Valley Stina But requires strength to do so, especially in the face of criticism from those closest to you and risk of being shunned. That is how people avoid changing their minds. Find the strength to do so!
@@seanyouknowwho798 , Greetings to you in the name of Jesus Christ!!! Amen!!! One would have to be in fear, to not have courage to stand for what one believes in!!! Amen!!! All that is really required to stand and or change is first a willing mind!!! Amen!!! Amen!!! All actions are performed through the willingness of others!!! It is not about the strength or the weakness!!! When one is not willing, then there shall be resistance!!! Amen!!! HELLOOOOOO!!!
@itsallgreektome JC with all due respect. That's not what Jesus said..Matthew 7 states Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' In fact the bible tells we are to judge fellow Christians..1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” Your salvation should be evident not in the things you say....but the way you live...
@itsallgreektome JC where did I mention the law? The bible says for by grace are you saved through faith. I am stating just because someone says they are a Christian does not make them one. Just as Jesus says you judge a tree by the fruit it produces.
0:00:00 Event Introduction 0:07:11 Dr. Adams's Opening Statement 0:24:26 Dr. Parker's Opening Statement 0:42:01 Dr. Adams's 1st Rebuttal 0:51:42 Dr. Parker's 1st Rebuttal 0:58:07 Dr. Adams's Cross Ex. of Dr. Parker 1:05:17 Dr. Parker's Cross Ex. of Dr. Adams 1:13:17 Q&A + Q1 for Dr. Parker 1:15:27 Q2 for Dr. Adams 1:16:28 Q3 for both 1:19:43 Q4 for Dr. Adams 1:24:43 Q5 for Dr. Parker 1:28:24 Q6 for Dr. Adams 1:30:14 Q7 for Dr. Parker 1:34:52 Q8 for Dr. Adams 1:36:29 Q9 for Dr. Parker 1:40:01 Dr. Adams's Closing Statement 1:44:05 Dr. Parker's Closing Statement 1:48:24 College Dems President Final Statement
RIP to Mike Adams, he was a man of courage. I met him at Summit a couple summers ago, and he changed my life. I can only imagine he's resting in heaven now❤️
@@gamma3563 he was a public speaker and was very open about his religious and political beliefs, he was constantly attacked and harassed. I don't know the whole story, all I know is I met him a couple years ago and he was a great speaker and very funny and intelligent. I don't know how he passed or what caused him to end his life.
Parker (in closing statement): I am paid to "respect" women. He acts like this is some charitable thing he's doing but in actuality he has made himself rich "respecting" women by giving them abortions without question (which leads me to wonder how he can possibly deny abortions on the basis of sex or race since he literally said he doesn't ask a woman why she's choosing an abortion).
They want an abortion to end a pregnancy. Thats why they are choosing an abortion. Whats the mystery and obsession with asking why? I'm guessing you want to judge if the reason is good enough for you. Luckily the law states thats not a requirement
@@Chris-Smith Parker's the one who says he won't do an abortion on the basis of gender or sex discrimination. So he's clearly concerned with the woman's reasons. Otherwise he wouldn't need to claim that.
He's basically saying if women pay him to respect them he will continue giving abortions. If he was giving abortions for free he probably would be against it. This man is just protecting his pockets
I like to commend the moderator. She did a wonderful job of being fair on both sides and keeping order. This is the first time I've seen the crowd so emotionally charged and could have made the debate less productive with their questioning and clapping. Great job not letting this debate get out of hand.
It's: 1.Life 2.Liberty 3. The Pursuit of Happiness The order is important and is listed in descending level of importance. Someone does not get to choose anything that endangers your life but they can make a choice that threatens your pursuit of happiness. Life and the protection of it is above all else.
Holy cow. Dr. Willie's arguments were increadibly weak. Dr. Mike was a bit aggressive, but Dr. Willie's first rebuttle ignored Dr. Mikes arguments entirely.
I think the aggression is justified in this case. He’s sitting ten feet away from one of the most prolific, remorseless mass-murderers in human history. Such a person often has to have their cage shaken pretty hard before they will become open to the idea that they are in need of God’s forgiveness. This can be accomplished through the direct movement of the Holy Spirit, or through someone acting as His agent
I don't know if I can hold my aggression if I were to sit and debate with a child molester or child killer. This parker guy kills 20.000 (probably way more) and shown no remorse at all.
Me too Ginny. I didn’t know him but have followed he and Frank Turek online. What a wonderful mind God blessed him with! I am having a difficult time believing he took his own life! ☹️
Killing a baby is immoral and he had fought passionately for this cause, I am having a hard time believing as well that he took his own life. 😢He values these babies so much. The fight against abortion isn't over yet. 😭We lost a soldier when more than ever we need one. 😭In the memorial services of Dr. Mike Adams, there was this instance when he was alive that he asked himself if he made a difference mentioned in his friend's eulogy It is saddening. I don't know him personally as well but I am so much heartbroken.
I am deeply sorry to hear that he has passed and I pray for God's comfort and peace to be with all who are grieving. I also pray that the seeds he planted will bear much fruit and that his passion for the defense of human life will continue through others.
Yes Mike's life is another innocent snuffed out. He fought for life, he would never ever have taken his own. This man was murdered, as are the babies that Willie has murdered.
So easy to say "Im a Christian" ---Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
metallicbaldwin Abortion is murder. A murderer can be forgiven if he or she, like the woman caught in the act of adultery, is repentant. Someone who murders again and again might one day be redeemed if he came to realize his sin. I don’t believe Dr. Parker will see the Lord after he dies unless he repents of all the murders he has committed. I think it is sad that the murderer is a man of color. Most men of color, whether black or brown, are pro-life, I think.
@@annbrucepineda8093 i don't even use the word abortion any longer, nor termination of a pregnancy, or any other euphemism. It's sanctioned murder plain and simple, and the law of murder needs to be upheld for every human.
@@metallicbaldwin if it wasn't murder, there wouldn't be a thing called abortion survivors. I don't know why it's never brought up in debates. Lots of babies survive the abortion and are alive today and have written books. Some of them have ko legs because they were ripped off in the womb. If it wasn't murder, and if it wasn't a life, then how in the heck does it survive sometimes.
That's irrelevant. God's judgement, if such a thing even exists, occurs in an afterlife, an imagined world beyond this one. How does that affect what we decide to do here, in the world we experience?
@@yorkiem0m That still doesn't answer the rhetorical question. The answer is that it doesn't affect our world. It's not a two was stream, judgment after death does nothing in this world. Some have a reason to believe they will be judged, and act accordingly, but that's the the result of the judgement, but of their belief: current belief. Actions and ideas that are here in the real world with real consequences.
Well, it's hard to win a debate when you are trying to justify blatant murder (and murder of babies, at that). It's completely evil: the same sort of wicked bullshit was being spewed to justify murder of Jews, slavery of blacks, etc., etc., etc. It's simply good vs. evil: it really is.
It was a bit surprising and disturbing to notice how strongly Adams attacked on Parker's person. Otherwise the debate was not bad. What was not surprising to me is how both debaters made things unnecessarily complex - it seems to happen with most debates on this subject. Parker had considerable problems in defining when "personhood" begins - and then it is easy to attack on that kind of vague answers. To me the basic issue is about self-awareness. Yes, you can kill an unborn baby, because that baby will never know he/she was alive. So, yes, his or her life has less value than that of the mother. On the other hand, why did Parker not want to admit that killing anything that is alive, is something that is not good. Abortion is always a bad thing, but sometimes it is simply less bad than giving a birth. Finally, a new-born baby is also unaware of his/her life. So, you might say that you can also end the life of a very young baby without it being an equally malicious deed as killing a person who will understand his/her life ending. But where can you draw the line? You sure wouldn't want to take chances on an issue like this, would you? So, to me it is a practical and safe solution the draw the line on birth. A religious person understandably has another kind of evaluation on this subject, but to me the issue is rather straight-forward - definitely not one-sided, but a straight-forward one.
A human that had an accident completely lost his memory and is in a coma doesnt also he/she never know was alive so by your logic you can kill that person. someone that is on heavy drugs or again for some reason doesnt understand his/her life maybe has some kind of dementia or has down-syndrome, by your logic, again has less value so you can kill that person it wouldnt be morally wrong. I am surprised that you dont understand that u are simple descriminating person based on their phisical state and charecteristics, or on the value that they personally represent to you, your logic is the same logic that created massive slavery and the holocaust.
A "Christian" that regards human law above God's law. A man of color who identifies value in human beings based on their physical traits. Huh??? This is baffling.
At least human laws tries to uphold the welfare and fairness to humans ... god's laws or religious laws basically ignores a lot of humanitarian values just to please an invisible entity which no one can scientifically prove to factually exist ..
@@88feji ok, research inalienable rights. And learn where they come from. God's laws say thou shalt not kill, where as humans have consistently decided its ok to kill people for a number of different reasons, all of which contradict each other reason depending on who decides it, or the spirit of the times. God says thou shalt not kill, thou shall not steal, be with one woman and love her with all your heart. Do not lie or cheat on her. Lay down your life for her like christ did for the church. Do not covet others belongings.etc.i can go on, and on, you have problems with these laws?
@John Smith the US Constitituon is based on Judeao Christian teaching as are any rights you enjoy. If you don't like it move to a dictatorship where whoever is in power is "god." The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion not from it. You also won't find a right to abortion or freedom from reproduction listed there.
“Personhood vs. humanity” since when were these different? And if “human beings” can define “personhood” for other “human beings”, what other groups can we destroy?
The same argument was used by Nazis to justify killing Jews. I expect soon, even now, the same argument will be / is being used to justify killing Conservatives & Christians. Satan is behind all of this.
A human being is a living organism. A person is a human being that is considered to have legal rights (to legally differentiate from things like someone who is alive, but brain dead, or a fetus before it has reached a determined stage of development where it is legally protected). For example, earlier copies of the Old Testament stipulated in Exodus 21:22 “And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her CHILD BE NOT FULLY FORMED, he shall be forced to pay a penalty", meaning: "A fetus aborted in an accidental miscarriage which is not fully formed-nor equal to an infant born prematurely-was to be treated as property.19 However, if the aborted fetus was fully formed-and equal to an infant born prematurely-it was to be treated as a person. A property which is accidentally destroyed called for a fine to be paid by the destroyer. But the lex talionis became applicable when a person-including a fully developed fetus-was accidentally injured or killed. Accordingly, in Mosaic law a woman’s fertilized egg or an imperfectly formed fetus was not considered to be a person.20 Only a fetus that was “fully formed” was recognized as a person.21" From "The Septuagint Has the Correct Translation of Exodus 21:22-23" tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_%2021_22-23.pdf
For me, this issue is simple: Life begins before conception: both a sperm and an egg are alive... Human life begins at conception...When a human egg sperm meets a human egg, a different human starts to exist. However, abortion is an issue of morality, and morality is defined as a causing of suffering in comparison to a causing of wellbeing...A fetus cannot suffer before 22 weeks of gestation. This means that it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus that cannot experience suffering. "Is it human?" is not the important question. "Can it suffer" is what we should be asking, and the answer to that question is "No. Not before 20 weeks".
