Also, in the podcast, it was a 6 vs. 1. Knowles deserves credit for handling it so well, even if there is stuff that we could've loved to hear him say that he didn't.
Very well said. I think we should *grant* the hardships women face in carrying a baby to term, raising him/her, or even adopting them out. And then simply ask, "What amount of hardship justifies killing an innocent child?"
This is where catholics prove they are frauds. Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation, compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US, even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day. Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion. So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old. You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
You can never go into an argument to talk “sense into” another person because that automatically makes you a tyrant, or at the very least, convinces the person only at shallow level. Where as soon as they leave the discussion they can easily revert back to their former opinion. What you can do is offer rational refutations of their argument in such away that they walk away with a desire look further into your positions.
@@1everydaycooldude Right, if you really want to change hearts, it's important to approach people (as these women) unpretentiously and meet them where they are. As Trent points out, it is about circling the argument back to when life actually begins (at conception)...and if they believe in life with dignity, it would be hard to deny that new perspective. And yeah, the best that we might hope for is planting a seed that they can walk away with that will hopefully grow into knowing the truth.
Mr. Horn, as Micheal Knowles noted today on his show, we have lost all culture wars where we refuse to use religious and philosophical terms to argue. Why not use these terms if we are going to explain what they mean? Man is a religious creature and is persuaded by such ideas and words.
Great video Trent. For some reason I got extremely emotional watching this. Does is bring anyone else to tears thinking about the tragic deaths of millions of unborn babies in this country?
Hi Trent, the pictures the medical student showed was actually ONLY endometrial tissue, there was no fetal tissue in the Petri dish at all. These pictures are misinformation themselves. I am a pathologist and have seen personally what fetuses at many stages of development look like (due to ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy loss, and very sadly also elective abortions). I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I.
I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I. I'm interested could you make a video showing this on youtube so I can share it
Knowles I think is right to call out the underlying set of presuppositions of other people as their "religion" per Jung. The thing at the top of the value hierarchy and the actions and beliefs that flow from that. While it might not directly be persuasive for abortion, the woman who said she would kill people in comas because they're taking up space is the logical conclusion of the philosophy. Too many people imagine that materialism is a default or neutral philosophy in a world of superstitious, squabbling religions. I think it is helpful to kick that stool out and make it clear that materialism and its attending presuppositions are just another set of practices and beliefs with no special place.
Materialism is self refuting. The only people who believe in materialism are those who want to do bad that they are willing to deny the strongest evidence (their own self experience) in favor of the ramblings of people they have never met. Not exactly a high quality crowd
The 9 week abortion that "doctor" showed pissed me off. I am the mother of 4 and soon to be 5. They is not what a baby looks like at 9 weeks. Baby had little arms, legs, moving all around.
To show a photograph of a dead human is a petri dish is akin to showing an aerial photograph of the Mei Lai Massacre. Just because the scale is different does not make the individual or individuals you are seeing any less human.
Simple biology destroys the belief that the zygote or early embryo is already a human being since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote.
@@denniswakabayashi9000 Oh lord that is very wrong. You're correct that a zygote isn't A human being (singular), it's a human being(s) 1 things that could become two. It's still alive.
@@easy8690 So you don't believe the zygote is already A human human??? Of course the human zygote is alive but not a human being since 2 or more human beings can come from the same zygote. Only an idiot would describe twinning as a human being splitting into 2 human beings!
To be fair with the technical language in the clip you gave he did define those terms...or at least defined what he meant by them even if those are not the actual definitions.
In the last section, Bodily Rights Arguments, the med student asks: "Can you tell me a scenario where one person is forced to use their body to save the life of another individual?" The answer to this is simple: parenthood in general. You are obligated both morally and by law to sustain your child and keep them alive to the best of your ability
Regarding “walking a toddler out”, could you say something like: “what if I just couldn’t afford college for my kid, should I be able to abort my 15 year old?”
"Oh, I got fired from my job and can't seem to find another one quickly, I guess I will have to murder my 2 children now." That's the logical conclusion one of the most used pro-choice arguments comes to, quite a solid argument, don't you think!
Hey Trent. I am firmly protestant and disagree with you strongly on a lot of theology. However I have been watching some of your videos lately and content like this video is excellent. I love the logical and reasonable takes you offer on important issues like abortion, homosexuality, and how we approach science. Keep it up and I pray that God reveals more of His truth to us both.
The “special rights” argument cuts in both directions. We either have to give the fetus a right that no one else has (ie using someone’s body against their will) or we have to give the woman a right that no one else has (ie killing an innocent human being). Michael was smart to admit that pregnancy is unique, but I wish he had pointed out that abortion is also unique
Holy crap... I'm so glad there are people who believe in the life of an unborn child. It's rare to find anyone who supports this sort of logical reasoning, even though I see it to be basically objective in its moral support of unborn children. You and the person discussing on the side of pro life in this are way better at discussing their arguments than me, and I believe you have the potential to save a lot of peoples lives.
Oh yeah, I was at 14:50 when I paused to make that comment... Whoever was in this video you are reviewing definitely fucked up by bringing up religion at this point, basically perpetuating the myth that religion is deeply ingrained in the morality of abortion when that is literally a falsity used to disregard pro life in its entirety. Abortion is wrong when discussing ideas upon the value of the individual human organism alone, which is the secular reasoning I use and the talk show host used up until that point, then completely and utterly dropped the ball...
28:30 I feel that could be worded better however, I believe that implying acts itself are what causes obligation, that could be interpreted as punishment, which is not the reason of obligation in the slightest. But the existence of a fetus in itself is the obligation in any scenario, as regardless of previous circumstance the end result was a new life in this world, and that individual must be maintained or we would lose an unborn human life.
The reason Knowles does not "fully rebut" the final, body-rights argument is that the bodily-rights argument cannot be rebutted. This is because it is correct, and decisive. The breastfeeding argument depends on the idea that compelled breat-feeding is only a trivial violation of bodily autonomy. It doesn't prove anything about a non-trivial violation, such as compelled labor-and-delivery. No, abortion is not like taking back a kidney. The woman who aborts isn't take anything back; she is refusing to give more. The "what is the organ _for"_ argument is a load of govno. Intrinsic teleology was disproved long ago. The liver has thousands of different functions. The uterus is not "made for" anything. Right-to-lifers need to stop saying "naturally", "natural function", "natural purpose", etc. You are -falling- stepping into the NATURALISTIC FALLACY. (look it up).
I want to point this out for you, Trent, in case you still haven't seen this anywhere yet - that specific picture she shows of the aborted 'fetus' (because it's not the fetus, that's why the quotations) - that picture is LITERALLY just the gestational sac with everything else, the embryo or fetus (since it's unclear whether we're talking about 9 weeks GA or 9 weeks since LMP) included, removed. All the blood & tissue was removed, & the actual baby was removed, & only the gestational sac remains. The publication that originally put out that photo even admits this in their own caption for the photo. So, that's not even a damaged fetus that is now unrecognizable or one too small. And at 9 weeks, they would DEFINITELY not be too small to see anyway. That's just the sac. That's one of the most dishonest uses of a photo I've ever seen.
Trent, me and my husband disagree strongly on the topic of sedevacantism. He has gone from Protestant to Sedevacantist "Catholic", and it hurts both of us to argue on this matter. I am not an apologist so I cannot explain my position very well. Would really appreciate a comprehensive video explaining why sedevancantism is incorrect. Love your channel
Every organization requires a "head" to be complete and continue to function. The office of the Papacy - Christ's representative on earth - is the "head" of the Catholic Church on earth. To be sedevacantist is to claim that the seat to the See of Peter is empty. It denies the legitimacy of the Pope, which if true would effectively leave the Church without a visible head on earth. As an organization without a head would be incomplete and cease to function, this is a direct contradiction of the promise of Christ that the gates of Hades would not ever prevail against the Church. Ergo, to follow sedevacantism to its logical conclusion is not Christian.
It would be preferrable to see women argue for life. I think Knowles could take a cue from C S Lewis and "not indulge in futile philippics against enemies [he] never met in battle."
