atheist, thinkers. Props to both of you guys for an engaging discussion… 👌🏻
destiny isn't an atheist its a girls name
I don't see Hasan and Tate here...
I would say centrist ,I don't believe anyone is truly left or right, however, these identities are pushed pretty heavily nowadays so I understand why you say liberal.
I think it's a shame that politics have become so polarized ...it really detracts from any meaningful discussion ,hinders progress and generally makes many ideological talking points into an episode of Hatfields and McCoys.
@@T1Slam Tate isn't an atheist
@@thefadebeta580 How old are you?
I've never seen a debate where two people on stage have already predetermined that they agree on the topic, there was literally almost no debate here, this was just a conversation in front of the audience and they were paid to be there.
*topic. There
*here. This
A comma by itself is not sufficient to join independent clauses. That is an error called a comma splice run-on.
As someone who grew up listening to debates with people like Christopher Hitchens & Daniel Dennett, I'm sorry to say a "debate" between Destiny & Dillahunty pales in comparison.
You have got to respect this dude. For years he's thrown himself at the pendulum, debating all kinds of people. Even people that you would think would threaten him intellectually but he still takes them on.
Are you talking about Matt or Destiny?
@@therainman7777 Actually both, Matt will take on anyone, too. I loved how he thrashed Jordan Peterson without even trying
@@I_Get_Computers_Puting
Man, you're right. I forgot about that debate!
@@DDaDoggyDon In that debate, I saw how strong Matt was as a debater and how informed he was in his ideals. Jordan looked so uncomfortable the whole time.
I was at this debate! Hands down the best and most thought provoking discussion the entire day. Matt's explanation for me separating the law from morality was super helpful
Morality is subjective. It’s easy to forget that. In truth, it doesn’t exist or hold any value, outside the realm of our subjective minds.
My issue with it is that people word it as ‘what’s fundamentally right’ rather than ‘what i think should happen’
Prove it
For me it’s a personhood debate and analogous is end of life decisions. A pro-abortion fundamentalist can’t at the same time have a living will.
Apply that same argument to slavery ? The truth is absent morality, you can make anything legal. This is why I would argue why atheist regimes are dangerous, if you seek to only go by legality, you can do anything to anyone. Laws are derived out of religion , beliefs ....Matt would be the person in 1850 defending slavery, because you can defend something legally and keep telling people to stop bring morals into the discussion....
@@phantasticmrphasma9874 General morals are shared by all normal humans..... Also I would hope where matt can give a rationale for defending bodily autonomy? This is actually a moral argument why ? Matt keeps making a legal argument "abortion " to defend a moral arguments " bodily autonomy ". All rights have to be derived from morality because you can't find laws under a microscope, they are created by peoples morals.....
Don’t believe personhood is any more relevant than any other issue brought about, because the principals regarding bodily autonomy do not change. I agree with Matt. Don’t care what sells, it’s about the principal no one has a right to use your body without your consent, and that’s what matters.
But Matt multiple times admitted that he thinks it's fine to violate a person's bodily autonomy. So what principle is he following exactly?
Also, newsflash bodily autonomy goes both ways.
@@jamesmcdonnell2455 I am speaking about my belief that you do not violate an individuals bodily autonomy. Goes both ways needs to be clarified. At the outset no.
@@brucegemmell730 the problem is you said you "agree with Matt". And Matt's clearly a worm.
If you actually believe bodily autonomy went both ways, you would side with the fetus, as the woman made her choice and it has no choice in anything.
And yes, if you choose to have vaginal sex, as opposed to literally any other form or simply not doing it, then you most certainly have consented to pregnancy because that's why vaginal sex exists.
@brucegemmell730 but if you consentually had sex you consented to the chance of having a baby. You consented to your body automonally poss8bily getting violated.
@@Devin6424 no you consented to sex, and you independently get to choose if you want to be pregnant, as these are both your choices, and you can choose to see them as separate. I want sex but not a baby. Still the choice of the mother and her autonomy is not breached in the slightest.