So you can kill a human being just because he can't suffer? What if he is in a comma and cant feel anything, can u kill him then? That's the worst argumentation I've heard in a long time
@@apostolospapatheodorou9833 " So you can kill a human being just because he can't suffer? " Yes! And sometimes killing a human is the only moral decision we have available. Don't pay attention to the negative connotation of the word "kill", do pay attention to what it means. The way you are using the word means "to end a life." Sometimes ending a life is a moral decision. Now, we cannot be both empathetic and understand that no harm can be caused to those who can't experience it...We can, however, justify any destruction of anything that can't experience anything. Understand that I am very empathetic, but how could you be justified in you empathy by feeling for a person who can't experience anything?
Perhaps, but consider this: Fetus development, as opposed to the earlier embryonic stage, begins at week 9. By this time, the fetus' brain has organized into distinct regions but not developed. Massive architectural and cellular changes are occurring, and the majority of growth and neuron positioning has yet to begin. In the early stages of a fetus' development, they don't even have the neural architecture to form the long-term potentiation that acts as the core substituent of our memories. It has yet to have any biological capacity to process its experience in the womb in the way a human child or newborn would. Yes, it does have neural function, and its potential to be a person in the later stages of development gives the early fetus a lot of ethical and moral weight, but it's not the same. It has yet to fully feel and experience life the way a person would.
@@agees924 I think you're right IF one has to make such a choice. Sometimes the choice is put like this "what if a building was on fire, and you could only save an infant or a rack of test tubes with embryos, which would you save?". I think you're right, our instinct is always to save the infant IF we can ONLY save one. However, such a Hobson's choice is not what we have in the overwhelming number of abortions. Btw, my choice of the infant would not be any type of evidence that the embryos weren't still human life. Honestly, you could ask this question like this: replace the infant with my wife, and replace the embryos with YOU. I will go for my wife every time, IF that's all I can do. Not because your life isn't of value (objective), but because it isn't as valuable to ME (subjective). Of course, if I think I'd be able to rescue you as well, I'd try...after my wife was out of harm's way.
Language isn't a perfect reflection of reality. Concepts are something we invent for the purpose of interpreting reality, and quite often people construct words to describe a reality that doesn't even exist, and then manufacture a fictional realm of reality which then gets conflated with the actual one. Imagine one day you're wearing a pink shirt and then a person asks you "Why is your shirt blue?" Your first response should be to challenge the premise of their question, right? Personhood is an arbitrary discriminatory qualification used for evaluating the degree of an individuals existence, but rather than criticizing the premise of the concept itself, people make the mistake of criticizing the application. At the end of the day personhood is nothing more than a word we've defined in such a way that it conveniently excludes those we wish to dehumanize. We make up concepts then pretend like they are intrinsic laws of nature, which is a dangerous deceptive practice. If a fetus doesn't meet the criteria of personhood that is completely irrelevant, we could just as easily invent a new concept called a "wuf" and then use it to justify the genocide of Cambodian villagers with a specific hair color.
@@agees924 But as a society, we already value human life over (other) animal life, as reflected in our laws and sundry other ways. Just one example: humans are permitted to hunt and kill all kinds of animals for sport and sustenance, but they are NOT permitted to hunt and kill humans. No, Ama, we already instinctively value human life over plant and animal life, so by having laws protecting human life in the womb (but not other forms of life "in the womb"), we would be acting consistently with how our laws and values ALREADY ARE. Sorry, it's neither unrealistic NOR idealistic.
This is a good example of why doctors shouldn’t be the ones deciding the moral implications of abortion. It’s easy to have a blind spot when you’re so entrenched in something like this.
Unless I missed it, not ONCE did either discuss the CHOICE of having sex in the first place (saying that due to the majority of abortions being voluntary and no rape/incest involved in the decision). By willingly participating in that choice you consciously accept the responsibilities thereof!
Parker's entire argument is this: The law says I can do it, so it's ok. Ironically enough, he claims that a woman loses her "personhood" if she can't kill her baby freely. If that's true, then none of us have "personhood" because none of us are allowed to commit murder -- even if the person inconvenience us or get on our nerves.
It seems to me that the only standard of personhood that is "objective", unreliant on opinion or technology or circumstance, is the standard Dr. Adams uses which is being a human being.
I watched from an objective standpoint, even though I am against the concept. I don't understand how Dr. Parker can suggest that killing is okay (person or not, by legal definition) when the one he follows specifically says (to the right man), "You must not murder." But most importantly, as a self-proclaimed Christian, How can he tell God "No" to the existence of another of His creations? How is Dr. Parker any different than Herod, the Great, and his "slaughter of the innocence?"
I disagree very much with Dr. Parker and I didn’t like him very much before watching this debate, but after his courteousness and him cutting off the heckler at 46:18 I gained a lot of respect for him.
I need some things clarified: 1. What does it mean to be human? 2. What exactly is a 'person' and when does that happen? (Science?) 3. What is the difference between ethics and morals? 4. Where does value come from?
@mikayla lobasso Evidence? Argument? _Mikayla?_ And how do you _know_ that God isn't real? _Mikayla?_ How come you did not address any of the questions presented in the OP? _Mikayla?_
@mikayla lobasso *1st post:* a. Because of science? Okay, explain that... b. How do you know what the facts are? What "facts" are you referring to? Who is appealing to feelings? _Not me!_ c. How do you know God has no place in this debate? Can you support that notion with some... facts? d. Also, according to you, your naturalistic and evolutionary beliefs have no place in this discussion - because not everyone beliefs such things. (Are you going to be consistent or not?) e. As for the times the Bible supposedly regards the unborn as valueless, well, you'll need to be more specific... f. And when does the Bible claim that life only begins after birth? (You keep making claims, you're not citing what you claim is your source.) 1. Who has argued otherwise? _Not me!_ But what does it mean to be human? 2. You would argue? Okay, do so! After all, in point 1 you said all that is required to be human is DNA, now you seem to believe that being human and having personhood are different things. And how do you know that a 22-week old fetus has all the things you listed? And why do you define personhood the way you do? Is an unconscious person capable of having a subjective experience? Are unconscious persons not human? 3. So they're the same thing! And where do these standards of behavior come from? Are they objective or subjective? 4. So in reality, nothing is of any real value - we just use the term 'value' as a synonym for 'like'? *2nd post:* All emotionally driven utter nonsense! But then, given your own naturalistic religion and materialistic beliefs, you have no good reason for believing that human life has any value at all or that there is anything wrong with anything, ever! And yet you do! You are not living out your own faith consistently! And neither is the FFRF! No, they act as if morality is an objective reality, even though that is impossible if God does not exist! You believe in fake rules and act as if they are real! You're a fool.
@mikayla lobasso 1. No "science"? Who said there was? By definition God would be outside of science... As for your claim of "actively denies", well, how so? (You're not familiar with actually formulating arguments, are you? Why is that? Because you go with your feelings rather than the facts.) Any appeal to naturalism is an appeal to feelings. There is literally no science that supports naturalism. (Yep! I can do it too!) 2. Define "evolution". Are you an equivocator, like most believers are? 3. Naturalism has not place in this debate because there are people who don't believe it. _Mikayla, debates are about differing beliefs!_ And how do you know that living according to the Creators standards aren't the objectively correct way to live? Hey, what is the objectively correct way to live and how do you know? 4. You're either a fool, a liar, or both. Nothing that was presenting said any such thing. You're going with your preferences rather than the facts. 5. No it doesn't. And you're being emotional again (engaging in name-calling) rather than factual. 6. Okay, then what does it mean to possess personhood? Do other animals possess personhood? 7. You didn't argue, you asserted - you made claims without providing an argument. You're really horrible at this. As for "almost positive"... But then, are you saying that all the critters that feel pain possess personhood? What if you're a quadriplegic or suffer from some other abnormality that impacts your ability to feel? Are the sub-human? (You haven't really thought this out at all, have you?) 8. So you don't believe that there is anything wrong with anything, ever! But you do believe that there is because socially that's what you've been taught? Wow! There's some reason and logic at work for ya! 9. Oh, so it's like magic! If you value your fetus, it has value. If you don't, it doesn't! If you value your toddler, it has value. If you don't, it doesn't! Mikayla, you're appealing to feelings again and dismissing the fact that nothing has any real value at all... IF what you claim to believe (naturalism) is true. Sadly, you're being neither rational nor consistent here. Maybe the truth is that you want God not to exist, because you're not a very moral person? (John 3:19-20) Mikayla, IF the God of the Bible is THE GOD, are you doing anything to offend Him? Are you a "good" person? *ANSWER:* Because it is a human being created in the image of God (not physical) and is a living and eternal soul, and not just stuff - not just an animal. So why do you believe you have any more value than a pig? We eat pigs, can we eat you? Pigs have feelings too you know!
@mikayla lobasso Now, getting back to the questions presented in the OP and your answers. Seems that your answers are as follows: 1. Being human means nothing. 2. Some arbitrary point that is subject to change when we discover more stuff... Not that being a 'person' means anything... 3. Your argument is one of semantics. But neither are objectively real in your view. Although you likely cry foul when someone treats you unethically or immorally. Which means you act as if what you claim is subjective is actually objective. 4. We make it up! Our _feelings_ dictate what has value, the _facts_ are irrelevant! Okay, good to know!
Wow. Where are we at in this fallen world when someone doesn't know the difference between a "person" or a "human being"? There is no difference. My prayers for that Dr that he repents and truly comes to Christ to call himself a believer. My heart breaks.
You are not a Christian if you are pro-abortion. Why? Because you do not accept the fact that all life belongs to God therefore you have no right to take it (unless it's true self defense, or mothers life is at risk, or death row- all biblical). I was pro-abortion for 15 years (under certain circumstances of course, don't we all say that) and also thought I was a Christian too. But I really wasn't. I was on the fence and I was wrong. Once you give your whole life to God, you also recognize his authority not only over your life, but every life. Professor Adams did an excellent job! May God bless him in his ministry! March on Christian soldier.....