Regarding your breastfeeding argument: if she doesn’t have access to formula, then she clearly doesn’t have access to grocery stores, so she’s not guaranteed enough calories for herself. Should she have to put herself at risk of malnutrition to breastfeed? Of course not.
Be careful with mandatory breastfeeding arguments. Lots of mothers want to breastfeed, but can't for various medical reasons. They should not be made to feel criminalized.
Wonderfully said Trent. I wish we could have these conversations openly. Can you discuss as well why people don’t refer to the Declaration of Independence that says plainly that all people have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
When the Founding Fathers crafted and signed the Declaration of Independence; "all men are created equal" Did not mean their slaves and the indigenous savages. So it certainly didn't mean the fetuses of slaves and native savages.
When they try to say pro-life want to give a right to unborn children that no other person has, I like to remind them that every person has had the right to live in their mother’s womb, including the pro-choicer and the mother herself. It’s a unique right that everyone has at the beginning of their life until they are born.
On the 'Getting off topic' subject , if you bring up the 'would you kill a toddler' argument you run the (hopefully) small risk of turning them from pro choice to pro infanticide, when their conviction on abortion is very deep seated. I think Peter kreeft said this happened to him once when he debated a couple of pro choice women
Killing a baby should not be a solution. If your solution to a problem is murder. If you are sad about a baby being born drug addicted and the solution is to kill the baby.....did you make the babies situation better?
I find it unpersuasive when pro-aborts say we're giving them special rights that nobody is entitled to. Well pregnancy and the relationship that the prenatal human has with his/her mother is unique and therefore a special case. Why shouldn't prenatal humans be a special case?
At 23:15, when the pro abortion lady asks Knowles to give her an example where is ok to use the body of one person to save the life of other individual, she is engaging in a false analogy. _The mother is not saving the baby's life with her uterus, she is engaging in the natural process by which human beings come to existence._ An exception would be if the mother has a risky pregnancy, because she coincidentally has cancer, and having the baby will accelerate her death, but decides to deliver the baby anyways. *Then in that very particular scenario she would be saving the baby's life.*
Keeko (the one with the tattoo that looks like an overdone barbie doll) is evil through and through, she even argues that people in coma should be killed, even if those people can come out of the coma after a few years.
I think it’s best to frame the conversation as a debate over human rights. a pro-abortion-er will almost certainly claim a woman’s right to abortion, or bodily autonomy… but any right a woman has is based upon her right to life, which the pro-abortion-er is denying the child. not saying that will certainly win any debate, but if the other side is honest, it should at least make them question their own premises.
then they'll just say "we don't believe in human rights, we believe in people's rights" and will create a certain criteria based on cognition that defines a person. Even if it already hints to abit of a genocidal position, they will try to waddle in the weeds. The good thing about this line of discussion will eventually come to philosophy of the mind questions which invalidates ideas like being a transperson being an innate characteristics
18:32 couldn't this argument just be argued away by the fact that we are humans and therefore have a natural inclination to protect humans over other animals, not necessarily making it the moral thing to do?
I think the best argument for pro-abortion is to abandon any kind of principle of human dignity and just go for the social benefit approach. They can't have it both ways.
What is the social benefit? I think it could be more persuasively argued that abortion has a negative social effect. One instance of this is that as population the ages, because fewer people are having children, or having fewer children, it is more difficult to find care for the elderly. My sister-in-law talks about this in regard to Germany. She needs people to help with the care of her mother, but those people are very hard to find.
@@IG88AAA Basically, abortion is a public health issue and not allowing it limits women's freedoms and rights. Also it can impact poverty and crime rates.
@@marilynmelzian7370 I don't see any good arguments at all for abortion in any dimension, but I think they really struggles trying to align it with the dignity of human life.
For years I've argued from this standpoint. The only important question is whether the fetus is a human being or not. If it isn't, then there is no justification for restricting abortion. If it is, then there is no justification for abortion whatsoever. Pro-abortion people will either go to extremes -- extremes that they don't truly believe themselves -- to try and justify that even a near-term baby is not a human being, or they will refuse to engage with the question at all because they know their arguments fail on this count. This speaks volumes about how deluded they are. If you have to resort to a lie to prove your point, your point is a lie.
Knowles has this advantage over Trent... His tone and appearance carries the perfect amount of authority and believability. Trent convinces with well formulated arguments. Knowles has the luxury of being effective with less perfect arguments. Not fair! 😆
Nothing wrong with this, but I'd add that if he were to get angry, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is such thing as righteous anger. If he were to get angry he wouldn't necessarily be failing in being charitable.
@@dbbiggs1042 Yes, but it takes a very virtuous person to imbue that sort of righteous anger. And I don't know if he's angry or not. He may be, but he definitely does not seem to show it. Hence, I said he never seems to lose his cool. You can also be angry and not lose your cool. I am referring to the exterior actions that indicate maturity.
@@youtubecharlie1 I didn't say he was angry. I'm merely stating had he been visibly angry, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he's being less charitable or less mature.
Eh, Trent makes good points and it’s definitely great feedback. But for example, he brings up that it would be wrong to kill a person for x reasons. But there are people who would say it wouldn’t be. Ultimately Knowles is right, what is right and wrong is determined by God alone, and so to say we can determine by natural reason that it is wrong to kill a guy for x reasons is impossible.
@Arkangilos true. I don't think there's any reason to avoid bringing theology into beliefs because you can't really justify even basic moral beliefs without God. Why shouldn't I stab a man for 50$ if I know there won't be consequences? I obviously think that's wrong because God says murder is wrong but if you don't believe in God there's literally no reason I should care.
@@TheGumbyGuy The problem is that people want to frame the discussion or disagreement about abortion to be about something other than the fact that at its heart it's a deeply ethical and even religious question. It's a question of how you fundamentally see the world. And I'll argue that even professed Leftists are low-key advocating for a religion, even if they don't necessarily know what it is. So it's almost literally impossible for either side to not bring their religious ethics into the discussion.
Crossover? I don't understand - crossover what? They're both faithful Catholic men, (Knowles is a cradle Catholic) so they already "crossed the Tiber". What do you mean?
Knowles does a good job of trying to reach the other side and dialogue with them. He's doing the legwork to win hearts and minds. In general, I think he's very effective and patient. But he has some places to improve.
@@hacker4chn841 They don't engage in a good faith discussion though, they just use it as an opportunity to attack The people who are actually effective at combatting liberals are not on youtube, they are all cancelled, because intel agencies control social media. Most of the time when you debate a neoliberal, neocon etc. you're really just debating a proxy for the US military industrial complex, "woke" ideology and lgbt stuff, abortion promotion is just an extension of that domestic policy approach, and full spectrum dominance is the concept they use to justify just arbitrarily targeting or banning ideas that threaten their power. In effect if someone is shown online debating liberals they in some way benefit liberalism. For example Trent Horn is a liberal on vaccines and the question of racial egalitarianism. So these people are allowed to exist purely because they are more negatively impacting traditionalism than positively.
Michael Knowles is the one who switched me to a pro-lifer in my 30s when I'd been pro-choice since I was like 13. These are some great tips. Thank you.
That's also my experience. Not that Knowles changed me, but i suddenly started thinking about the abortion debate around 20, and realized that all my pro choice views were programmed into me. Also, wtc7.
The girl that said her morals came from common sense should know that common sense comes from Society and Society got its morals from Religion, even if Societies are now secular they retained the morals that Religion gave them. Right and Wrong came from Religion And now, because of Secularism morals are dying in Society and common sense ...
Morality existed before religion. And secular countries are still statistically better on average in areas such as crime and poverty than religious countries. My only issue with secularism is that it opens up more freedom and diversity of ideas, which is good if most citizens can think critically, but a disaster if they can't due to the extreme diversity of ideas that are generally based on feelings. Some people believe that religious countries are better, but in reality it's the same way of thinking that unites people more than religion itself. If secular countries are filled with smart people, it would work because of reason. If secular countries are filled with dumb people, but are still "brainwashed” to have a common way of thinking and living, then it would work for the same reasons as religion. It's just that the latter is less likely to happen.