I was almost worried lol. I, like a lot of other commenters, ran into Matt way back before destiny even started streaming and slowly over time have found myself watching and siding with destiny in other non religious areas. So when I saw this I was like oh no who is going to own who, but holy shit, I'd call this a conversation more than a debate. Destiny needs to do more stuff like this. :)
So excited to see these two finally talk! I would love to see some sort of relegious conversation as well, I know that Matt is likely much much more aggressive against religion than destiny has been recently
yes Destiny please study all of Dillahunty's anti-theism arguments, so we can have two good anti-religious debaters instead of just Dillahunty.
@@westingtyler1 nah I’m talking more outlook on religion.
I fundamentally disagree with Matt’s reasoning as to why abortion should be allowed. If bodily autonomy is the sole issue, then if there is a woman with a baby and there are no other sources of food apart from the woman’s own milk, the she has the right to say “sorry, it’s my body, I don’t have to” and she’s morally ok with allowing the baby to die. I think even if he would call such a woman a monster.
To clarify, I'm not not arguing against abortion, I'm disagreeing with Matt's reasoning for why it's not immoral.
How would you prove that the woman could even provide milk to the child? Many women struggle with breastfeeding.
@@tentrain5549 Well if the woman is unable to lactate, then obviously she couldn't feed the child and there wouldn't be any moral question. But how is that relevant to if they can lactate, which is my point.
@@MarxistKnight How can you know if she can lactate or not? Also, what if she can no longer lactate because it hurt or she just didn't want to, and now no longer can?
@@tentrain5549 I don't know what you think knowing whether she can or not has to do with anything? I'm not talking about how I would react if I was with such a woman in this situation, I'm talking about a hypothetical ethical dilemma and what I think would be the moral thing to do.
The point is, if she can then, in my view, it would be immoral for her to not feed the baby simply because she didn't want to, which would be a perfectly legitimate reason if 'bodily autonomy' was the SOLE issue as Matt seems to think. If she can't do it, then obviously it's not even an ethical issue.
If it caused her pain, then that would change the dynamics of it but again, in my view, it would still be immoral for her to allow a baby to die because of some temporary pain to her.
@@sugartoothYT Um, no it's not "trivialising" the issue, it's a hypothetical example to illustrate my view that 'bodily autonomy' is not the sole issue at hand here. I clearly said I'm talking about a situation where there are no other sources of food. It's a hypothetical example to demonstrate a point.
And why are you even mentioning pregnancy? I'm not arguing against abortion, I support the right for women to have abortions. I'm disagreeing with Matt's reasoning for why it should be allowed, which is that 'bodily autonomy' trumps all other matters - he even said, he didn't think personhood mattered AT ALL, which is what I fundamentally disagree with and the point of my example was to show that I think most people, probably even Matt himself if he took his argument to its full conclusion, don't really think that bodily autonomy is the ONLY thing that matters.
I think abortion is not immoral and should therefore be legal for the reason he mentioned Dawkins believes, which is that a foetus that hasn't developed consciousness yet and so is not a person, and therefore there's no harm. Once a baby in the womb does become conscious and fully developed, I don't think it would be moral, for the obvious fact that if you move the baby outside the womb, it would clearly be unethical to kill/terminate it. I don't think being inside a biological vessel changes that.
I think that the point made that “no one has the right to use my body without my consent” doesn’t work when you consider that it’s illegal to abandoned a newborn baby and let us die. For example if a mother refused to breastfeed or go to the store and get formula. According to Dillahunty the baby has no right to demand that the mother moves a muscle if she doesn’t want to.
his argument also starts with the disingenuous premise that they "the couple" didn't give consent initially to make the child, but they did. Notice in the violin argument he steered clear of the idea that there was a legal argument to be made about consenting and being obligated to then keep the person alive. The core of the issue is that two people consented to the growth of a child and now would like to break contract if you will.