Given that christian belief is so vile and evil it isn't so surprising that you can base killing on that religion. Also, you are making no true Scotsman fallacy. There are numerous custom religions based on bible that would claim, that yours custom religion is fake.
I believe that issues of right and wrong are decided after purpose has been determined. The Christian has been provided with the Word of God, which is final arbiter. Life is a gift from God. God says we must not kill. God tells us our bodies are sacred. Sex is supposed to be sacred. It is the act that brings about life. To dismiss these facts is to desacralize the sacred, and introduce violence into what God intended to be holy.
The “visual evidence” was unnecessary. It did not demonstrate his point. Just because something is grotesque does not make it immoral. Women’s periods are not morally wrong.
Considering one of the major and commonly used arguments from ‘pro choicers’, are that it’s not a baby/human/alive etc etc, and that it’s a ‘clump of cells’.. the visual evidence was an EXCELLENT choice.
Dr parker said at Q&A that the fetus has moral weight thats why he wont do gender and racial terminations. But the mother has personhood. Thats contradicting because if the mother who has personhood wants a gender termination, he should be able To do it because the unborn doesn’t have personhood and the mother trumps the unborn in his argument. In reality he wants to give the fetus right when it suits him and the mother rights when it suits him. What a slippery slope this is
dahelmang this is why the Bible says the woman should be silent. The comment/joke she made made her look stupid. But since this society is now matriarchal, there is no order and everything is gone to shit. But hey, the good news is, history shows that society’s never last. 🙌
N Sd if the Bible doesn’t say that, how come refer to them as “those verses” ? And when you mention scholars, you’re really talking about liberals, because that’s what they are at the end of the day. If you can’t back up what you’re saying, it comes off as nonsense. The fact is the Bible DOES say that
@@Jas.144 I refferred to them as those verses because they are in the present day Bible. No, I am not talking of any politically interested people. I am talking of people who care about the Bible enough to research it. There are many mistranslations in Paul's and John's letters. You speak from your ignorance and misogyny. Misogyny us from the devil
N Sd seems as tho you can’t accept the word. That’s fine, the Bible words still stands over whatever opinion you have or whatever theory this scholars say. The Bible says what it say. It would be wise for you not to be a stumbling block for others. Your statements, opinion, and whatever else you pull out of the air is a non factor. Do your research... be silent.
I think what is completely lost on Dr. Parker, as Stephanie Gray articulates so well in other videos, is that IF human rights are real AND it is the responsiblity of a just government is NOT to attempt to grant or deny these rights but to protect them as an intrinsic part of all humans, then there can be no arbitrary "whats" that could deny them. If however we grant the denial of human rights to some humans, then we are denying that these are intrinsic in nature. This would certianly fly in the face of the teaching of Martin Luther King Jr. who knew all to well what it was to be in a group that was legally thought to be less than "persons". Differentiating a "person" from a "human being" because they lack some "what" can be nothing less than a discriminatory practice.
Except, first, MLK wasn't right about everything he ever said, considering he preached about god half the time. There is a distinction that must be made at some point between what we value and how much. Do we value an embryo more than a woman's choice to not go through childbirth. The answer is no for most, regardless of if it has human dna or not. If we don't care about an egg being yeeted out of an ovary after it's denied it's sperm by a Plan B pill, then we don't have to care about an embryo being yeeted out of a uterus because of a different pill.
@A Good Point I would certainly agree with you that no human being, including Dr. King, could withstand the scrutiny of perfection. I think you also make a good point in pointing out the distinction between what, human beings in this case, that we value and how much we value different groups of human beings. Dr. King knew firsthand what it was like to be in a group of humans that held little value in the minds of other humans that held beliefs and codified these beliefs into what he would call out as "unjust" laws (Jim Crow and such). The discussion above is considering a different group of human beings, those in their earliest stages of life, and just as in Dr. Kings time there are those who hold beliefs and have codified those beliefs into laws that, just as the Jim Crow Laws of the past, deny them their human rights. Of course, the idea that Jim Crow laws were wrong is built upon the idea that human rights are real and intrinsic to all humans and not simply granted to some by the governing powers at different times and locations. IF the former, human rights are intrinsic, is true then regardless to how WE might feel about some humans or what value that WE might choose in our minds they hold, this not only would not but could not affect their human rights. IF however the latter is true, and human right are only imparted upon some, then slaves in the Antebellum South and Jews in Nazi Germany were in fact less than human. Which do you believe to be the case?
It is the interpretation of law that deems abortion legal in that it is the law that determines when life begins - We still rely on the old Roman law of “first breath”.This is the pro-abortionist’s strongest defense of their position. However, when determining the cessation of life the law relies on and is dependent on the medical definition. Now with the advances made in the medical field on this issue it has now become necessary for the law to be updated so as to be more consistent with the medical understanding and ought to adopt the medical definition of when the life of human beings begin.
Dr. Parker is incorrect at the point when he said a woman's right to choose is not up to public scrutiny. He actually said there must be a balance between the woman's interest and the state's interest at protecting life.
Question for Dr. Willie: what if a baby is birthed at an early viable stage (maybe 26 weeks) in the pregnancy *by your definition becomes a person*, then receives a life saving procedure, and then is placed back in the mother. After the baby has been placed back in the mother can you morally perform an abortion *on a person*/baby inside the womb?
Interesting that Dr. Willie Parker says he is a Christian, uses vague Scriptural references but denies that John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when she came next to Mary in recognition of Jesus in the womb. He would have to deny that John and Jesus were person's then.
I'd say he lost it in 10. But he admitted it himself. He's a doctor, not a debater. He knew he was out of his depth. Adams is sharper and slicker, and also much more theatrical. For example, replacing the word "foetus" or "embryo" with "babies", "children" or "people". It's much more dramatic to say: "You've killed 20,000 people" than "You've killed 20,000 foetuses / embryos / blastocysts / zygotes". Isn't it? If I'm not mistaken, he didn't once say: "foetus", which would be more accurate. Adams is also disingenuous. When he said he'd remove a foetus if it was an ectopic pregnancy, he added he wouldn't be "intentionally" killing the baby. Er, sorry, that is EXACTLY what he'd be doing! If a murderer said to him: "Here's a woman and a child. If you kill the child, the woman will live. If you don't, she'll die", I suspect he wouldn't do it. So why would he do it to a foetus? After all, he makes no distinction between a foetus and a child, does he? Is it because he knows if the mother dies, so will the foetus? That the foetus can't exist without her? If so, he's a great big FAKE.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it good, it doesn't mean it glorifies God. Is Willie Parker seeking the approval of men or of God? Galatians 1:10
The use of the word "Debate" here is a misnomer. I'd favor "demonstration" or "exposition". Debate implies that there are two sides and one of them is not obviously incoherent and absurd.
Mike Adams I pray God raise up more Godly true men of God like you . Who are are a voice to the voiceless . Abortion is wrong Jesus loves the sanctity of life
This was an absolute train wreck of a debate for Dr. Parker (pro tip: never fault your poor debate performance on your not being a debater). I respect Parker for having the courage to participate in the debate (maybe now he understands how pro-lifers on campus feel), but his argument that an organism can be a human being but not a person...Yikes.
I'm sorry but if you're pro life you should be shouted down you are literally trying to strip women rights so yeah. Don't like abortion don't get one that simple.
@@hachi7100 _if you're pro life you should be shouted down you are literally trying to strip women rights so yeah._ If you're pro-abortion you should be shouted down; you are literally trying to strip unborn children of their rights, so yeah. _Don't like abortion don't get one that simple._ Don't like guns, don't get one, that simple. Don't like spanking of kids, don't have children, that simple. If you're a troll, try harder. If not, you really need to think deeper; actual issues aren't black and white.
@@censorshipbites7545 I don't care about guns so I have no idea why you just assumed and brought that up out of nowhere. Spanking your children is known child abuse and there is no debate in the academic and child development research and I can give you multiple studies to show as much. The fetus has no rights so that argument is mute their "rights" end when they begin invading someone else autonomy and being aka the person carrying the fetus. I'm not sure if you have ever left your echo chamber but I want you to learn to form better arguments with data to back it up. Try it sometime. :)
@@hachi7100 I have no desire to rehash this argument close to 2 years after the original debate, and especially not with someone like you whose thinking is simplistic and rife with assertions and opinions rather than facts. _The fetus has no rights_ You need to think long and hard about the implications of your argument. You are arbitrarily specifying who is human and who is not, who you think has rights and who doesn't. _their "rights" end when they begin invading someone else autonomy_ An infant needs to be nursed by its mother. That is an infringement upon the mother's autonomy. By your logic, an infant has no rights, either, and can be arbitrarily killed or left to die. Again, think long and hard about the implications of your argument. _I'm not sure if you have ever left your echo_ The sad reality is that I'm not particularly pro-life or pro-choice, but your arguments are half-baked assertions that easily refuted. Stow the attitude and moral certainty and talk civilly - not debate - to a pro-life person. Describe that person's arguments back to him/her; if the person says you've done so accurately, you're finally ready to begin considering or refuting them (Boghossian & Lindsay, building on JS Mill).
my favorite part was how willy used the legal system (ls) as his 'authoritative answer' on what was right and wrong, and for his definition of personhood... that same ls that arbitrarily DENIED personhood the the human beings that were held as property/slaves not too long ago... willy is literally unable to uniquely rationalize (does that make him not a person?) his own position. He is dependent on external rationalization, and authority (does he not have his own sentience?) I fond it further ironic that his standard is based on "well if you call the police on me for 'killing a fetus', the ls will NOT send police to arrest me, so therefore, it's PERFECTLY MORAL for me to kill human fetuses... but this EXACT SAME STATE (legal system/police/etc), which is literally the continuance of the same legal system that existed during slavery, if he had called the police during SLAVERY and reported that a murder of a slave had taken place, the police would NOT have arrested the slave owner -- BECAUSE this SAME legal system, back then, would NOT HAVE SEEN that slave as a PERSON. And this evil flawed arbitrary monopoly of power legal system which has been PROVEN to be morally ambiguous... is his GOLD STANDARD
"Personhood" is a social construct. It's not a real thing. Being a human is a real, undeniable fact that every doctor/biologist agrees on. Additionally, laws don't determine what is moral. We attempt to make moral laws (and history has shown we have failed at this many times). Religion is also not required for morality. We just need biology and logic. I think Stephanie Gray Connors debates are more compelling, well-thought-out, on both sides of the argument.