"Society got its morals from Religion" Which is weird, given that for the last few centuries said religions were following and reacting to changes in societies. Slavery and abortion being great examples of that. Do you even know what "secular" means? Or are that much desperate to give the credit where it isn't due?
It's a secondary argument, because non-religious people do believe in morality, but not that it comes from God. Once you have established it's immoral to kill a child you can discuss about where morality comes from. That's what Trent meant.
Hey Trent. Question: why isn’t excommunication a more used corrective action? For example, I think politicians who support abortion have already incurred excommunication via latae sententiae but why doesn’t the pope use it more? So much misinformation on what Catholics actually believe revolves around people who call themselves Catholic and ignore the doctrines of the church. Could be a good video. I know it would educate me
I was a histology technician for over 20 years. I worked in the department of pathology at several different hospitals throughout my career. The lab receives specimens labeled “products of conception”. There were no characteristics of a human being to be seen in these specimens. They were essentially shredded clumps in the container. I had believed them to be spontaneous abortions or miscarriages until one day I saw a tiny little hand the size of the nail on my pinky finger in with all the rest of the shredded tissue. It was the most delicate and intricate little hand. I was deeply affected by this experience. The procedure that produces the specimen referred to as product of conception is one of absolute violence. I’m fact, I can’t imagine the benefits of a pathology report at this point other than the income generated by the specimen received. Think about it, the abortionist gets paid, then here’s get paid, the pharmaceuticals get paid, the pathologist get paid, the technicians get paid and the medical supply companies get paid for each specimens generated. Not to mention the newly revealed market for “fetal tissue”! Unwanted pregnancies are cash cows for the medical industrial complex. I think also, it is imperative to mention the perception of abortion being women’s healthcare, stems from the first time in history that this claim was ever made. It was 1920 and Vladimir Lenin was the first person to equate the two. His belief systems was based on Marxist ideology. This ideology lead to the enslavement and deaths of millions of people. We can see how the propaganda machine has subverted our own culture and is now giving rise to the same morals of self aggrandizement that occurred during the Bolshevik revolution. Most of these people are completely unaware of the origins of their ideals.
Marxist Leninist ideology is anti human mainly from its atheistic belief. We are however just another animal, so it is justified to kill or make a person suffer if they don’t follow your ideologies. We are lucky that we have a society in the democratic nations of the world where religion, especially Christianity has been the foundation for the structure of the society, which seems to temper these atheist ideologies.
Catholics get paid, like these 2 guys in the video, and you get paid, but you don't care if people die of starvation. Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation, compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US, even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day. Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion. So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old. You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
@@ponti5882 HA! Jesus was a socialist, and in fact said to give ALL your money to the hungry in Matt 19:21-25. Catholics laugh in the face of Jesus, and just use Him to get away with rampant child rape.
I agree with your criticism that Michael used technical jargon when simpler words would be best. I listen to Michael's show often and I knew what he was talking about. However, listening to the podcast it was clear that the ladies weren't grasping some of the things Michael was saying. Even one of ladies on the panel suggested that he sounds crazy because they weren't understanding his arguments. He spoke to them like he speaks to his audience and, honestly, they aren't as educated as his audience. We need to speak the language of our audience; that is our best chance of changing their mind.
Why the critique of another faithful Christian who is doing good work?! Why is Trent not talking about the German bishops or Francis? This is a waste of time. Michael Knowles is more popular than Trent and that is the only reason he did this video.
I was thinking the other day how I'm most confident debating this subject over many other subjects because you just keep the nucleus of the argument that a child in the womb is a human life and you don't have a right to kill an innocent human being. Many of the pro choice arguments are just distractions away from that simple truth and if you don't keep that at the center you wind up debating tangential arguments that don't supersede that principle.
Michael Knowles is right though, all morality is based on religion. Common sense didn’t tell the Romans that gladiator battles are wrong, or the Arabs that slavery was wrong, etc. etc. Humans are fallen and we literally need God for objective morality. Every irreligious person I know feels that humans are no more valuable than a cat or dog.
Morality literally predates religion, so your statements on all morals being based on religion or God being needed for objective morality are false. Your comment is a joke lol.
@Bitch D explain to me how we can OBJECTIVELY say something like murder or slavery is wrong. Ancient people didn't consider slavery wrong. I would assume you would disagree with them. On what grounds can you say slavery is morally wrong? I'd also like to see some evidence to suggest that morality existed before religion. Literally the oldest human artifacts we have are religious in nature.
@@bitchd7839 nothing predates religion. There was religion before there was time, and there's nothing you can say in response that isn't begging the question
Even as a Christian, it is pretty stupid to use that argument. So the Romans and (especially) the Arabs never had any moral values that overlapped with christianity? Paul himself appeals to universal morality in the letters to the Romans. As for your anecdote about irreligious people, you're probably lying because of your prejudice. I've known many people that were doing much more for their communities than the churches, and they didn't need to bring up God's name every time they did it, like they were waiting for a divine reward, like many religious people do.
@@ne0nmancer clears throat "You're probably lying because of your bias". Maybe don't use arguments that are trivially reversed against you. That might be a good idea right?
Why does it never get to the real problem and discuss chastity. Stop having sex before marriage. Yes it happens but way more now than in previous generations. Teach chastity and morals.
The insanely frustrating thing about the Guardian photos that that Med student brought to the interview with Knowles is that the Guardian SAID that the fetus was removed from the photos and the only thing in the dishes were the gestational sacs!! Yes they barely mentioned it and it seems intentionally misleading but that Med student is SO MISINFORMED. It drives me crazy every time someone talks about it because it’s doing so much damage socially!
Good stuff, Trent, with one major exception. Given the over-charged climate wherein too many people claim anti-white racism and police brutality as part of it, I don't care if it helps bring home one point, the example you recommend of imagining a police offer abusing a black person can easily reinforce the immoral position that such things are common occurrences. Use a different example without race being a part of it to drive home the same point. God Bless!
I love how Michal has more of an old religious point of view instead of the modern conservative vibe that were all used to from the rest of the daily wire.
A little harsh. I appreciated the “jargon section” the Knowles had talking about the levels or layers of study. He defined it. I also think the mention of religion is important. He was saying even pro-abortion is religious. He didn’t say it but it is clearly the worship of the self (aka satanism).
I also watched through the whole thing. I was getting progressively super frustrated listening to the women who thought they were saying something wise. One of the comments on their behavior was along the lines of think for yourself and stop parroting everything you see on instagram.
@@461weavile first of all, dope username. Second, that was more or less my reaction. I'm not even much older than most of them (I think one was actually a few years older than me) and it was very clear that they were immature and believed themselves to be wise for some reason. I don't even want to claim I'm wise, but these girls clearly made fools of themselves. I'm keeping them in my prayers. It's sad how lost they are and clearly lacked a good father figure (I think one of them even said her dad goes to Thailand for sex tourism purposes on a regular basis). As a father, it's so sad and they need someone to pray for them.
@@461weavile I got that Instagram vibe from them too. I have this general rule when using social media. For every short post I finish, I finish in two videos or posts that take at least 10 mins of engagement (bonus points if they are educational). It really helps my attention span not get ruined by the short and scroll-nature posts of modern social media. Instagram or Twitter or mini-videos like TikTok and TH-cam shorts can really mess up your attention span, which affect your ability to think of a topic more deeply and thoroughly.
Knowles is saying that the pro life position is religious in that all morals come from what we worship. I think it's a point that went over their heads. But trent is right, it's a secondary point.
Thank you Trent. In general, as pro-lifers I find we are really good at defending the moral status of the embryo. However, there is a whole school of pro-choice thought (Boonin/Jarvis Thompson) that accepts the moral status of the embryo, even that the embryo has rights, but then argues that the conflict of the baby's and mother's rights should be resolved in favor of the mother. Our side needs to get more familiar with arguing for resolving the conflict in favor of the baby (as Trent has done, some here, some in his debate with Boonin, and many other places)
Whose legal rights/interests are superior: baby's or mother's? That question can only be satisfactorily resolved when baby and mother have the same interests, as in a family with mother, father and baby. All have the same legal interests, generally speaking. 80% of abortions are on single women. So fornication is the driver of abortion. And divorce and mistreatment are the drivers of fornication. Abortion is legal because of man's selfishness to woman, especially with no-fault divorce designed by men for men; but also with abuse, neglect, abandonment, drunkenness, drug use, gambling, pornography, adultery and criminality: the common male vices. Abortion will NOT be outlawed until fathers get more responsible.