He made the distinction with the Kid in the pool analogy. Feeding a baby formula doesn't bring great risks to your health and fundamentally change your body forever.
Nope, he said that he'd consider the person who lets the baby starve a monster because it doesn't affect the adult's wellbeing, unlike risking themself to save a kid from drowning.
I think what makes destiny special in this realm is his ability to understand and articulate the arguments and views of people he fundamentally disagrees with
What makes him special is that he engages in good faith and isn't out to win as much as to explore the issue. That's my preferred way of proceeding so I like him.
As a conservative....I love hearing these arguments even if I don't agree with everything being said...thinking through these issues is important for both sides
That's nice, but what's the point of listening if doesn't actually make a difference? Which conservative points do u have? U r anti choice?
@@Nonamam It helps people reevaluate their arguments and take a stance with a more educated\considerate approach. They might reconsider who they want to vote for, based on those arguments, and that's where it makes a difference.
As a conservative? What does that mean, that you. just agree with whatever a 'conservative' tells you?
@@Nonamam I think the point is that he/she is at LEAST listening. If one of those two were pro life then the discussion would have been pro choice vs pro life. And since he/she is pro life (I suspect) then they would have spent all their time listening and cheering on the pro life speaker and shrugging off/ignoring the pro choice person. It would have been more about winning the debate in his/her head vs understanding the position(s). Not that the other type of debate doesn't have it's benefits also.
@@Nonamami guess hes a human with human emotions and against murder i suppose
11:40 I love when dillahunty bites the bullet instantly and the chad emotes start rolling in lol
I love this type of conversation. Genuine respect and thoughfulness. No drama.
Yo I hope he comes on destinys stream to get involved in the chaos. Seems like a smart fella
You did a fine job with the personhood argument, but man, Matt was flawless I felt. He came across as calm, experienced & really articulate. I’m on the bodily autonomy side. More of Matt please.
@@AFoxNamedSly I think he would almost certainly say he does have a right to kill the man (given that he's now part of his body and he has bodily autonomy).
I find the bodily autonomy argument painfully simplistic. And none of Destiny's or Dillahunty's analogies really fit with pregnancy. Because a woman only gets pregnant through her own action (unless she's raped - which is a different issue), not from the actions of someone else. It isn't something that's been done to her; it's something she has done to bring another life into the world.
Also, which I think is Destiny's point, it doesn't consider a fetus (which Dillahunty ironically said we have a moral obligation to protect) to have rights until it is a fully born individual. So killing a 8-9 month old fetus is perfectly justifiable in his view, because as long as the fetus is inside the woman's body it's within her rights to kill it.
@@SolarJakee abortion in the third trimester is so misleading. At that point they don’t really abort/kill anything. They just C-section the baby and put it in an incubator. Most babies are viable outside the womb in the third trimester ppl.
@@SolarJakee he said we have a moral obligation, but distinguishes (several times idk how u missed it) between morality and the social contract. He believes society is better if we agree to protect bodily autonomy.
@@AFoxNamedSly to your analogy: how small were the odds, what was his purpose for being in the building, has society permitted the risk of going into the building (driving, drinking alcohol etc. carry risks but we as a society agree that *taking the risk* does not *in itself* make you responsible for resulting harm), besides discomfort is there anything else he might have to endure (women may die in childbirth, develop severe physical or mental health issues, incur debt etc.)
@@AFoxNamedSly most people seem to think that it’s a simple question of whether the woman knowingly risked pregnancy. Is there *any* moral issue that simple?
It's great that you posted this here. You two had a great conversation.
if the fetus, at some point, becomes a person before it's born, then the bodily autonomy argument goes both ways; the "host" would be violating the fetus' bodily autonomy in the most severe way imaginable by aborting it. That's why personhood matters. Who gets to violate whose bodily autonomy at the point the fetus becomes a person?
Big ‘if’ though… It simply doesn’t.