Apologies but I think this is an unfair event. It is clear, by his own words, that Dr. Parker is not as eloquent in the arts of debate as Dr. Adams. This means that automatically it seems as if Dr. Adams has an advantage on defending his point of view. This does not mean he actually has better arguments, or otherwise, but it sure does seem that way due to this advantage. I have extreme respect for Dr. Parker to have a go at this anyway. Difficult topic a a whole.
I weep for this doctor’s heretical words against Christ that he would dare destroy not only humans but also the Word of the God of the Bible while claiming himself to be a Christian. Not all who calls out to the Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and narrow is the gate to salvation.
On the issue of the death penalty- I don’t think it is contradictory or inconsistent to support the death penalty and NOT support abortion. First yes, one is killing and one is murder. Murder is the taking of an INNOCENT life. When someone receives the death penalty he has been afforded due process and found GUILTY of committing a heinous crime therefore NOT being an Innocent life. Also a baby is never afforded due process.
30:55 Duh of course the sperm and egg are living organisms because they're in living organisms, but individually they are not a separate, unique human being. Once the living egg and sperm join together, they create that separate, unique human being. Once again this man's argument has no substance.
1:32:10 - will just compared a fetus to a murderer. a typically defined murderer is, in some moral systems, is 'justifies' the putting to death of the murderer in order to PREVENT the additional murders which a serial murderer/criminal appears likely to commit, in order for the people of that culture/society to protect the right to life of the rest of the not-yet-murdered... in what case is an infant 'put to death out of fear it 'intends' [sentience??] to commit MURDER' ? wild comparison
I do not think Dr Parker is a wicked person. He seemed measured, thoughtful, and respectful of other people's dignity. He is in the grips of a truly evil idea though. That idea is poisoning his worldview on this issue and his reasoning is violently convulsing to navigate the dissonance.
It's hard to see the state of a man's soul, but Parker does bring to mind the scripture that talks about a person being turned over to a reprobate mind. The only way I can conceive of a man actually performing the act of an abortion is either through unparalleled ignorance or having a reprobate mind void of any shred of conscience.
Even people who are respectable, measured, civilised and toughtful (as men would put it) can do horrible crimes; and when I say horrible crimes, I don't mean what society declares to be criminal, but what God declares to be criminal. Dr Parker says he's Christian and in his introduction, he quotes Ghandi as one guiding principle in his life?? This man may be convinced he s christian but I would like to know if he's part of a believing community and if so, what do his brothers say about his practice? Because as far as I know, chirstians are convinced by Scripture than abortion is sin and practicing abortion is worse yet. This so-called christian needs to listen to the body of christ telling him that what is doing as an abortionist is sin and he needs to repent. For christians the abortion issue is not open to debate, as the open-minded world spirit would lead those with no discernment to believe. If one reads Scripture, it's unmistakably clear that terminating a life in the womb is murder, God's heart is easy to understand in that matter. I'm curious to know how many, among his brothers, confronted him about this and what he had to say about it. Moreover, I would go as far as saying that Dr. Parker, in order to do what he does must be full of resentment towards God, but he can conceil it before men, I presume.
If you have never seen the documentary "Caring Corrupted," I highly recommend it. It shows how German nurses were conditioned to kill. I've also read about how female guards in the death camps were conditioned to carry out horrific acts of cruelty. It is also worth reading. I actually felt sorry for him at times but when he said "Call the police" it stoked my ire. Abortion clinics are a no go zone. It wasn't until feds discovered that Gosnell was running a precription drug business that the murders he commited were discovered. I have always been pro-life but Lime 5 is the first book about abortion and it helped me understand how it affects all of us. Forbidden Grief is also an excellent book. It helped me to better understand how trauma and trauma bonding are involved.
The 'pro life' guy made fallacious arguments, including an 'ad hominem' at around 59 minuets, 'appeal to emotion', etc. confusing what is a a person and what is an embryo, etc. And besides, after all the arguing, the 'pro life' guy admits that it's ok to sometimes perform abortions! And when he said. "Should my Friend Laura be executed?' at 1:22, at that point he became the definite loser of the argument in my opinion. His logic is flawed
Why does the pro abortion side have such a hard time wrapping their head around the fact an abortion is a life that will cease to exist? It's a fair question had his friends mother done what is encouraged today she would of been killed in the womb. Why should an innocent fetus pay with death when her father who committed the crime won't?
@@joemerlin152 Because that "life" is infringing on the bodily rights of an individual who has no legal obligation to donate their body to them. I'm a life, undeniably more "alive" than any unborn fetus, yet I _cannot_ use my mother's body against her will, not even to save my life. So if my mother _cannot_ be *forced* to donate her body to save my life now, why should she have been *forced* to donate her body to save my life _then?_ It seems to me that you have a double standard for the unborn vs the born. That I had "extra" rights as a fetus that I _lose_ at birth?
@@TheLegendOfRandy You're not withholding your blood or organ in abortion. You're actively and deliberately killing the unborn by means of suction, chemicals, or dismemberment. Implying that that's a form of withholding is like actively suffocating someone with a pillow and calling it "withholding of oxygen." If you can't even state proper scientific facts and proper analogies, you're in no position to judge what's right and wrong.
Willie, I pray for you here on Earth, as your soul is condemned if you proceed this way. I pray for you to have your heart opened, and to know what God wants you to be, both here and after.
The viability argument is so fallacious. My sister was born 11 weeks prematurely and with the help of modern medicine she is now a healthy teenager. In other countries where the healthcare system might not be as good then my sister would be a person? It's no consistency and totally arbitrary on what a viable life is.
How deceived Willie Parker is! Calling himself a, "Christian," and being okay with murdering babies is appalling. How scary will it be for him, when he stands before Almighty God and He tells him, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'm sorry... WHAT?!?! This is the moment in which you realize that in this "sibling dispute" there is only one child who views their Father's Word as absolute truth and one who views his Father's power as basic (29:08). Definitely the main red flags to avoid when seeking Christian guidance.
Changing your mind isn't a sign of weakness... it's a sign of INTELLIGENCE.
Valley Stina But requires strength to do so, especially in the face of criticism from those closest to you and risk of being shunned. That is how people avoid changing their minds.
Find the strength to do so!
My grandmon used to say (before I even understood what she meant) "A smart man can change his mind, a fool never does"
@@seanyouknowwho798 , Greetings to you in the name of Jesus Christ!!! Amen!!! One would have to be in fear, to not have courage to stand for what one believes in!!! Amen!!! All that is really required to stand and or change is first a willing mind!!! Amen!!! Amen!!! All actions are performed through the willingness of others!!! It is not about the strength or the weakness!!! When one is not willing, then there shall be resistance!!! Amen!!! HELLOOOOOO!!!
I prefere to say .. its a sign of growth
@@TheOneLawgiverHolyGod !!!!!!!!!!!! * Text * amen !!!!!!!!!!!
There is a grave difference between saying you are Christian and actually being Christian.
That boy defiently whack 💯
Amen
Very grave indeed, some "Christians" will end up in Hell.
@itsallgreektome JC with all due respect. That's not what Jesus said..Matthew 7 states Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
In fact the bible tells we are to judge fellow Christians..1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”
Your salvation should be evident not in the things you say....but the way you live...
@itsallgreektome JC where did I mention the law? The bible says for by grace are you saved through faith. I am stating just because someone says they are a Christian does not make them one. Just as Jesus says you judge a tree by the fruit it produces.
0:00:00 Event Introduction
0:07:11 Dr. Adams's Opening Statement
0:24:26 Dr. Parker's Opening Statement
0:42:01 Dr. Adams's 1st Rebuttal
0:51:42 Dr. Parker's 1st Rebuttal
0:58:07 Dr. Adams's Cross Ex. of Dr. Parker
1:05:17 Dr. Parker's Cross Ex. of Dr. Adams
1:13:17 Q&A + Q1 for Dr. Parker
1:15:27 Q2 for Dr. Adams
1:16:28 Q3 for both
1:19:43 Q4 for Dr. Adams
1:24:43 Q5 for Dr. Parker
1:28:24 Q6 for Dr. Adams
1:30:14 Q7 for Dr. Parker
1:34:52 Q8 for Dr. Adams
1:36:29 Q9 for Dr. Parker
1:40:01 Dr. Adams's Closing Statement
1:44:05 Dr. Parker's Closing Statement
1:48:24 College Dems President Final Statement
Dr Parker is clearly much better at dissecting people than arguments.
So true. Ripping apart a tiny baby with sharp steel instruments or high powered vacuum is easy for him. Recognizing that it's wrong isn't.
Brutal, but true
#savage
Nick Missios Perhaps because he's a doctor, not a debater.
DAAAAAMMMMMNNNNNN!!!!! Truth
Dr. Adam’s handled his argument extremely well and i’m very honored to have met this man and talked with him!
Tug me too! he was one of my favorite speakers at summit by far!!
Can’t believe they are trying to get him fired now
@@tedlangston5780
👋 good riddance to him
RIP to Mike Adams, he was a man of courage. I met him at Summit a couple summers ago, and he changed my life. I can only imagine he's resting in heaven now❤️
Thou shall not kill (including suicide)
@@lauren-gc2iy what happened to him that caused him to do that?
@@gamma3563 he was a public speaker and was very open about his religious and political beliefs, he was constantly attacked and harassed. I don't know the whole story, all I know is I met him a couple years ago and he was a great speaker and very funny and intelligent. I don't know how he passed or what caused him to end his life.
@@lauren-gc2iy dang, that is unfortunate the way it seemed he went out. I mean suicide is never a happy ending.
@Eithan S that's right.
Parker (in closing statement): I am paid to "respect" women.
He acts like this is some charitable thing he's doing but in actuality he has made himself rich "respecting" women by giving them abortions without question (which leads me to wonder how he can possibly deny abortions on the basis of sex or race since he literally said he doesn't ask a woman why she's choosing an abortion).
EXACTLY! So many contradictions.
They want an abortion to end a pregnancy. Thats why they are choosing an abortion. Whats the mystery and obsession with asking why? I'm guessing you want to judge if the reason is good enough for you. Luckily the law states thats not a requirement
@@Chris-Smith Parker's the one who says he won't do an abortion on the basis of gender or sex discrimination. So he's clearly concerned with the woman's reasons. Otherwise he wouldn't need to claim that.