Have you read Francis Beckwith’s book, Defending Life? He takes on Boonin and Thomson’s arguments, but also makes a good point, that the moral status they grant to the embryo is a watered down version of what pro-lifers are claiming. That while they say, for the sake of argument, an embryo is a “person”, it’s only insofar as that would mean they have a right to life. But they don’t really delve further into what being a person would mean, like that persons are part of a moral *community* that not only have rights but also obligations and moral duties towards other persons. Thus if an embryo is a person, other persons have a duty to refrain from killing them and also to care for persons who are vulnerable.
@@jpears1367 Human mothers have never given birth to anything other than human babies. So we have proof that fetuses are human life. They grow and take nourishment, which are Biologic signs of life.
@Franci King absolutely false. The value of a human life is not impacted by the action or inaction of other people. Human life is inherently valuable, and each human life is _infinitely_ valuable. You also use a kind of circular argument. You seem to claim that abortion is justified because when men are irresponsible fathers abortion is justified. Your argument boils down to "abortion is justified because abortion is justified." Your argument would be nonsense if it were applied to someone who were born. Imagine defending infanticide by claiming that men abandoning their families is justification for women killing their newborns. Obviously, you need to somehow prove that killing an unborn child is not morally equivalent to killing a child who has already been born. This is a difficult thing to prove.
@@batglide5484 I know the value of human life is not based on the actions of other people! "You seem to claim" is based on your poor reading comprehension. My argument does not "boil down to" justifying abortion; not for any reason, whatsoever. #LearnToRead. I am anti-abortion and pro-life. You missed my points, entirely. One point I made is why and how abortion became legal. That is NOT approval. Husbands spent two centuries, and more, mistreating wives, which led to disrespect for marriage. Disrespect for marriage led to the passage of unjust no-fault divorce laws, starting in 1969. That led to the 1973 SCOTUS decision that invented a Constitutional right to abortion. The other point I made is regarding legal rights. Pro-lifers assert the rights of the baby/fetus. But pro-aborts assert the rights of the woman/mother. Formerly, both mother and fetus had the same legal interests, generally speaking. Now, for many single women and a few married women, mother and fetus don't have the same legal interests. Legally, both have rights. And whose rights are superior is a legal issue. (Not talking morals, here). Americans are so jaded now, due to the decay of our culture, that morals no longer matter to many. If pro-lifers really cared about abortion, they would focus more on the causes of abortion. But pro-lifers refuse to discuss the causes of abortion. They just shout, "abortion bad." Though that is a true statement; it's not enough. 80% of abortions are on single women. So, fornication is the driver for abortion. And high divorce rates, combined with unjust no-fault divorce laws, are the drivers for fornication. Additionally, giving up a baby for adoption can now be difficult to impossible. Practically speaking, to eliminate or reduce abortion, the drivers of abortion need to be reduced. And various laws need to be modified to be more pro-life. Just shouting "abortion bad" is not going to accomplish much.
Great video, but not sure I totally agree with all your critiques. For example, I think the purpose of using some of the more technical language is to establish himself as someone who has thought about the issue deeply and not just someone who takes a position because it's "his side." In fact, at least one of the girls seems to understand his point. Also, saying everything comes back to religion is simply true. They may not get that in the moment, but ultimately, it might bear fruit in the future. As a prudential matter, it may be wiser to not go the religion route, but I don't really know, I feel like long-term, it could be the better, more honest option. Regardless, I do think Michael should have definitively stated that what they might consider secular values are actually religious values.
Fact of the matter is anything outside of pregnancy is a false equivalence nobody is spawned in a situation where their life solely depends on their mother.
Those women on that podcast are so committed to defending abortion that in order to stay consistent they really just said murder people in comas what in the world
25:10 “… you are trying to grant fetuses rights that no other person has.” Wat? I’m pretty sure every person alive was in the fetal stage, so… literally everyone was granted this right except the “aborted”.
25:03 she frames the argument as if some external agency forced one person to give their organs to save another. She should be called on that. A baby growing in the womb is a natural process, not a forced one. It’s the result of what is in most cases voluntary actions.
He's the best brain at the Daily Wire as far as I'm concerned. I hope he sees this and gets even better at what he does.
I love how often he brings up Catholic philosophy to reason through moral philosophy. He brought me back.
@@IG88AAA same bro! I like it!
@@IG88AAA same here. I was an atheist when I started watching him, he’s the reason I’m catholic again.
Andrew Klavan is another very smart man on DW
Shapiro is a much better debater
Also, in the podcast, it was a 6 vs. 1.
Knowles deserves credit for handling it so well, even if there is stuff that we could've loved to hear him say that he didn't.
With their intellect compared to his it was basically 1 vs 6 in favor of Knowles lol
Very well said. I think we should *grant* the hardships women face in carrying a baby to term, raising him/her, or even adopting them out. And then simply ask, "What amount of hardship justifies killing an innocent child?"
This is where catholics prove they are frauds.
Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation,
compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US,
even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day.
Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion.
So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old.
You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
Sounds like a math problem
@@johanneseure6761
How is it a math problem?
@@vladtheimpala5532 Because i was doing my homework so everything was a math problem. Do we have a math problem
Pregnant women should be paid by the state. That's why childbirth is called labor. The entire pregnancy is laborious!
I could never go onto a panel like the one MK just went on. My brain would melt trying to talk sense into those women.
You can never go into an argument to talk “sense into” another person because that automatically makes you a tyrant, or at the very least, convinces the person only at shallow level. Where as soon as they leave the discussion they can easily revert back to their former opinion. What you can do is offer rational refutations of their argument in such away that they walk away with a desire look further into your positions.
@@1everydaycooldude Right, if you really want to change hearts, it's important to approach people (as these women) unpretentiously and meet them where they are. As Trent points out, it is about circling the argument back to when life actually begins (at conception)...and if they believe in life with dignity, it would be hard to deny that new perspective. And yeah, the best that we might hope for is planting a seed that they can walk away with that will hopefully grow into knowing the truth.
@@1everydaycooldude How does arguing with the intent of changing someone's mind relate to tyranny? What kind of senseless newspeak is this?
Mr. Horn, as Micheal Knowles noted today on his show, we have lost all culture wars where we refuse to use religious and philosophical terms to argue. Why not use these terms if we are going to explain what they mean? Man is a religious creature and is persuaded by such ideas and words.
Knowles is a faithful Catholic.
Good
Yet he works for a Jewish supremacist
Great video Trent. For some reason I got extremely emotional watching this. Does is bring anyone else to tears thinking about the tragic deaths of millions of unborn babies in this country?
Thank God for Michael Knowles, and great examination of real life conversations. ❤
Hi Trent, the pictures the medical student showed was actually ONLY endometrial tissue, there was no fetal tissue in the Petri dish at all. These pictures are misinformation themselves.
I am a pathologist and have seen personally what fetuses at many stages of development look like (due to ectopic pregnancies and pregnancy loss, and very sadly also elective abortions). I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I.
I can tell anyone who is interested (and show pictures of fetuses at all stages) and say for certain they are no more a “clump of cells” or unrecognizable tissue than you or I.
I'm interested could you make a video showing this on youtube so I can share it
Knowles I think is right to call out the underlying set of presuppositions of other people as their "religion" per Jung. The thing at the top of the value hierarchy and the actions and beliefs that flow from that. While it might not directly be persuasive for abortion, the woman who said she would kill people in comas because they're taking up space is the logical conclusion of the philosophy.
Too many people imagine that materialism is a default or neutral philosophy in a world of superstitious, squabbling religions. I think it is helpful to kick that stool out and make it clear that materialism and its attending presuppositions are just another set of practices and beliefs with no special place.