@@christopherhamilton3621 if true, that would resolve the issue, but I don't know if there's a biological or neurological reason to believe that
You have to love the debate's CIVIL discourse: Respect and discussion as opposed to inflammatory explosions of emotions. MUCH respect!
nice of them to get destiny a high chair
****phone book
I never ever ever ever thought these two would do a thing together but they are! This is so awesome. Matt is so crazy articulate and one of the best debaters I've ever listen to but he always is in the realm of easy targets like religion, to see him with Destiny makes it a special day.
For someone who does this for a living for 10+ years its pretty crazy how he gets stumped by a level 1 analogy at 25:00
I'd get stumped too if asked what an NFT is.
It's always overlooked that a fetus isn't sentient, and therefore doesn't suffer death. It has no thoughts or awareness, no friends that will miss them, etc. A fetus brought to birth didn't have a say in that, and a lot of people end up terminating themselves despite self-preserving programming, because life more or less sucks. It's an unnecessary struggle, forced upon those born.
Also, some kids born unwanted will become criminals that kill people that were wanted. Not a great argument, but I think it's fair to assume an unwanted child is more likely to suffer mentally (and physically) than a wanted one, and mental suffering manifests negatively.
Abortion ok because a tiny percentage of people self delete or become criminals. This is an argument against pregnancy altogether not abortion
@@JohnM-sw4sc this is an argument against forcing unwanted children to be born into circumstances with a high chance of abuse and / or neglect. Bad circumstances usually leads in bad directions. The question then becomes - why force that birth? Is it to "teach people a lesson" that if a woman bangs a guy before she's financially and emotionally secure and he accidentally nuts inside, the woman and the kid should be punished? What's your reason? An embryo in development isn't sentient, so what's the problem?
@@themartialartsapproach8786 because life starts at some point right ? We can’t say exactly where , so why wouldn’t we use conception in an abundance of caution to make sure we aren’t killing a human life ?
Unless you can tell me where it starts ?
@@JohnM-sw4sc cells don't have thoughts, pain receptors, fear of death, etc. Months into pregnancy, there's no sentience. Again, why force a likely bad situation, when an abortion could give the woman a chance to have a baby later, in better circumstances? Happier lives, avoiding generational suffering, less crime, more productivity, etc.
Also, do you support gov't help for single parents, poor children, abandoned kids, abuse victims, etc? If the gov't is going to force unwanted pregnancies, they should also be there to help with the mess, right?
@@themartialartsapproach8786 lmao no supporting the welfare state is literally the worst thing you can do if you want to end single parent homes.
Single mother homes produce kids who are 2.5x more likely to go to jail , more likely to flunk high school, have emotional and leaning disabilities ,use drugs, and get pregnant when they are teenagers.single mother homes are a cycle of poverty from which families can’t escape. These kids grow up in crime and indignity and no amount of roe v wade ever helped them ; so why are you encouraging more of this ? Why can’t we just treat sex like Americans did in 1964 when kids had it better.
Why would I support more of that ? Anyone who says we should find the welfare state doesn’t understand basic satirical analysis. Go look at what the single parent household rate was in 1960 (9%) it’s 40% now and over 70% in the African American community. Why is that? Even tho women got the pill and contraception why did it go up?
Because we began paying them to be single moms.
The moral thing to do is give the baby up for adoption . We would eventually sunset these programs
But the “you better support them after they are born with welfare state bucks” argument is a high school debate caliber argument- seriously go look at the charts of single mother homes from 1964 to today- if we keep funding it women will keep doing it . And how dare you claim to care about a kid you were ready to terminate!
the people who really help these kids are the Christian Right who adopt them .
Unstoppable Force vs. Immovable Object
True
Kudos to Dillahunty. This is great content!
In my opinion, your duty to provide help massively increases if you are the reason the person needs help. Destiny should have pushed him more on that. Yes, you might not have a duty to swim 10 km into the ocean to rescue someone in general, but if you threw them overboard there, then situation is a bit different.
