Good video. If you want to hear from a good Pro-Choice philosopher, would recommend you reach out to David Boonin, Jeff McMahan, Kate Greasley, David DeGrazia, or Kurt Liebgott.
I have ethical issues with abortion, especially the later in pregnancy it becomes...but I also have deep issues with *forced pregnacy* and *forced childbirth* and telling someone what they must do with their body...and all that entails. It think if so-called pro-lifers were REALLY worried about "saving babies", and in reducing maybe even some day eleminating abortion (rather than just controling women) then they would be in favor of things like comprehensive sex education, and freely available - and *free* - contraceptives...things which are PROVEN to reduce, and reduce DRASTICALLY, the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. They would also support things like free prenatal medical care, maternity (and paternity) leave, free day care and head start, child tax credits, free school lunches, WIC and TANIF (food stamps), aid to single and working mothers...so having a child is EASIER. Also, they would be adopting babies from low income and minority single mothers. But they don't. Because it's not nor never has been about protecting babies. I am sure it is for a lot of individual pro-lifes - as it was for me when I was one - but that's not what it is about to the politicians and conservative organiations that claim to be pro-life. Also, by forcing women now in many states to have to wait *longer* to get an abortion - weeks and even months - they are just forcing abortion back from just after conception, to when a fetus IS much more formed and closer to viability, closer to being a person.
A proliferation advocate focuses on the issue of preventing abortions. While the position extends to protecting ALL human life, it would be impossible to advocate for an endless number of issues, even though directly or indirectly to life. Would anyone say that a supporter of cancer research to eradicate cancer deaths should also advocate for diabetes society or kidney or the heart and stroke foundation, etc. And btw, prolife is actively providing pregnant mothers with support for education, prenatal care, etc., such as with the Sisters of Life in New York and worldwide. How many such resources and help is offered by Planned Parenthood? Oh wait, they don’t because they’re just in the business of killing babies, and making money off of vulnerable pregnant mothers.
Every pro life advocate agrees with you that prenatal human organisms are very different from mature adult humans. The important question, what difference(s) is/are morally relevant? What makes me a person and a fetus not a person?
The difference between an acorn and a fully grown oak tree is a difference in degree. Not a difference in kind. This is similar to the fact that the difference between a prenatal human at any stage and a postnatal human is a difference in degree. Not a difference in kind. That's the relevant point that most pro-aborts seem to ignore when it comes to the oak analogy. Simple point though.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.83[1/2] เปิดแคมป์หลอนต้อนรับ 2 ตัวพ่อแห่งวงการผี!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2uPuHYHgwiI/mqdefault.jpg)
Good video. If you want to hear from a good Pro-Choice philosopher, would recommend you reach out to David Boonin, Jeff McMahan, Kate Greasley, David DeGrazia, or Kurt Liebgott.
I have ethical issues with abortion, especially the later in pregnancy it becomes...but I also have deep issues with *forced pregnacy* and *forced childbirth* and telling someone what they must do with their body...and all that entails.
It think if so-called pro-lifers were REALLY worried about "saving babies", and in reducing maybe even some day eleminating abortion (rather than just controling women) then they would be in favor of things like comprehensive sex education, and freely available - and *free* - contraceptives...things which are PROVEN to reduce, and reduce DRASTICALLY, the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. They would also support things like free prenatal medical care, maternity (and paternity) leave, free day care and head start, child tax credits, free school lunches, WIC and TANIF (food stamps), aid to single and working mothers...so having a child is EASIER.
Also, they would be adopting babies from low income and minority single mothers.
But they don't. Because it's not nor never has been about protecting babies. I am sure it is for a lot of individual pro-lifes - as it was for me when I was one - but that's not what it is about to the politicians and conservative organiations that claim to be pro-life.
Also, by forcing women now in many states to have to wait *longer* to get an abortion - weeks and even months - they are just forcing abortion back from just after conception, to when a fetus IS much more formed and closer to viability, closer to being a person.
A proliferation advocate focuses on the issue of preventing abortions. While the position extends to protecting ALL human life, it would be impossible to advocate for an endless number of issues, even though directly or indirectly to life. Would anyone say that a supporter of cancer research to eradicate cancer deaths should also advocate for diabetes society or kidney or the heart and stroke foundation, etc. And btw, prolife is actively providing pregnant mothers with support for education, prenatal care, etc., such as with the Sisters of Life in New York and worldwide. How many such resources and help is offered by Planned Parenthood? Oh wait, they don’t because they’re just in the business of killing babies, and making money off of vulnerable pregnant mothers.
Well, I'm convinced...there is no difference between an acorn and a 150 year old oak tree. People tell me there is a difference but I can't see it.
Every pro life advocate agrees with you that prenatal human organisms are very different from mature adult humans. The important question, what difference(s) is/are morally relevant? What makes me a person and a fetus not a person?
The difference between an acorn and a fully grown oak tree is a difference in degree. Not a difference in kind. This is similar to the fact that the difference between a prenatal human at any stage and a postnatal human is a difference in degree. Not a difference in kind. That's the relevant point that most pro-aborts seem to ignore when it comes to the oak analogy. Simple point though.
@@IWasOnceAFetus but they look and act the same, so there can't be a difference
@@JohnEButton difference in degree is a "difference."
I find the Catholic style of doing bioethics funny, just take every obviously false dogsh_t position and just defend those.
I get the feeling you need to watch the first few seconds of this video again carefully
The guest speak very clearly in plain language. The host is confused...