Best comment fr.
Materialism is self refuting. The only people who believe in materialism are those who want to do bad that they are willing to deny the strongest evidence (their own self experience) in favor of the ramblings of people they have never met.
Not exactly a high quality crowd
Every time I watch a Knowles debate on abortion,I think “huh, I think Trent would have said”. Happy Trent put this out.
Michael Knowles is awesome, so glad he’s a Catholic! He’s a good representative for us.
The 9 week abortion that "doctor" showed pissed me off. I am the mother of 4 and soon to be 5. They is not what a baby looks like at 9 weeks. Baby had little arms, legs, moving all around.
The woman is evil, she was smirking the whole time while talking about murdering children and she tried to deceive people with that picture.
To show a photograph of a dead human is a petri dish is akin to showing an aerial photograph of the Mei Lai Massacre. Just because the scale is different does not make the individual or individuals you are seeing any less human.
Simple biology destroys the belief that the zygote or early embryo is already a human being since 2 or more human beings can come from the same conception/zygote.
@@denniswakabayashi9000 Oh lord that is very wrong. You're correct that a zygote isn't A human being (singular), it's a human being(s) 1 things that could become two. It's still alive.
@@easy8690
So you don't believe the zygote is already A human human???
Of course the human zygote is alive but not a human being since 2 or more human beings can come from the same zygote.
Only an idiot would describe twinning as a human being splitting into 2 human beings!
Trent's a master on this topic.
God bless you Trent!
It would be great to listen to Trent and Michael speak with each other.
Iron sharpens iron my friend. A very thoughtful critique
I like Knowles, he's a very sharp man. One of the people that converted me to Catholicism.
To be fair with the technical language in the clip you gave he did define those terms...or at least defined what he meant by them even if those are not the actual definitions.
In the last section, Bodily Rights Arguments, the med student asks: "Can you tell me a scenario where one person is forced to use their body to save the life of another individual?" The answer to this is simple: parenthood in general. You are obligated both morally and by law to sustain your child and keep them alive to the best of your ability
Excellent video Trent, very helpful.
Regarding “walking a toddler out”, could you say something like: “what if I just couldn’t afford college for my kid, should I be able to abort my 15 year old?”
"Oh, I got fired from my job and can't seem to find another one quickly, I guess I will have to murder my 2 children now." That's the logical conclusion one of the most used pro-choice arguments comes to, quite a solid argument, don't you think!
Hey Trent. I am firmly protestant and disagree with you strongly on a lot of theology. However I have been watching some of your videos lately and content like this video is excellent. I love the logical and reasonable takes you offer on important issues like abortion, homosexuality, and how we approach science. Keep it up and I pray that God reveals more of His truth to us both.
The “special rights” argument cuts in both directions. We either have to give the fetus a right that no one else has (ie using someone’s body against their will) or we have to give the woman a right that no one else has (ie killing an innocent human being).
Michael was smart to admit that pregnancy is unique, but I wish he had pointed out that abortion is also unique
Holy crap... I'm so glad there are people who believe in the life of an unborn child.
It's rare to find anyone who supports this sort of logical reasoning, even though I see it to be basically objective in its moral support of unborn children.
You and the person discussing on the side of pro life in this are way better at discussing their arguments than me, and I believe you have the potential to save a lot of peoples lives.
Oh yeah, I was at 14:50 when I paused to make that comment...
Whoever was in this video you are reviewing definitely fucked up by bringing up religion at this point, basically perpetuating the myth that religion is deeply ingrained in the morality of abortion when that is literally a falsity used to disregard pro life in its entirety.
Abortion is wrong when discussing ideas upon the value of the individual human organism alone, which is the secular reasoning I use and the talk show host used up until that point, then completely and utterly dropped the ball...
28:30 I feel that could be worded better however, I believe that implying acts itself are what causes obligation, that could be interpreted as punishment, which is not the reason of obligation in the slightest.
But the existence of a fetus in itself is the obligation in any scenario, as regardless of previous circumstance the end result was a new life in this world, and that individual must be maintained or we would lose an unborn human life.
Thank you for your comments! -Vanessa
The reason Knowles does not "fully rebut" the final, body-rights argument is that the bodily-rights argument cannot be rebutted. This is because it is correct, and decisive.
The breastfeeding argument depends on the idea that compelled breat-feeding is only a trivial violation of bodily autonomy. It doesn't prove anything about a non-trivial violation, such as compelled labor-and-delivery.
No, abortion is not like taking back a kidney. The woman who aborts isn't take anything back; she is refusing to give more.
The "what is the organ _for"_ argument is a load of govno. Intrinsic teleology was disproved long ago.
The liver has thousands of different functions.
The uterus is not "made for" anything.
Right-to-lifers need to stop saying "naturally", "natural function", "natural purpose", etc. You are -falling- stepping into the NATURALISTIC FALLACY. (look it up).
YT badge of honor.
I want to point this out for you, Trent, in case you still haven't seen this anywhere yet - that specific picture she shows of the aborted 'fetus' (because it's not the fetus, that's why the quotations) - that picture is LITERALLY just the gestational sac with everything else, the embryo or fetus (since it's unclear whether we're talking about 9 weeks GA or 9 weeks since LMP) included, removed. All the blood & tissue was removed, & the actual baby was removed, & only the gestational sac remains. The publication that originally put out that photo even admits this in their own caption for the photo. So, that's not even a damaged fetus that is now unrecognizable or one too small. And at 9 weeks, they would DEFINITELY not be too small to see anyway. That's just the sac.
That's one of the most dishonest uses of a photo I've ever seen.
I still am always shocked when I hear some of the pro-choice arguments. Lord, have mercy!
Trent, me and my husband disagree strongly on the topic of sedevacantism. He has gone from Protestant to Sedevacantist "Catholic", and it hurts both of us to argue on this matter. I am not an apologist so I cannot explain my position very well. Would really appreciate a comprehensive video explaining why sedevancantism is incorrect. Love your channel
Every organization requires a "head" to be complete and continue to function. The office of the Papacy - Christ's representative on earth - is the "head" of the Catholic Church on earth. To be sedevacantist is to claim that the seat to the See of Peter is empty. It denies the legitimacy of the Pope, which if true would effectively leave the Church without a visible head on earth. As an organization without a head would be incomplete and cease to function, this is a direct contradiction of the promise of Christ that the gates of Hades would not ever prevail against the Church. Ergo, to follow sedevacantism to its logical conclusion is not Christian.
Read what the sspx says about sedevacantism, it is an error
Michael Knowles is awesome, that guy has my absolute respect.
It would be preferrable to see women argue for life. I think Knowles could take a cue from C S Lewis and "not indulge in futile philippics against enemies [he] never met in battle."
Regarding your breastfeeding argument: if she doesn’t have access to formula, then she clearly doesn’t have access to grocery stores, so she’s not guaranteed enough calories for herself. Should she have to put herself at risk of malnutrition to breastfeed? Of course not.
Surprised nobody brought up conjoined twins.
Be careful with mandatory breastfeeding arguments. Lots of mothers want to breastfeed, but can't for various medical reasons. They should not be made to feel criminalized.
Good advice. But I would say Michaels responses were better than what you recommended.
Wonderfully said Trent. I wish we could have these conversations openly.
Can you discuss as well why people don’t refer to the Declaration of Independence that says plainly that all people have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness
When the Founding Fathers crafted and signed the Declaration of Independence;
"all men are created equal"
Did not mean their slaves and the indigenous savages.
So it certainly didn't mean the fetuses of slaves and native savages.
When they try to say pro-life want to give a right to unborn children that no other person has, I like to remind them that every person has had the right to live in their mother’s womb, including the pro-choicer and the mother herself. It’s a unique right that everyone has at the beginning of their life until they are born.
On the 'Getting off topic' subject , if you bring up the 'would you kill a toddler' argument you run the (hopefully) small risk of turning them from pro choice to pro infanticide, when their conviction on abortion is very deep seated. I think Peter kreeft said this happened to him once when he debated a couple of pro choice women
Killing a baby should not be a solution. If your solution to a problem is murder. If you are sad about a baby being born drug addicted and the solution is to kill the baby.....did you make the babies situation better?
great points Trent
This is my first video with the new office and it looks SOOOO good!