Exactly. When you put someone on life support the least you can do is pay for it.
You don't get to put someone on life support and then pull the plug because you don't feel like paying.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 “feel like paying”..
So you don’t value consent enough then? If I consent to give blood do I not have the right to stop at any time? Even If I consented to a pregnancy I’d have the right to end it any time because it’s MY organs being used. If you disagree then you see people as means to an end instead of ends unto themselves.
@@darkdragonite1419 Are you not aware that sex may lead to pregnancy?
You consent to the term of service when you engage in sex.
It's like going skiing and then crying that you didn't consent to breaking a leg. You did when you put the skis on.
@@yarpenzigrin1893 Exactly this. There isn't a single human being that has the capability to engage in sex that doesn't also understand that sex is how people are made. If you don't want to take that risk and be responsible for the outcome, then don't have sex.
@@darkdragonite1419 consent is such a dumb thing to bring up in the pregnancy and abortion topics. The Fetus didn't consent to be there, and didn't t take any action to put itself there, unlike the person having sex. So if you conceptualized the fetus as a person (I don't) you're violating it's consent far more than the person who is pregnant. So now where do you go from there. Cause if you go with consent that's the most easy way to say no abortions ever at any point.
Dillahunty's point about medical professionals being unable to withdraw consent after training isn't consistent with his point that a person can withdraw consent after consenual sexual activity leading to pregnancy
Technically they could withdraw consent. They could quit the profession and pursue other things or return after the event etc...
It’s similar to entering the military. These professions are governed by their own ethical boards where there are special rules you are obligated to adhere to if you get into that field. Lawyers are restricted by professional standards as well, although they’re not as consequential.
Matt dillahunty was my gateway to atheism 10 years back and I always appreciated his form of argumentation
Same here.
Check out His debate with Jay dyer(He’s an Orthodox Christian)
The argument destiny brings up about the parents locking their child in a room and starving to death because they no longer concented to "dealing" with their "crybaby" is yet another reason why abortion is sometimes necessary. BECAUSE.. a parent(s) who is okay with harming their child for being a child SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. With that said, I very much enjoyed hearing about his position and grasp of the subject that so many people lack.
oh my God, is this argument stupid. So you'll murder the innocent because the parents are shit. Wow.. just wow. You'd fit right in in Nazi Germany.
Yeah, but you wouldn't kill a child because their parents shouldn't have them (assuming the fetus is a child)
Abortion is absolutely not necessary in this case. Adoption is the answer.
@@brandygibson7283it's not about what is or isn't an option or answer. It's about who gets to decide.
Eugenics is the best argument for abortion 💯
18:50 The problem I have with this is that when my step-sister was pregnant I was terrified. I mean.. when she was 8-9 months pregnant, I was terrified for her safety. There are many complications that can occur during the pregnancy itself that can cause the mother to lose her life. There aren't always ways to predict this. In the end, it all worked out fine but there was no guarantee. You can't just say "Typically, women don't die during childbirth..." because while that may be true, it is certainly not a 100% survival rate. Even if it was only a 0.1% mortality rate, I knew it was a possibility. Tossing a coin always has a possibility of landing on it's edge. I would never begrudge someone for refusing to skydive on the off-chance both the parachute and the backup-parachute both fail. In my eyes, that's likely the same odds as someone dying in childbirth. I'd never force someone to do anything that had any remote chance of their own demise unless they were 100% aware of that fact.