He's basically saying if women pay him to respect them he will continue giving abortions. If he was giving abortions for free he probably would be against it. This man is just protecting his pockets
I like to commend the moderator. She did a wonderful job of being fair on both sides and keeping order. This is the first time I've seen the crowd so emotionally charged and could have made the debate less productive with their questioning and clapping. Great job not letting this debate get out of hand.
It's:
1.Life
2.Liberty
3. The Pursuit of Happiness
The order is important and is listed in descending level of importance. Someone does not get to choose anything that endangers your life but they can make a choice that threatens your pursuit of happiness. Life and the protection of it is above all else.
Disappointed that the Christian Dr. Parker was never asked when he thinks the soul enters.
Holy cow. Dr. Willie's arguments were increadibly weak. Dr. Mike was a bit aggressive, but Dr. Willie's first rebuttle ignored Dr. Mikes arguments entirely.
I think the aggression is justified in this case. He’s sitting ten feet away from one of the most prolific, remorseless mass-murderers in human history. Such a person often has to have their cage shaken pretty hard before they will become open to the idea that they are in need of God’s forgiveness. This can be accomplished through the direct movement of the Holy Spirit, or through someone acting as His agent
He wasn't aggressive enough.
I don't know if I can hold my aggression if I were to sit and debate with a child molester or child killer. This parker guy kills 20.000 (probably way more) and shown no remorse at all.
Caleb Cheng I agree. I'm pro-choice and I agree with Willie. But Mike's a better debater.
raphael44ify What part did you agree with Willie on?
I’m mourning the loss of a brilliant follower of Christ. 😞 I was blessed to have known Mike S. Adams!
Me too Ginny. I didn’t know him but have followed he and Frank Turek online. What a wonderful mind God blessed him with! I am having a difficult time believing he took his own life! ☹️
So sorry for your loss. I am missing Mike too!
Killing a baby is immoral and he had fought passionately for this cause, I am having a hard time believing as well that he took his own life. 😢He values these babies so much. The fight against abortion isn't over yet. 😭We lost a soldier when more than ever we need one. 😭In the memorial services of Dr. Mike Adams, there was this instance when he was alive that he asked himself if he made a difference mentioned in his friend's eulogy It is saddening. I don't know him personally as well but I am so much heartbroken.
I am deeply sorry to hear that he has passed and I pray for God's comfort and peace to be with all who are grieving. I also pray that the seeds he planted will bear much fruit and that his passion for the defense of human life will continue through others.
Yes Mike's life is another innocent snuffed out. He fought for life, he would never ever have taken his own. This man was murdered, as are the babies that Willie has murdered.
Dr. Parker got smoked in this debate. The pro choice perspective really can't stand up to any level of scrutiny
Correction: the _pro-abortion_ perspective.
🤷♂️
Dr Mike. Well put and in no way were you harsh, but you were stern. 🙂
So easy to say "Im a Christian" ---Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’
A lot of people "identify" as Christian, like Willie does.
metallicbaldwin Abortion is murder. A murderer can be forgiven if he or she, like the woman caught in the act of adultery, is repentant. Someone who murders again and again might one day be redeemed if he came to realize his sin. I don’t believe Dr. Parker will see the Lord after he dies unless he repents of all the murders he has committed. I think it is sad that the murderer is a man of color. Most men of color, whether black or brown, are pro-life, I think.
@@annbrucepineda8093 i don't even use the word abortion any longer, nor termination of a pregnancy, or any other euphemism. It's sanctioned murder plain and simple, and the law of murder needs to be upheld for every human.
@@metallicbaldwin if it wasn't murder, there wouldn't be a thing called abortion survivors. I don't know why it's never brought up in debates.
Lots of babies survive the abortion and are alive today and have written books. Some of them have ko legs because they were ripped off in the womb.
If it wasn't murder, and if it wasn't a life, then how in the heck does it survive sometimes.
and whos willy
@@annbrucepineda8093 we have to pray for him.
Christian + abortionist just do not go together...period....but we don't need to judge him, God will.
that is what is called an oxymoron...lol
That's irrelevant. God's judgement, if such a thing even exists, occurs in an afterlife, an imagined world beyond this one. How does that affect what we decide to do here, in the world we experience?
@@SwordTune we will be judged when we die of things that we have done in this life.
@@yorkiem0m That still doesn't answer the rhetorical question. The answer is that it doesn't affect our world. It's not a two was stream, judgment after death does nothing in this world. Some have a reason to believe they will be judged, and act accordingly, but that's the the result of the judgement, but of their belief: current belief. Actions and ideas that are here in the real world with real consequences.
Abortion is actually present in the Bible a few times, even advised in some cases ;) us pro choicers can be Christians just the same as pro lifers!
Romans 1:22
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
I've never seen someone get this brutally crushed in a debate before😂 Willie just kept trying to catch him on personhood😂
Well, it's hard to win a debate when you are trying to justify blatant murder (and murder of babies, at that). It's completely evil: the same sort of wicked bullshit was being spewed to justify murder of Jews, slavery of blacks, etc., etc., etc. It's simply good vs. evil: it really is.
Dr.Adams is a intellectual beast.
And dr. Willie is just plain a beast
@targarynka What a disgusting comment
This is, frankly, scary to listen to.
There are many former abortion doctors who regretted, repented and are now vocally pro-life. I pray Dr. Willie Parker will do that.
Dr. Anthony Levatino is an amazing one!! He does so many videos to create awareness about the grievances of abortion. Highly recommended!
Adams is extremely well-spoken. His closing statement gave me shivers for his unrelenting advocation for unconditional equality
I got shivers when he described the conversation he’d had with his girlfriend.
@@arionstarks4640 definitely. It was a sudden realization of the value of life, which is beautiful.
It was a bit surprising and disturbing to notice how strongly Adams attacked on Parker's person. Otherwise the debate was not bad.
What was not surprising to me is how both debaters made things unnecessarily complex - it seems to happen with most debates on this subject. Parker had considerable problems in defining when "personhood" begins - and then it is easy to attack on that kind of vague answers.
To me the basic issue is about self-awareness. Yes, you can kill an unborn baby, because that baby will never know he/she was alive. So, yes, his or her life has less value than that of the mother. On the other hand, why did Parker not want to admit that killing anything that is alive, is something that is not good. Abortion is always a bad thing, but sometimes it is simply less bad than giving a birth.
Finally, a new-born baby is also unaware of his/her life. So, you might say that you can also end the life of a very young baby without it being an equally malicious deed as killing a person who will understand his/her life ending. But where can you draw the line? You sure wouldn't want to take chances on an issue like this, would you? So, to me it is a practical and safe solution the draw the line on birth.
A religious person understandably has another kind of evaluation on this subject, but to me the issue is rather straight-forward - definitely not one-sided, but a straight-forward one.
A human that had an accident completely lost his memory and is in a coma doesnt also he/she never know was alive so by your logic you can kill that person. someone that is on heavy drugs or again for some reason doesnt understand his/her life maybe has some kind of dementia or has down-syndrome, by your logic, again has less value so you can kill that person it wouldnt be morally wrong. I am surprised that you dont understand that u are simple descriminating person based on their phisical state and charecteristics, or on the value that they personally represent to you, your logic is the same logic that created massive slavery and the holocaust.
A "Christian" that regards human law above God's law. A man of color who identifies value in human beings based on their physical traits. Huh??? This is baffling.
Well God's law is hardly in favor of human welbeing, so I also prefer our own laws.
At least human laws tries to uphold the welfare and fairness to humans ... god's laws or religious laws basically ignores a lot of humanitarian values just to please an invisible entity which no one can scientifically prove to factually exist ..
@@88feji ok, research inalienable rights. And learn where they come from. God's laws say thou shalt not kill, where as humans have consistently decided its ok to kill people for a number of different reasons, all of which contradict each other reason depending on who decides it, or the spirit of the times.
God says thou shalt not kill, thou shall not steal, be with one woman and love her with all your heart. Do not lie or cheat on her. Lay down your life for her like christ did for the church. Do not covet others belongings.etc.i can go on, and on, you have problems with these laws?
@John Smith the US Constitituon is based on Judeao Christian teaching as are any rights you enjoy. If you don't like it move to a dictatorship where whoever is in power is "god." The Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion not from it. You also won't find a right to abortion or freedom from reproduction listed there.
LOLLLL!!! Matt, don't be baffled by a liar!!! Satan is a liar and a murderer from the very beginning!!! Amen!!!
“Personhood vs. humanity” since when were these different? And if “human beings” can define “personhood” for other “human beings”, what other groups can we destroy?
It's same as atheist agnostic. It goes from stupid to stupider
The same argument was used by Nazis to justify killing Jews.
I expect soon, even now, the same argument will be / is being used to justify killing Conservatives & Christians.
Satan is behind all of this.
Prochoice people simply do not believe in total human equality
A human being is a living organism. A person is a human being that is considered to have legal rights (to legally differentiate from things like someone who is alive, but brain dead, or a fetus before it has reached a determined stage of development where it is legally protected).
For example, earlier copies of the Old Testament stipulated in Exodus 21:22 “And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her CHILD BE NOT FULLY FORMED, he shall be forced to pay a penalty", meaning:
"A fetus aborted in an accidental miscarriage which is not fully formed-nor equal to an infant born prematurely-was to be treated as property.19 However, if the aborted fetus was fully formed-and equal to an infant born prematurely-it was to be treated as a person. A property which is accidentally destroyed called for a fine to be paid by the destroyer. But the lex talionis became applicable when a person-including a fully developed fetus-was accidentally injured or killed. Accordingly, in Mosaic law a woman’s fertilized egg or an imperfectly formed fetus was not considered to be a person.20 Only a fetus that was “fully formed” was recognized as a person.21" From "The Septuagint Has the Correct Translation of Exodus 21:22-23" tmcdaniel.palmerseminary.edu/LXX_EXO_%2021_22-23.pdf
I weep and pray for Dr. Willie Parker. Christian may we pray and speak up! Truth is Truth... If you don't like slavery, don't own one!
For me, this issue is simple:
Life begins before conception: both a sperm and an egg are alive...
Human life begins at conception...When a human egg sperm meets a human egg, a different human starts to exist.
However, abortion is an issue of morality, and morality is defined as a causing of suffering in comparison to a causing of wellbeing...A fetus cannot suffer before 22 weeks of gestation.
This means that it is not morally wrong to abort a fetus that cannot experience suffering.
"Is it human?" is not the important question. "Can it suffer" is what we should be asking, and the answer to that question is "No. Not before 20 weeks".