This was so, so helpful. Thank you
This video is very helpful. Thank you.
Is there a second edition of Persuasive Pro-Life that will be coming out soon?
I find it unpersuasive when pro-aborts say we're giving them special rights that nobody is entitled to. Well pregnancy and the relationship that the prenatal human has with his/her mother is unique and therefore a special case. Why shouldn't prenatal humans be a special case?
Knowles is just being honest- in the end if there’s no God, you can abort. Honesty is important in these discussions
At 23:15, when the pro abortion lady asks Knowles to give her an example where is ok to use the body of one person to save the life of other individual, she is engaging in a false analogy. _The mother is not saving the baby's life with her uterus, she is engaging in the natural process by which human beings come to existence._
An exception would be if the mother has a risky pregnancy, because she coincidentally has cancer, and having the baby will accelerate her death, but decides to deliver the baby anyways. *Then in that very particular scenario she would be saving the baby's life.*
you should reach out to Knowles and do an interview!
This student is void of conscience. It’s terrifying knowing she would be physician with her sense of values.
YT is such trash for there “context” adding and most likely suppressing the conversation on YT
Pro-choicers don’t except the unborn is human most the time.
Keeko (the one with the tattoo that looks like an overdone barbie doll) is evil through and through, she even argues that people in coma should be killed, even if those people can come out of the coma after a few years.
Would Conjoined twins not meet the Med Student's requirement of using ones body to save the life of another?
I adopted two special needs kids and my son is black is the best pro life advocate
Very insightful that analogy to fondling a comatose woman, the inheritance part I think it wouldn't fly
I think it’s best to frame the conversation as a debate over human rights. a pro-abortion-er will almost certainly claim a woman’s right to abortion, or bodily autonomy… but any right a woman has is based upon her right to life, which the pro-abortion-er is denying the child.
not saying that will certainly win any debate, but if the other side is honest, it should at least make them question their own premises.
then they'll just say "we don't believe in human rights, we believe in people's rights" and will create a certain criteria based on cognition that defines a person. Even if it already hints to abit of a genocidal position, they will try to waddle in the weeds. The good thing about this line of discussion will eventually come to philosophy of the mind questions which invalidates ideas like being a transperson being an innate characteristics
What is that silly call-out box at the top with a description on abortion? That is posted because...?
18:32 couldn't this argument just be argued away by the fact that we are humans and therefore have a natural inclination to protect humans over other animals, not necessarily making it the moral thing to do?
Thankyou sir, more unborn will be saved🙏
I think the best argument for pro-abortion is to abandon any kind of principle of human dignity and just go for the social benefit approach. They can't have it both ways.
Can you expand the social benefit approach? Can’t say I’ve heard of it.
What is the social benefit? I think it could be more persuasively argued that abortion has a negative social effect. One instance of this is that as population the ages, because fewer people are having children, or having fewer children, it is more difficult to find care for the elderly. My sister-in-law talks about this in regard to Germany. She needs people to help with the care of her mother, but those people are very hard to find.
@@IG88AAA Basically, abortion is a public health issue and not allowing it limits women's freedoms and rights. Also it can impact poverty and crime rates.
@@marilynmelzian7370 I don't see any good arguments at all for abortion in any dimension, but I think they really struggles trying to align it with the dignity of human life.
They've already abandoned any kind of principle. Exposing their pretenses requires re-establishing the principle of human dignity.
I heard the phrase, "Yes. But." several times. What does, "Yes. But." mean?
For years I've argued from this standpoint. The only important question is whether the fetus is a human being or not. If it isn't, then there is no justification for restricting abortion. If it is, then there is no justification for abortion whatsoever. Pro-abortion people will either go to extremes -- extremes that they don't truly believe themselves -- to try and justify that even a near-term baby is not a human being, or they will refuse to engage with the question at all because they know their arguments fail on this count. This speaks volumes about how deluded they are.
If you have to resort to a lie to prove your point, your point is a lie.
Knowles has this advantage over Trent... His tone and appearance carries the perfect amount of authority and believability. Trent convinces with well formulated arguments. Knowles has the luxury of being effective with less perfect arguments. Not fair! 😆
Trent please go on the whatever podcast
My key takeaway is Trent Horn needs to be on the Whatever podcast 😂 Daniel in the Lions den.
trent and Laura, married couple vs degenerate modern women
I can't even begin to imagine how that exchange would go down lol
Knowles would still do better.
@T S Maybe but that's not really the point. It would still be fun to see Trent on the show.
Lions den = thot cavern
A big thing, too, is that Knowles is very good at being charitable in these situations. He never seems to lose his cool.
It's honestly amazing, lol. I could never.
@@stefanielozinski charity is an act of will. It is difficult for some, but it has nothing to do with how you feel, it's a decision you make
Nothing wrong with this, but I'd add that if he were to get angry, there's nothing inherently wrong with that. There is such thing as righteous anger. If he were to get angry he wouldn't necessarily be failing in being charitable.
@@dbbiggs1042 Yes, but it takes a very virtuous person to imbue that sort of righteous anger. And I don't know if he's angry or not. He may be, but he definitely does not seem to show it. Hence, I said he never seems to lose his cool. You can also be angry and not lose your cool. I am referring to the exterior actions that indicate maturity.
@@youtubecharlie1 I didn't say he was angry. I'm merely stating had he been visibly angry, that wouldn't necessarily mean that he's being less charitable or less mature.
I've grown in my admiration for MK over the last couple of years. Trent is correct here, though.
Eh, Trent makes good points and it’s definitely great feedback. But for example, he brings up that it would be wrong to kill a person for x reasons.
But there are people who would say it wouldn’t be. Ultimately Knowles is right, what is right and wrong is determined by God alone, and so to say we can determine by natural reason that it is wrong to kill a guy for x reasons is impossible.
@Arkangilos true. I don't think there's any reason to avoid bringing theology into beliefs because you can't really justify even basic moral beliefs without God. Why shouldn't I stab a man for 50$ if I know there won't be consequences? I obviously think that's wrong because God says murder is wrong but if you don't believe in God there's literally no reason I should care.
@@TheGumbyGuy
The problem is that people want to frame the discussion or disagreement about abortion to be about something other than the fact that at its heart it's a deeply ethical and even religious question. It's a question of how you fundamentally see the world.
And I'll argue that even professed Leftists are low-key advocating for a religion, even if they don't necessarily know what it is. So it's almost literally impossible for either side to not bring their religious ethics into the discussion.
@@TheGumbyGuy ikr
Trent and Knowles crossover pleaseee!
Crossover? I don't understand - crossover what? They're both faithful Catholic men, (Knowles is a cradle Catholic) so they already "crossed the Tiber". What do you mean?
@@prolifepac2008 like crossover between marvel films, you know like Iron Man and Spiderman kind of thing 🤣
@@prolifepac2008 He meant a video together 😂
@@prolifepac2008somebody didn’t understand the assignment
Knowles does a good job of trying to reach the other side and dialogue with them. He's doing the legwork to win hearts and minds. In general, I think he's very effective and patient. But he has some places to improve.
Why would you want to dialogue with liberals? It's a waste of time.
@@robertcross9047 because they too are made in the image and likeness of God and loved by Him just as we are and He desires their salvation...
@@hacker4chn841 They don't engage in a good faith discussion though, they just use it as an opportunity to attack
The people who are actually effective at combatting liberals are not on youtube, they are all cancelled, because intel agencies control social media. Most of the time when you debate a neoliberal, neocon etc. you're really just debating a proxy for the US military industrial complex, "woke" ideology and lgbt stuff, abortion promotion is just an extension of that domestic policy approach, and full spectrum dominance is the concept they use to justify just arbitrarily targeting or banning ideas that threaten their power.
In effect if someone is shown online debating liberals they in some way benefit liberalism. For example Trent Horn is a liberal on vaccines and the question of racial egalitarianism. So these people are allowed to exist purely because they are more negatively impacting traditionalism than positively.