There most surely exists a case where a woman who was completely healthy with absolutely zero health conditions who somehow during a series of unfortunate events had a complication during childbirth and lost her life. If it happened once it can happen again. I wasn't willing to take that risk. ... but it wasn't my choice to decide. It was her choice to get pregnant and to follow it through to it's logical conclusion. If it was up to me I would have never allowed her to get pregnant in the first place! but... that's because I'm selfish and I want her to life. Of course, once her son was born it all changed-- but from my perspective, the whole time she was pregnant there was an underlying terrifying possibility. If I was the one pregnant and had the same thought, I would imagine it would have been 100 times more terrifying. (obviously I never voiced any of this to her-- she was under enough stress)
Wow - like I needed a reason to love Matt more :) - what a great debate: honest, intellectual and respectful - two great points of view (consent Vs personhood) by two reasoned and reasonable fellows. Kudos to Destiny also (first time seeing you)
This was an incredible conversation. Both debaters provided good insight, effective pushback and possessed the approproate rhetorical skills to make it engaging for the audience. I agree more with Destiny, though.
Actually fire debate bro. Props
Damn, I lived my life for a bit, blinked and you were up 300k subs. Crazy growth. Happy for you
His argument sounds like someone inviting a neighbor to their house and then shooting the neighbor for trespassing.
The argument where he dissociates the intercourse from the pregnancy, is absurd. That's like saying "I've consented to playing poker - not to losing money", when you're in a casino and have just lost your life's savings.
Most women who get an abortion never consented (otherwise they wouldn't feel dread and get an abortion when the find out) - sex is not an invitation for pregnancy, only consent to sex with a risk of pregnancy.. It's more akin to leaving your door unlocked, or inviting one person in (AKA who you're having sex with) and having another follow them in. That being said, if you invite someone in (once again, the pregnant person did not), and you ask them to leave, and they don't, then they cause you harm (poison you and cause you to have severe nausea, harm you by causing bodily changes, severe pain, permanent disfigurement), can you defend yourself with deadly force? Of course you can.
@@tentrain5549 Your laborious rant changes nothing. Try playing poker, losing, and then running away with the money because you don't feel like giving it away.
@@piotrstuglik4424 If you play poker then someone attaches themselves to your body, steals nutrients from you, causes you harm for 9 months, causes permanent disfigurement and bodily changes, severe pain, and damage to your genitals, can you defend yourself?
They both debate like actual grown-ups. Very rare
Holy Shit! My world colliding! Never thought I'd see the day Destiny got to meet up with Dillahunty
They both make great arguments. I agree with Matt Dillahunty on the legal and moral aspect being two separate issues or topics and are two completely different discussions. Separating moral and legal obligations in discussions about abortion allows for objective decision-making based on evidence rather than subjective beliefs. This approach ensures fair and just laws that protect individual rights within society. While acknowledging and not overlooking important ethical and moral considerations and oversimplifing the complexities of the issue. Finding a balance between moral beliefs and legal obligations is crucial in addressing controversial topics like abortion.
Yea, but as a society we have deemed it illegal based off of our morals to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Why is murder or anything illegal at all if legalities and morals are two completely different discussions that should be separate? Our laws are a direct reflection of our morals.
This is such a good talk. Much respect to both of them. I'm definitely more of a destiny viewer but nearly a decade ago Matt is one of the people most responsible for helping me along through my journey of atheism. Much love.
Same here 🤗
I really dislike Matt's constant retreat to the claim that he doesn't care about the 'ethics' of the issue. His belief in a person's full negative right to bodily autonomy is an ethical belief. If he claims it's simply a belief about legal rights, then all you need to do is ask *why* we should have a complete legal right to bodily autonomy and presumably he will (and he *has* to, as he does in the debate repeatedly) give normative reasons as to why we should value and be obliged to respect freedom and bodily autonomy. Really strange, it seems like he's hedging a bit here.
Yeah, 'i don't care about that' isn't an argument.
Focusing on this part of his argument without addressing the rest of it is dishonest
Well said karras
There are actual laws that have allowed children (for example) to emancipate themselves from being used medically to say donate marrow to an ill sibling. In fact there famous examples of this in which a sibling refused, and then had to fight legally, to no longer donating marrow and even organs to an ill sibling. And plot twist - the sick sibling encouraged the other sibling to do just this and stop being forced to donate. These laws already exist; the fact that Destiny *never* discusses the pregnant woman in this situation but only the fetus (when the fetus gains legal personhood the woman loses her legal personhood).