So you can kill a human being just because he can't suffer? What if he is in a comma and cant feel anything, can u kill him then? That's the worst argumentation I've heard in a long time
@@apostolospapatheodorou9833 "
So you can kill a human being just because he can't suffer? "
Yes! And sometimes killing a human is the only moral decision we have available.
Don't pay attention to the negative connotation of the word "kill", do pay attention to what it means.
The way you are using the word means "to end a life."
Sometimes ending a life is a moral decision.
Now, we cannot be both empathetic and understand that no harm can be caused to those who can't experience it...We can, however, justify any destruction of anything that can't experience anything.
Understand that I am very empathetic, but how could you be justified in you empathy by feeling for a person who can't experience anything?
33:23 "Fetuses are human beings, but they're not people". Chilling. Does he realize how awful that sounds?
Perhaps, but consider this: Fetus development, as opposed to the earlier embryonic stage, begins at week 9. By this time, the fetus' brain has organized into distinct regions but not developed. Massive architectural and cellular changes are occurring, and the majority of growth and neuron positioning has yet to begin. In the early stages of a fetus' development, they don't even have the neural architecture to form the long-term potentiation that acts as the core substituent of our memories. It has yet to have any biological capacity to process its experience in the womb in the way a human child or newborn would. Yes, it does have neural function, and its potential to be a person in the later stages of development gives the early fetus a lot of ethical and moral weight, but it's not the same. It has yet to fully feel and experience life the way a person would.
@@agees924 I think you're right IF one has to make such a choice. Sometimes the choice is put like this "what if a building was on fire, and you could only save an infant or a rack of test tubes with embryos, which would you save?". I think you're right, our instinct is always to save the infant IF we can ONLY save one. However, such a Hobson's choice is not what we have in the overwhelming number of abortions.
Btw, my choice of the infant would not be any type of evidence that the embryos weren't still human life. Honestly, you could ask this question like this: replace the infant with my wife, and replace the embryos with YOU. I will go for my wife every time, IF that's all I can do. Not because your life isn't of value (objective), but because it isn't as valuable to ME (subjective). Of course, if I think I'd be able to rescue you as well, I'd try...after my wife was out of harm's way.
Language isn't a perfect reflection of reality. Concepts are something we invent for the purpose of interpreting reality, and quite often people construct words to describe a reality that doesn't even exist, and then manufacture a fictional realm of reality which then gets conflated with the actual one. Imagine one day you're wearing a pink shirt and then a person asks you "Why is your shirt blue?" Your first response should be to challenge the premise of their question, right? Personhood is an arbitrary discriminatory qualification used for evaluating the degree of an individuals existence, but rather than criticizing the premise of the concept itself, people make the mistake of criticizing the application. At the end of the day personhood is nothing more than a word we've defined in such a way that it conveniently excludes those we wish to dehumanize. We make up concepts then pretend like they are intrinsic laws of nature, which is a dangerous deceptive practice. If a fetus doesn't meet the criteria of personhood that is completely irrelevant, we could just as easily invent a new concept called a "wuf" and then use it to justify the genocide of Cambodian villagers with a specific hair color.
@@agees924 Why would they need to apply to every living being, including animals?
@@agees924 But as a society, we already value human life over (other) animal life, as reflected in our laws and sundry other ways. Just one example: humans are permitted to hunt and kill all kinds of animals for sport and sustenance, but they are NOT permitted to hunt and kill humans. No, Ama, we already instinctively value human life over plant and animal life, so by having laws protecting human life in the womb (but not other forms of life "in the womb"), we would be acting consistently with how our laws and values ALREADY ARE. Sorry, it's neither unrealistic NOR idealistic.
This is a good example of why doctors shouldn’t be the ones deciding the moral implications of abortion. It’s easy to have a blind spot when you’re so entrenched in something like this.
Unless I missed it, not ONCE did either discuss the CHOICE of having sex in the first place (saying that due to the majority of abortions being voluntary and no rape/incest involved in the decision). By willingly participating in that choice you consciously accept the responsibilities thereof!
Are you saying women should stay celibate until they're 60? Or men for all of their lives?
@@CathyKitson If they don't want children, yes
@@Lupen69 That's hilarious. Sex is a basic need, like food or water. You couldn't demand that of people.
raphael44ify Really? You can only live 3 days without water. About 10 days without food. How long before you die of celibacy?.
@@The-t3z Man lives not by bread alone. Intimacy is a basic need. There are very few of us who are born to be monks or nuns.
Excellent moderator! Great job!!
I'm curious about why dr.parker signed up for a debate if he says he can't debate well?
The video clip at 14:11 was incredibly powerful and it proves why the killers want their work hidden from people.
Vevay1961 imagine if there was video of all the babies that drowned in the flood or all the midianites babies?
But God created life & has the right to take it. We don’t.
@@JesseSelbert Nice red herring.
@@soulcage6228 explain please
@@JesseSelbert _Red Herring- something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting._
Dr. Parker seemed to take issue with the topic not being spoken on purely in medical terms, yet he consistently fell back on the legality aspect.
Parker's entire argument is this: The law says I can do it, so it's ok. Ironically enough, he claims that a woman loses her "personhood" if she can't kill her baby freely. If that's true, then none of us have "personhood" because none of us are allowed to commit murder -- even if the person inconvenience us or get on our nerves.
Awesome! Thank you. Parker is very smart and convinced, but not wise. He gave good quotes, then moved into mental gymnastics.
Watch Dr. Parker literally give up at minute 52.
It seems to me that the only standard of personhood that is "objective", unreliant on opinion or technology or circumstance, is the standard Dr. Adams uses which is being a human being.
Exactly! If a human doesn’t attain personhood at conception then its a slippery slope for when someone has personhood with basically means value.
I watched from an objective standpoint, even though I am against the concept. I don't understand how Dr. Parker can suggest that killing is okay (person or not, by legal definition) when the one he follows specifically says (to the right man), "You must not murder." But most importantly, as a self-proclaimed Christian, How can he tell God "No" to the existence of another of His creations? How is Dr. Parker any different than Herod, the Great, and his "slaughter of the innocence?"
God Determines personhood! if LAW not respecting God Law then that law is unjust
Which god?
Prove it
I disagree very much with Dr. Parker and I didn’t like him very much before watching this debate, but after his courteousness and him cutting off the heckler at 46:18 I gained a lot of respect for him.
Hands down, Dr. Adams wins this debate.
I need some things clarified:
1. What does it mean to be human?
2. What exactly is a 'person' and when does that happen? (Science?)
3. What is the difference between ethics and morals?
4. Where does value come from?
The answers to these and many more important life questions are found in the Christian Bible which is the Word of God.
@mikayla lobasso
Evidence? Argument? _Mikayla?_ And how do you _know_ that God isn't real? _Mikayla?_ How come you did not address any of the questions presented in the OP? _Mikayla?_
@mikayla lobasso
*1st post:*
a. Because of science? Okay, explain that...
b. How do you know what the facts are? What "facts" are you referring to? Who is appealing to feelings? _Not me!_
c. How do you know God has no place in this debate? Can you support that notion with some... facts?
d. Also, according to you, your naturalistic and evolutionary beliefs have no place in this discussion - because not everyone beliefs such things. (Are you going to be consistent or not?)
e. As for the times the Bible supposedly regards the unborn as valueless, well, you'll need to be more specific...
f. And when does the Bible claim that life only begins after birth? (You keep making claims, you're not citing what you claim is your source.)
1. Who has argued otherwise? _Not me!_ But what does it mean to be human?
2. You would argue? Okay, do so! After all, in point 1 you said all that is required to be human is DNA, now you seem to believe that being human and having personhood are different things. And how do you know that a 22-week old fetus has all the things you listed? And why do you define personhood the way you do? Is an unconscious person capable of having a subjective experience? Are unconscious persons not human?
3. So they're the same thing! And where do these standards of behavior come from? Are they objective or subjective?
4. So in reality, nothing is of any real value - we just use the term 'value' as a synonym for 'like'?
*2nd post:*
All emotionally driven utter nonsense! But then, given your own naturalistic religion and materialistic beliefs, you have no good reason for believing that human life has any value at all or that there is anything wrong with anything, ever! And yet you do! You are not living out your own faith consistently! And neither is the FFRF! No, they act as if morality is an objective reality, even though that is impossible if God does not exist! You believe in fake rules and act as if they are real! You're a fool.
@mikayla lobasso
1. No "science"? Who said there was? By definition God would be outside of science... As for your claim of "actively denies", well, how so? (You're not familiar with actually formulating arguments, are you? Why is that? Because you go with your feelings rather than the facts.) Any appeal to naturalism is an appeal to feelings. There is literally no science that supports naturalism. (Yep! I can do it too!)
2. Define "evolution". Are you an equivocator, like most believers are?
3. Naturalism has not place in this debate because there are people who don't believe it. _Mikayla, debates are about differing beliefs!_ And how do you know that living according to the Creators standards aren't the objectively correct way to live? Hey, what is the objectively correct way to live and how do you know?
4. You're either a fool, a liar, or both. Nothing that was presenting said any such thing. You're going with your preferences rather than the facts.
5. No it doesn't. And you're being emotional again (engaging in name-calling) rather than factual.
6. Okay, then what does it mean to possess personhood? Do other animals possess personhood?
7. You didn't argue, you asserted - you made claims without providing an argument. You're really horrible at this. As for "almost positive"... But then, are you saying that all the critters that feel pain possess personhood? What if you're a quadriplegic or suffer from some other abnormality that impacts your ability to feel? Are the sub-human? (You haven't really thought this out at all, have you?)
8. So you don't believe that there is anything wrong with anything, ever! But you do believe that there is because socially that's what you've been taught? Wow! There's some reason and logic at work for ya!
9. Oh, so it's like magic! If you value your fetus, it has value. If you don't, it doesn't! If you value your toddler, it has value. If you don't, it doesn't! Mikayla, you're appealing to feelings again and dismissing the fact that nothing has any real value at all... IF what you claim to believe (naturalism) is true. Sadly, you're being neither rational nor consistent here. Maybe the truth is that you want God not to exist, because you're not a very moral person? (John 3:19-20) Mikayla, IF the God of the Bible is THE GOD, are you doing anything to offend Him? Are you a "good" person?
*ANSWER:* Because it is a human being created in the image of God (not physical) and is a living and eternal soul, and not just stuff - not just an animal.
So why do you believe you have any more value than a pig? We eat pigs, can we eat you? Pigs have feelings too you know!
@mikayla lobasso
Now, getting back to the questions presented in the OP and your answers. Seems that your answers are as follows:
1. Being human means nothing.
2. Some arbitrary point that is subject to change when we discover more stuff... Not that being a 'person' means anything...