@@robertcross9047 in order to expose their audiences to arguments that they will never even hear otherwise.
@@Jamesmatise read my response above to the other guy
Michael Knowles is the one who switched me to a pro-lifer in my 30s when I'd been pro-choice since I was like 13. These are some great tips. Thank you.
Peace and blessings
Lila Rose on Pints with Aquinas did it for me. ❤
Out of curiosity, what was it he said that changed your mind?
That's also my experience. Not that Knowles changed me, but i suddenly started thinking about the abortion debate around 20, and realized that all my pro choice views were programmed into me.
Also, wtc7.
Same here. It as actually the daily wire abortion doc that Knowles was apart of that did it for me
I watch Knowles with some regularity and I love the fact that he bring his Catholic Faith and God into most topics ! 😃
That Whatever Podcast featuring Knowles is 5 hours long.
Sounds like torture
It was good I watched that debate in different stints
God bless him for doing that.
and it took their five minds to even hold their end of the convo with MK.
The girl that said her morals came from common sense should know that common sense comes from Society and Society got its morals from Religion, even if Societies are now secular they retained the morals that Religion gave them. Right and Wrong came from Religion
And now, because of Secularism morals are dying in Society and common sense ...
Morality existed before religion. And secular countries are still statistically better on average in areas such as crime and poverty than religious countries. My only issue with secularism is that it opens up more freedom and diversity of ideas, which is good if most citizens can think critically, but a disaster if they can't due to the extreme diversity of ideas that are generally based on feelings. Some people believe that religious countries are better, but in reality it's the same way of thinking that unites people more than religion itself.
If secular countries are filled with smart people, it would work because of reason. If secular countries are filled with dumb people, but are still "brainwashed” to have a common way of thinking and living, then it would work for the same reasons as religion. It's just that the latter is less likely to happen.
"Society got its morals from Religion"
Which is weird, given that for the last few centuries said religions were following and reacting to changes in societies. Slavery and abortion being great examples of that. Do you even know what "secular" means? Or are that much desperate to give the credit where it isn't due?
It's TH-cam with the so called "context" for me🙄.
I think Knowles’ argument that it ultimately comes down to religion is rock solid. It’s grounded in the moral argument for God.
It's a secondary argument, because non-religious people do believe in morality, but not that it comes from God. Once you have established it's immoral to kill a child you can discuss about where morality comes from. That's what Trent meant.
Hey Trent. Question: why isn’t excommunication a more used corrective action? For example, I think politicians who support abortion have already incurred excommunication via latae sententiae but why doesn’t the pope use it more? So much misinformation on what Catholics actually believe revolves around people who call themselves Catholic and ignore the doctrines of the church. Could be a good video. I know it would educate me
I was a histology technician for over 20 years. I worked in the department of pathology at several different hospitals throughout my career.
The lab receives specimens labeled “products of conception”. There were no characteristics of a human being to be seen in these specimens. They were essentially shredded clumps in the container. I had believed them to be spontaneous abortions or miscarriages until one day I saw a tiny little hand the size of the nail on my pinky finger in with all the rest of the shredded tissue. It was the most delicate and intricate little hand. I was deeply affected by this experience.
The procedure that produces the specimen referred to as product of conception is one of absolute violence. I’m fact, I can’t imagine the benefits of a pathology report at this point other than the income generated by the specimen received.
Think about it, the abortionist gets paid, then here’s get paid, the pharmaceuticals get paid, the pathologist get paid, the technicians get paid and the medical supply companies get paid for each specimens generated. Not to mention the newly revealed market for “fetal tissue”! Unwanted pregnancies are cash cows for the medical industrial complex.
I think also, it is imperative to mention the perception of abortion being women’s healthcare, stems from the first time in history that this claim was ever made. It was 1920 and Vladimir Lenin was the first person to equate the two. His belief systems was based on Marxist ideology. This ideology lead to the enslavement and deaths of millions of people. We can see how the propaganda machine has subverted our own culture and is now giving rise to the same morals of self aggrandizement that occurred during the Bolshevik revolution. Most of these people are completely unaware of the origins of their ideals.
Very insightful. Thank you. Ο Θεός να ευλογεί.
Marxist Leninist ideology is anti human mainly from its atheistic belief. We are however just another animal, so it is justified to kill or make a person suffer if they don’t follow your ideologies. We are lucky that we have a society in the democratic nations of the world where religion, especially Christianity has been the foundation for the structure of the society, which seems to temper these atheist ideologies.
Catholics get paid, like these 2 guys in the video, and you get paid, but you don't care if people die of starvation.
Catholics let 25,000 people die worldwide every day from starvation,
compared to under 1,800 abortions in the US,
even though US catholics could save all the starving for $1.20 each per day.
Starving those 25,000 people to death every day is more than TEN TIMES the sin of abortion.
So when the "hardship" is a cost of $1.20 a day, catholics are more than happy to let TEN TIMES as may innocent people die, and about a third are children under 5 years old.
You think God is an idiot and doens't know this?
Socialism and its consequences 😢
@@ponti5882
HA!
Jesus was a socialist, and in fact said to give ALL your money to the hungry in Matt 19:21-25.
Catholics laugh in the face of Jesus, and just use Him to get away with rampant child rape.
I would love to see Michael and Trent have a conversation together. I appreciate these videos Trent does. They are very helpful.
I agree with your criticism that Michael used technical jargon when simpler words would be best. I listen to Michael's show often and I knew what he was talking about. However, listening to the podcast it was clear that the ladies weren't grasping some of the things Michael was saying. Even one of ladies on the panel suggested that he sounds crazy because they weren't understanding his arguments. He spoke to them like he speaks to his audience and, honestly, they aren't as educated as his audience. We need to speak the language of our audience; that is our best chance of changing their mind.
A very charitable critique and certainly very helpful for everyone who wants to engage in pro life apologetics. Thank you Trent!
Why the critique of another faithful Christian who is doing good work?! Why is Trent not talking about the German bishops or Francis? This is a waste of time.
Michael Knowles is more popular than Trent and that is the only reason he did this video.
@@verum-in-omnibus1035 Trent made a whole about why he doesn't do ecclesial drama, and he also did a video on the German Bishops. Be at peace.
I was thinking the other day how I'm most confident debating this subject over many other subjects because you just keep the nucleus of the argument that a child in the womb is a human life and you don't have a right to kill an innocent human being. Many of the pro choice arguments are just distractions away from that simple truth and if you don't keep that at the center you wind up debating tangential arguments that don't supersede that principle.
Michael Knowles is right though, all morality is based on religion. Common sense didn’t tell the Romans that gladiator battles are wrong, or the Arabs that slavery was wrong, etc. etc. Humans are fallen and we literally need God for objective morality. Every irreligious person I know feels that humans are no more valuable than a cat or dog.
Morality literally predates religion, so your statements on all morals being based on religion or God being needed for objective morality are false. Your comment is a joke lol.
@Bitch D explain to me how we can OBJECTIVELY say something like murder or slavery is wrong. Ancient people didn't consider slavery wrong. I would assume you would disagree with them. On what grounds can you say slavery is morally wrong? I'd also like to see some evidence to suggest that morality existed before religion. Literally the oldest human artifacts we have are religious in nature.
@@bitchd7839 nothing predates religion. There was religion before there was time, and there's nothing you can say in response that isn't begging the question
Even as a Christian, it is pretty stupid to use that argument. So the Romans and (especially) the Arabs never had any moral values that overlapped with christianity? Paul himself appeals to universal morality in the letters to the Romans.
As for your anecdote about irreligious people, you're probably lying because of your prejudice. I've known many people that were doing much more for their communities than the churches, and they didn't need to bring up God's name every time they did it, like they were waiting for a divine reward, like many religious people do.
@@ne0nmancer clears throat
"You're probably lying because of your bias".
Maybe don't use arguments that are trivially reversed against you. That might be a good idea right?
Why does it never get to the real problem and discuss chastity. Stop having sex before marriage. Yes it happens but way more now than in previous generations. Teach chastity and morals.