The fact that he didn't shows an understanding that you lack.
Parents have responsibilities to their children. Siblings do not.
@@JamesJNothingIsTooSensitive James, should the Government have the right to force a parent to give one of their kidneys to save their child? For sake of argument, there is no other kidney available and the child will die without a new one. The only genetically compatible kidney is in the parent. Does the Government have the right to step in, force the parent against their will to be anesthetized, taken into a surgery room and have an organ removed? Should this be the law?
@@ThodEssmann Your child? Not someone else's? Yes. And that should remain the case for *_both_* kidneys. And any parent that *_required_* the government to do so, rather than being *_willing_* to die for their child shouldn't be a parent.
Being willing to die for your child - presuming they are in fact, still a child and not merely your *_offspring_* - is part of parenthood.
This is obvious for the same reasons parents are supposed to risk harm to themselves to protect their children in the event of a home invasion, or, like recently, when there was a shooting at a school, and the parents ran in when the cops would not, all to save their children, all while obviously putting their lives at risk.
It is *_your_* views which don't hold up in other circumstances, not mine. Mine hold up all over because they are *_consistent_* and don't have "avoiding responsibility" as the only *_real_* reasoning behind them, however cleverly masked.
Think you have a "gotcha" now? Go home. You aren't ready for this.
@@JamesJNothingIsTooSensitive You really support the Government, through use of force, taking an organ out of an unwilling person. Astounding. What if the child is 30 and the parent 50? The question isn't about morality, love, and caring parents, It is about empowering the Government to forcibly remove organs from an unwilling person.
@@ThodEssmann Strawman and Ad hominem. You have no argument.
Also, governments use force to impose on gree will all the time. It is literally the reason for them to exist. To exert force and rob people of their free will.
What do you think they're doing when they arrest a criminal? Or shoot a murderer?
"Free will" isn't some absolute virtue. What matters is what you are *_doing_* with it.
Similarly, violating free will isn't some absolute evil. What matter is why and how and in what context it is happening.
Grow up and either engage with the argument I actually made, or fuck off.
Dillahunty: "When we start say, 'I'm going to tell you what you can do with your body and what you can't,' I have a big problem with that."
"You can't drink and drive."
"You can't speed."
"You can't abuse children, animals, elderly."
"You can't murder your neighbor."
"You can't beat your spouse."
Society tells everyone what they can't do with their body. We even sometimes tell people what they CAN do.
Plus, it's not just your body, it's the baby's body. A woman doesn't have four legs or two noses when she's pregnant.
Your examples aren't really analogous. Matt's point is about how a person cannot withdraw your consent. You've given examples of situations in which you are taking away other people's consent.
Society generally tells everyone to not harm others. Child-birth hurts and society shouldn't be able to tell a potential mother to give birth just like they shouldn't be able to tell her to be beaten by her spouse, murdered by her neighbors, or get hit by a drunk in a speeding car.
@@LVdeo Child-birth hurts, agreed. But society should NOT say that killing babies is okay. No matter stage of development, before or after delivery, but specially not like Matt, that implies babies can be killed up to 9 months of pregnancy, because bodily autonomy still applies.
The biggest problem I have with the abstract of his argument is that it implies that the baby invaded the woman's body and the woman did nothing to put the baby there. That is absolutely false, unless the woman was raped.
@@LVdeoTo that point a father gives up bodily autonomy when strapped to child support. As a later point was brought up the line between providing resources and giving up bodily autonomy isn’t that distinct. Some times to provide you have to sacrifice. Should fathers then have a choice to withdraw commitment?
Im loving how the debate is well countered and done in good faith!
Every single person must take sex extremely seriously. The weight of that decision should never be taken lightly, ever. This is what parents must teach their children. I’m pro life.
Unfortunately hedonist won't. They'll keep raising bodily autonomy.