3. Your argument is one of semantics. But neither are objectively real in your view. Although you likely cry foul when someone treats you unethically or immorally. Which means you act as if what you claim is subjective is actually objective.
4. We make it up! Our _feelings_ dictate what has value, the _facts_ are irrelevant!
Okay, good to know!
Wow. Where are we at in this fallen world when someone doesn't know the difference between a "person" or a "human being"? There is no difference. My prayers for that Dr that he repents and truly comes to Christ to call himself a believer. My heart breaks.
You are not a Christian if you are pro-abortion. Why? Because you do not accept the fact that all life belongs to God therefore you have no right to take it (unless it's true self defense, or mothers life is at risk, or death row- all biblical). I was pro-abortion for 15 years (under certain circumstances of course, don't we all say that) and also thought I was a Christian too. But I really wasn't. I was on the fence and I was wrong. Once you give your whole life to God, you also recognize his authority not only over your life, but every life.
Professor Adams did an excellent job! May God bless him in his ministry! March on Christian soldier.....
Given that christian belief is so vile and evil it isn't so surprising that you can base killing on that religion.
Also, you are making no true Scotsman fallacy. There are numerous custom religions based on bible that would claim, that yours custom religion is fake.
I believe that issues of right and wrong are decided after purpose has been determined. The Christian has been provided with the Word of God, which is final arbiter. Life is a gift from God. God says we must not kill. God tells us our bodies are sacred. Sex is supposed to be sacred. It is the act that brings about life. To dismiss these facts is to desacralize the sacred, and introduce violence into what God intended to be holy.
The “visual evidence” was unnecessary. It did not demonstrate his point. Just because something is grotesque does not make it immoral. Women’s periods are not morally wrong.
Considering one of the major and commonly used arguments from ‘pro choicers’, are that it’s not a baby/human/alive etc etc, and that it’s a ‘clump of cells’.. the visual evidence was an EXCELLENT choice.
Dr parker said at Q&A that the fetus has moral weight thats why he wont do gender and racial terminations. But the mother has personhood. Thats contradicting because if the mother who has personhood wants a gender termination, he should be able
To do it because the unborn doesn’t have personhood and the mother trumps the unborn in his argument. In reality he wants to give the fetus right when it suits him and the mother rights when it suits him. What a slippery slope this is
To make these arguments while claiming the name of Christ is such a blasphemy.
I kept waiting for someone to tell Dr. Parker that he forgot his Latin from medical school. Fetus actually means small child.
Oh that lady joking about abortions is sick
dahelmang this is why the Bible says the woman should be silent. The comment/joke she made made her look stupid. But since this society is now matriarchal, there is no order and everything is gone to shit. But hey, the good news is, history shows that society’s never last. 🙌
@@Jas.144 Sadly that's not what the Bible says. Bible scholars don't agree with those verses added into the Bible
N Sd if the Bible doesn’t say that, how come refer to them as “those verses” ? And when you mention scholars, you’re really talking about liberals, because that’s what they are at the end of the day. If you can’t back up what you’re saying, it comes off as nonsense. The fact is the Bible DOES say that
@@Jas.144 I refferred to them as those verses because they are in the present day Bible. No, I am not talking of any politically interested people. I am talking of people who care about the Bible enough to research it. There are many mistranslations in Paul's and John's letters. You speak from your ignorance and misogyny. Misogyny us from the devil
N Sd seems as tho you can’t accept the word. That’s fine, the Bible words still stands over whatever opinion you have or whatever theory this scholars say. The Bible says what it say. It would be wise for you not to be a stumbling block for others. Your statements, opinion, and whatever else you pull out of the air is a non factor. Do your research... be silent.
I think what is completely lost on Dr. Parker, as Stephanie Gray articulates so well in other videos, is that IF human rights are real AND it is the responsiblity of a just government is NOT to attempt to grant or deny these rights but to protect them as an intrinsic part of all humans, then there can be no arbitrary "whats" that could deny them. If however we grant the denial of human rights to some humans, then we are denying that these are intrinsic in nature. This would certianly fly in the face of the teaching of Martin Luther King Jr. who knew all to well what it was to be in a group that was legally thought to be less than "persons". Differentiating a "person" from a "human being" because they lack some "what" can be nothing less than a discriminatory practice.
Except, first, MLK wasn't right about everything he ever said, considering he preached about god half the time. There is a distinction that must be made at some point between what we value and how much. Do we value an embryo more than a woman's choice to not go through childbirth. The answer is no for most, regardless of if it has human dna or not. If we don't care about an egg being yeeted out of an ovary after it's denied it's sperm by a Plan B pill, then we don't have to care about an embryo being yeeted out of a uterus because of a different pill.
@A Good Point I would certainly agree with you that no human being, including Dr. King, could withstand the scrutiny of perfection. I think you also make a good point in pointing out the distinction between what, human beings in this case, that we value and how much we value different groups of human beings. Dr. King knew firsthand what it was like to be in a group of humans that held little value in the minds of other humans that held beliefs and codified these beliefs into what he would call out as "unjust" laws (Jim Crow and such). The discussion above is considering a different group of human beings, those in their earliest stages of life, and just as in Dr. Kings time there are those who hold beliefs and have codified those beliefs into laws that, just as the Jim Crow Laws of the past, deny them their human rights. Of course, the idea that Jim Crow laws were wrong is built upon the idea that human rights are real and intrinsic to all humans and not simply granted to some by the governing powers at different times and locations. IF the former, human rights are intrinsic, is true then regardless to how WE might feel about some humans or what value that WE might choose in our minds they hold, this not only would not but could not affect their human rights. IF however the latter is true, and human right are only imparted upon some, then slaves in the Antebellum South and Jews in Nazi Germany were in fact less than human. Which do you believe to be the case?
It is the interpretation of law that deems abortion legal in that it is the law that determines when life begins - We still rely on the old Roman law of “first breath”.This is the pro-abortionist’s strongest defense of their position. However, when determining the cessation of life the law relies on and is dependent on the medical definition. Now with the advances made in the medical field on this issue it has now become necessary for the law to be updated so as to be more consistent with the medical understanding and ought to adopt the medical definition of when the life of human beings begin.
This is like watching a train wreck. ❤️ Dr Adams.
Dr. Parker is incorrect at the point when he said a woman's right to choose is not up to public scrutiny. He actually said there must be a balance between the woman's interest and the state's interest at protecting life.
46:18 Imagine if that woman was told to actually back up her claim.
In Dr. Parker's OPENING SPEECH, he agrees with both premises of Dr. Adams' argument. Does he really have a leg to stand on after that?
Question for Dr. Willie: what if a baby is birthed at an early viable stage (maybe 26 weeks) in the pregnancy *by your definition becomes a person*, then receives a life saving procedure, and then is placed back in the mother. After the baby has been placed back in the mother can you morally perform an abortion *on a person*/baby inside the womb?
That’s good
Interesting that Dr. Willie Parker says he is a Christian, uses vague Scriptural references but denies that John the Baptist jumped in his mother's womb when she came next to Mary in recognition of Jesus in the womb. He would have to deny that John and Jesus were person's then.
He lost the debate in 20 minutes! He was not prepared for Mr. Adams.
I'd say he lost it in 10. But he admitted it himself. He's a doctor, not a debater. He knew he was out of his depth. Adams is sharper and slicker, and also much more theatrical. For example, replacing the word "foetus" or "embryo" with "babies", "children" or "people". It's much more dramatic to say: "You've killed 20,000 people" than "You've killed 20,000 foetuses / embryos / blastocysts / zygotes". Isn't it? If I'm not mistaken, he didn't once say: "foetus", which would be more accurate. Adams is also disingenuous. When he said he'd remove a foetus if it was an ectopic pregnancy, he added he wouldn't be "intentionally" killing the baby. Er, sorry, that is EXACTLY what he'd be doing! If a murderer said to him: "Here's a woman and a child. If you kill the child, the woman will live. If you don't, she'll die", I suspect he wouldn't do it. So why would he do it to a foetus? After all, he makes no distinction between a foetus and a child, does he? Is it because he knows if the mother dies, so will the foetus? That the foetus can't exist without her? If so, he's a great big FAKE.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right, it doesn't make it good, it doesn't mean it glorifies God. Is Willie Parker seeking the approval of men or of God? Galatians 1:10
The use of the word "Debate" here is a misnomer. I'd favor "demonstration" or "exposition". Debate implies that there are two sides and one of them is not obviously incoherent and absurd.
Mike Adams I pray God raise up more Godly true men of God like you . Who are are a voice to the voiceless . Abortion is wrong Jesus loves the sanctity of life
This was an absolute train wreck of a debate for Dr. Parker (pro tip: never fault your poor debate performance on your not being a debater).
I respect Parker for having the courage to participate in the debate (maybe now he understands how pro-lifers on campus feel), but his argument that an organism can be a human being but not a person...Yikes.
Yep. Same argument used by Nazis to justify murdering Jews.
I'm sorry but if you're pro life you should be shouted down you are literally trying to strip women rights so yeah. Don't like abortion don't get one that simple.
@@hachi7100 _if you're pro life you should be shouted down you are literally trying to strip women rights so yeah._
If you're pro-abortion you should be shouted down; you are literally trying to strip unborn children of their rights, so yeah.
_Don't like abortion don't get one that simple._
Don't like guns, don't get one, that simple. Don't like spanking of kids, don't have children, that simple.
If you're a troll, try harder. If not, you really need to think deeper; actual issues aren't black and white.
@@censorshipbites7545 I don't care about guns so I have no idea why you just assumed and brought that up out of nowhere. Spanking your children is known child abuse and there is no debate in the academic and child development research and I can give you multiple studies to show as much. The fetus has no rights so that argument is mute their "rights" end when they begin invading someone else autonomy and being aka the person carrying the fetus. I'm not sure if you have ever left your echo chamber but I want you to learn to form better arguments with data to back it up. Try it sometime. :)
@@hachi7100 I have no desire to rehash this argument close to 2 years after the original debate, and especially not with someone like you whose thinking is simplistic and rife with assertions and opinions rather than facts.
_The fetus has no rights_
You need to think long and hard about the implications of your argument. You are arbitrarily specifying who is human and who is not, who you think has rights and who doesn't.
_their "rights" end when they begin invading someone else autonomy_
An infant needs to be nursed by its mother. That is an infringement upon the mother's autonomy. By your logic, an infant has no rights, either, and can be arbitrarily killed or left to die. Again, think long and hard about the implications of your argument.