Trying to stop a runaway train all at once only results in a - you guessed it - trainwreck.
Loved your book on persuasive prolife arguments🎉 way to go Trent!
The insanely frustrating thing about the Guardian photos that that Med student brought to the interview with Knowles is that the Guardian SAID that the fetus was removed from the photos and the only thing in the dishes were the gestational sacs!! Yes they barely mentioned it and it seems intentionally misleading but that Med student is SO MISINFORMED. It drives me crazy every time someone talks about it because it’s doing so much damage socially!
That woman is deceptive and evil.
Good stuff, Trent, with one major exception. Given the over-charged climate wherein too many people claim anti-white racism and police brutality as part of it, I don't care if it helps bring home one point, the example you recommend of imagining a police offer abusing a black person can easily reinforce the immoral position that such things are common occurrences. Use a different example without race being a part of it to drive home the same point.
God Bless!
I love how Michal has more of an old religious point of view instead of the modern conservative vibe that were all used to from the rest of the daily wire.
I appreciate the effort put into "time stamps" in the description section.
A little harsh. I appreciated the “jargon section” the Knowles had talking about the levels or layers of study. He defined it.
I also think the mention of religion is important. He was saying even pro-abortion is religious. He didn’t say it but it is clearly the worship of the self (aka satanism).
The Whatever podcast was a disaster and showed how unhinged a lot of younger women are these days. I watched 5 hours of that. It was tough...
I also watched through the whole thing. I was getting progressively super frustrated listening to the women who thought they were saying something wise. One of the comments on their behavior was along the lines of think for yourself and stop parroting everything you see on instagram.
I quit after 2 hours (at 1.5 speed). I figured I’d just watch the good clips later because my brain was rotting listening to these women
@@461weavile first of all, dope username. Second, that was more or less my reaction. I'm not even much older than most of them (I think one was actually a few years older than me) and it was very clear that they were immature and believed themselves to be wise for some reason. I don't even want to claim I'm wise, but these girls clearly made fools of themselves.
I'm keeping them in my prayers. It's sad how lost they are and clearly lacked a good father figure (I think one of them even said her dad goes to Thailand for sex tourism purposes on a regular basis). As a father, it's so sad and they need someone to pray for them.
@@461weavile I got that Instagram vibe from them too. I have this general rule when using social media. For every short post I finish, I finish in two videos or posts that take at least 10 mins of engagement (bonus points if they are educational). It really helps my attention span not get ruined by the short and scroll-nature posts of modern social media. Instagram or Twitter or mini-videos like TikTok and TH-cam shorts can really mess up your attention span, which affect your ability to think of a topic more deeply and thoroughly.
Knowles is saying that the pro life position is religious in that all morals come from what we worship. I think it's a point that went over their heads.
But trent is right, it's a secondary point.
Of course it goes over their heads with such a low IQ.
Thank you Trent. In general, as pro-lifers I find we are really good at defending the moral status of the embryo. However, there is a whole school of pro-choice thought (Boonin/Jarvis Thompson) that accepts the moral status of the embryo, even that the embryo has rights, but then argues that the conflict of the baby's and mother's rights should be resolved in favor of the mother. Our side needs to get more familiar with arguing for resolving the conflict in favor of the baby (as Trent has done, some here, some in his debate with Boonin, and many other places)
Whose legal rights/interests are superior: baby's or mother's? That question can only be satisfactorily resolved when baby and mother have the same interests, as in a family with mother, father and baby. All have the same legal interests, generally speaking. 80% of abortions are on single women. So fornication is the driver of abortion. And divorce and mistreatment are the drivers of fornication.
Abortion is legal because of man's selfishness to woman, especially with no-fault divorce designed by men for men; but also with abuse, neglect, abandonment, drunkenness, drug use, gambling, pornography, adultery and criminality: the common male vices. Abortion will NOT be outlawed until fathers get more responsible.
Have you read Francis Beckwith’s book, Defending Life? He takes on Boonin and Thomson’s arguments, but also makes a good point, that the moral status they grant to the embryo is a watered down version of what pro-lifers are claiming. That while they say, for the sake of argument, an embryo is a “person”, it’s only insofar as that would mean they have a right to life. But they don’t really delve further into what being a person would mean, like that persons are part of a moral *community* that not only have rights but also obligations and moral duties towards other persons. Thus if an embryo is a person, other persons have a duty to refrain from killing them and also to care for persons who are vulnerable.
@@jpears1367 Human mothers have never given birth to anything other than human babies. So we have proof that fetuses are human life. They grow and take nourishment, which are Biologic signs of life.
@Franci King absolutely false. The value of a human life is not impacted by the action or inaction of other people. Human life is inherently valuable, and each human life is _infinitely_ valuable.
You also use a kind of circular argument. You seem to claim that abortion is justified because when men are irresponsible fathers abortion is justified. Your argument boils down to "abortion is justified because abortion is justified." Your argument would be nonsense if it were applied to someone who were born. Imagine defending infanticide by claiming that men abandoning their families is justification for women killing their newborns. Obviously, you need to somehow prove that killing an unborn child is not morally equivalent to killing a child who has already been born. This is a difficult thing to prove.
@@batglide5484 I know the value of human life is not based on the actions of other people! "You seem to claim" is based on your poor reading comprehension. My argument does not "boil down to" justifying abortion; not for any reason, whatsoever. #LearnToRead. I am anti-abortion and pro-life.
You missed my points, entirely. One point I made is why and how abortion became legal. That is NOT approval. Husbands spent two centuries, and more, mistreating wives, which led to disrespect for marriage. Disrespect for marriage led to the passage of unjust no-fault divorce laws, starting in 1969. That led to the 1973 SCOTUS decision that invented a Constitutional right to abortion.
The other point I made is regarding legal rights. Pro-lifers assert the rights of the baby/fetus. But pro-aborts assert the rights of the woman/mother. Formerly, both mother and fetus had the same legal interests, generally speaking. Now, for many single women and a few married women, mother and fetus don't have the same legal interests. Legally, both have rights. And whose rights are superior is a legal issue. (Not talking morals, here). Americans are so jaded now, due to the decay of our culture, that morals no longer matter to many.
If pro-lifers really cared about abortion, they would focus more on the causes of abortion. But pro-lifers refuse to discuss the causes of abortion. They just shout, "abortion bad." Though that is a true statement; it's not enough. 80% of abortions are on single women. So, fornication is the driver for abortion. And high divorce rates, combined with unjust no-fault divorce laws, are the drivers for fornication. Additionally, giving up a baby for adoption can now be difficult to impossible.
Practically speaking, to eliminate or reduce abortion, the drivers of abortion need to be reduced. And various laws need to be modified to be more pro-life. Just shouting "abortion bad" is not going to accomplish much.
Great video, but not sure I totally agree with all your critiques. For example, I think the purpose of using some of the more technical language is to establish himself as someone who has thought about the issue deeply and not just someone who takes a position because it's "his side." In fact, at least one of the girls seems to understand his point.
Also, saying everything comes back to religion is simply true. They may not get that in the moment, but ultimately, it might bear fruit in the future. As a prudential matter, it may be wiser to not go the religion route, but I don't really know, I feel like long-term, it could be the better, more honest option. Regardless, I do think Michael should have definitively stated that what they might consider secular values are actually religious values.
Fact of the matter is anything outside of pregnancy is a false equivalence nobody is spawned in a situation where their life solely depends on their mother.
Those women on that podcast are so committed to defending abortion that in order to stay consistent they really just said murder people in comas what in the world
25:10 “… you are trying to grant fetuses rights that no other person has.”
Wat?
I’m pretty sure every person alive was in the fetal stage, so… literally everyone was granted this right except the “aborted”.
and everyone lost those rights upon birth. Keep up
25:03 she frames the argument as if some external agency forced one person to give their organs to save another. She should be called on that. A baby growing in the womb is a natural process, not a forced one. It’s the result of what is in most cases voluntary actions.
23:39 I can Describe a Scenario (that even she agrees with) ..... LATE TERM ABORTION