_I'm not sure if you have ever left your echo_
The sad reality is that I'm not particularly pro-life or pro-choice, but your arguments are half-baked assertions that easily refuted. Stow the attitude and moral certainty and talk civilly - not debate - to a pro-life person. Describe that person's arguments back to him/her; if the person says you've done so accurately, you're finally ready to begin considering or refuting them (Boghossian & Lindsay, building on JS Mill).
Does anybody know if Dr. Parker mentioned if he consults women who both DO NOT WANT to have an abortion and those women who WANT to have an abortion?
Thanks Dr Adams for your apologetic on pro life views. Really great stuff to use in the marketplace to expose this ridiculous ideology 👍🏻
From my perspective, I actually cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
my favorite part was how willy used the legal system (ls) as his 'authoritative answer' on what was right and wrong, and for his definition of personhood... that same ls that arbitrarily DENIED personhood the the human beings that were held as property/slaves not too long ago...
willy is literally unable to uniquely rationalize (does that make him not a person?) his own position. He is dependent on external rationalization, and authority (does he not have his own sentience?)
I fond it further ironic that his standard is based on "well if you call the police on me for 'killing a fetus', the ls will NOT send police to arrest me, so therefore, it's PERFECTLY MORAL for me to kill human fetuses... but this EXACT SAME STATE (legal system/police/etc), which is literally the continuance of the same legal system that existed during slavery, if he had called the police during SLAVERY and reported that a murder of a slave had taken place, the police would NOT have arrested the slave owner -- BECAUSE this SAME legal system, back then, would NOT HAVE SEEN that slave as a PERSON.
And this evil flawed arbitrary monopoly of power legal system which has been PROVEN to be morally ambiguous... is his GOLD STANDARD
He really insinuated that the Good Samaritan story fits in conceptually with the slaughtering of the unborn, didn't he.
Jesse Lee Peterson has destroyed Willie Parker on this topic already
Drop mic Mr Mike Adams....Powerful final statement!!!
Wow Dr. Adams just rearranged the furniture in my mind and feng shui'd it so I can think clearer. Thanks.
"Personhood" is a social construct. It's not a real thing. Being a human is a real, undeniable fact that every doctor/biologist agrees on. Additionally, laws don't determine what is moral. We attempt to make moral laws (and history has shown we have failed at this many times). Religion is also not required for morality. We just need biology and logic. I think Stephanie Gray Connors debates are more compelling, well-thought-out, on both sides of the argument.
Yes! Doctor Adems knows about the eugenics connections with abortion! Quotes judge Holmes
OK That's a good title for the video no matter who you are‼️
1:09:10
"Once you're a human, you have the full rights of personhood."
Dr. Parker's visible struggle to answer this point is telling.
Apologies but I think this is an unfair event. It is clear, by his own words, that Dr. Parker is not as eloquent in the arts of debate as Dr. Adams. This means that automatically it seems as if Dr. Adams has an advantage on defending his point of view. This does not mean he actually has better arguments, or otherwise, but it sure does seem that way due to this advantage. I have extreme respect for Dr. Parker to have a go at this anyway. Difficult topic a a whole.
Dr. Parker- People always tried to justify their sin.
There is a detestable act that Our Father In Haven hates and that is, “Hands that shed innocent Blood 🩸!”
Parker is not a Christian
It makes me so sad, speaking as a black woman, that this doctor is helping to perpetuate the killing off of his own race .
I weep for this doctor’s heretical words against Christ that he would dare destroy not only humans but also the Word of the God of the Bible while claiming himself to be a Christian. Not all who calls out to the Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, and narrow is the gate to salvation.
On the issue of the death penalty- I don’t think it is contradictory or inconsistent to support the death penalty and NOT support abortion.
First yes, one is killing and one is murder. Murder is the taking of an INNOCENT life. When someone receives the death penalty he has been afforded due process and found GUILTY of committing a heinous crime therefore NOT being an Innocent life.
Also a baby is never afforded due process.
30:55
Duh of course the sperm and egg are living organisms because they're in living organisms, but individually they are not a separate, unique human being. Once the living egg and sperm join together, they create that separate, unique human being.
Once again this man's argument has no substance.
AMEN, Dr. Adams.
Please remember this: "YOU still have the SAME heart that began beating in your mother's womb" ~Houston Kat
How can a human being, not be a person?
j evans when you murder them for a living and need a convenient rationalization.
Oh Jeez almost two hours and no mention of Moloch. WoW, I bet he is pissed.
1:32:10 - will just compared a fetus to a murderer. a typically defined murderer is, in some moral systems, is 'justifies' the putting to death of the murderer in order to PREVENT the additional murders which a serial murderer/criminal appears likely to commit, in order for the people of that culture/society to protect the right to life of the rest of the not-yet-murdered... in what case is an infant 'put to death out of fear it 'intends' [sentience??] to commit MURDER' ?
wild comparison
I do not think Dr Parker is a wicked person. He seemed measured, thoughtful, and respectful of other people's dignity.
He is in the grips of a truly evil idea though. That idea is poisoning his worldview on this issue and his reasoning is violently convulsing to navigate the dissonance.
It's hard to see the state of a man's soul, but Parker does bring to mind the scripture that talks about a person being turned over to a reprobate mind. The only way I can conceive of a man actually performing the act of an abortion is either through unparalleled ignorance or having a reprobate mind void of any shred of conscience.
Even people who are respectable, measured, civilised and toughtful (as men would put it) can do horrible crimes; and when I say horrible crimes, I don't mean what society declares to be criminal, but what God declares to be criminal. Dr Parker says he's Christian and in his introduction, he quotes Ghandi as one guiding principle in his life?? This man may be convinced he s christian but I would like to know if he's part of a believing community and if so, what do his brothers say about his practice? Because as far as I know, chirstians are convinced by Scripture than abortion is sin and practicing abortion is worse yet. This so-called christian needs to listen to the body of christ telling him that what is doing as an abortionist is sin and he needs to repent. For christians the abortion issue is not open to debate, as the open-minded world spirit would lead those with no discernment to believe. If one reads Scripture, it's unmistakably clear that terminating a life in the womb is murder, God's heart is easy to understand in that matter. I'm curious to know how many, among his brothers, confronted him about this and what he had to say about it. Moreover, I would go as far as saying that Dr. Parker, in order to do what he does must be full of resentment towards God, but he can conceil it before men, I presume.
If you have never seen the documentary "Caring Corrupted," I highly recommend it. It shows how German nurses were conditioned to kill. I've also read about how female guards in the death camps were conditioned to carry out horrific acts of cruelty. It is also worth reading. I actually felt sorry for him at times but when he said "Call the police" it stoked my ire. Abortion clinics are a no go zone. It wasn't until feds discovered that Gosnell was running a precription drug business that the murders he commited were discovered. I have always been pro-life but Lime 5 is the first book about abortion and it helped me understand how it affects all of us. Forbidden Grief is also an excellent book. It helped me to better understand how trauma and trauma bonding are involved.
Is this the best from this wonderful guy?
Never forget the power of prayer 🙏 Pray God stops this
Depends to which god you pray. If it is god of bible or islam... Well, they are so evil that they should be forgotten long ago.
Darius NoName of course the God of the Bible. The only one
@@letsprayandfasttogether9618 custom one or fundamental?
Why doesn’t he?
"Person hood is not instantaneous."
Bruh.
The 'pro life' guy made fallacious arguments, including an 'ad hominem' at around 59 minuets, 'appeal to emotion', etc. confusing what is a a person and what is an embryo, etc. And besides, after all the arguing, the 'pro life' guy admits that it's ok to sometimes perform abortions!
And when he said. "Should my Friend Laura be executed?' at 1:22, at that point he became the definite loser of the argument in my opinion. His logic is flawed
Why does the pro abortion side have such a hard time wrapping their head around the fact an abortion is a life that will cease to exist? It's a fair question had his friends mother done what is encouraged today she would of been killed in the womb. Why should an innocent fetus pay with death when her father who committed the crime won't?
@@joemerlin152 Because that "life" is infringing on the bodily rights of an individual who has no legal obligation to donate their body to them. I'm a life, undeniably more "alive" than any unborn fetus, yet I _cannot_ use my mother's body against her will, not even to save my life.
So if my mother _cannot_ be *forced* to donate her body to save my life now, why should she have been *forced* to donate her body to save my life _then?_ It seems to me that you have a double standard for the unborn vs the born. That I had "extra" rights as a fetus that I _lose_ at birth?
@@TheLegendOfRandy Doesn't justify murder.
@@joemerlin152 So if I need blood or tissue to sustain my life and my mother _refuses_ to donate, she "murdered" me?
@@TheLegendOfRandy You're not withholding your blood or organ in abortion. You're actively and deliberately killing the unborn by means of suction, chemicals, or dismemberment. Implying that that's a form of withholding is like actively suffocating someone with a pillow and calling it "withholding of oxygen." If you can't even state proper scientific facts and proper analogies, you're in no position to judge what's right and wrong.
Willie, I pray for you here on Earth, as your soul is condemned if you proceed this way. I pray for you to have your heart opened, and to know what God wants you to be, both here and after.
The viability argument is so fallacious.
My sister was born 11 weeks prematurely and with the help of modern medicine she is now a healthy teenager.
In other countries where the healthcare system might not be as good then my sister would be a person?
It's no consistency and totally arbitrary on what a viable life is.
That's amazing( your sister surviving and being healthy)
@@italicthegoat2948 yes, I am very grateful for the he good healthcare we have where I live, they have saved many premature children
Protect Dr. Parker from paper bags. He'd never be able to argue his way out of one.
How deceived Willie Parker is! Calling himself a, "Christian," and being okay with murdering babies is appalling. How scary will it be for him, when he stands before Almighty God and He tells him, "I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!"
🤣🤣🤣🤣 I'm sorry... WHAT?!?! This is the moment in which you realize that in this "sibling dispute" there is only one child who views their Father's Word as absolute truth and one who views his Father's power as basic (29:08). Definitely the main red flags to avoid when seeking Christian guidance.
pro abotion is a weak argument, that's why this kind of video is rare.
get me on there. I'll tear any forced-pregnancy activist's arguments to shreds. I don't come at this from the same perspective.
Well that weak argument has made it legal most first world countries. So maybe there is something to it u know.
@Wayne really? what is your argument for abortion then?
Zackattack Animations blah blah blah WOMENS RIGHTS
@@albinosh4dow not even close
Good debater with bad arguments Vs bad debater with good arguments.